Skip to comments.Ft. Hood Shooter Didn't See Combat, But that won't stop the Blame Bush/PTSD meme
Posted on 04/03/2014 6:19:32 PM PDT by markomalley
So, you have PTSD -- or you think you do -- and yet you didn't see any combat?
The soldier who shot three people to death at Fort Hood apparently did not see combat during a tour in Iraq three years ago but was clearly troubled, under treatment for depression and anxiety and being evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder...I see Drudge has a headline up noting that the guy was taking Ambien because he wasn't sleeping well.
There is no record that Lopez saw combat or was injured during a four-month deployment in 2011 to Iraq, where he was a truck driver, military officials said. At that time, American forces were withdrawing from Iraq.
Records show no combat citations or ribbons, the officials said. They stressed that it did not mean Lopez was not suffering serious psychological problems only that they did not appear combat-related, as is often associated with soldiers suffering from PTSD.
They said there was also no medical confirmation the Lopez suffered a traumatic brain injury. Milley said that the soldier self-reported a brain injury.
Why is it that when a guy is crazy that we always try to blame it on something? Combat stress. Brain injury. Ambien. His mother died.
Aren't most people who are crazy just, you know, crazy? Like they were born that way. That it's something in the brain.
My impression from the Ph.Ds in Psychology I work with is that pretty much most of the psychological theories stemming from Freud and those that followed his lead in tying psychological disorders to life experiences or events have pretty much fallen out of favor. Yet in the popular mind & media we try to create a causal string of traumatic life events to psychological disorders.
But, what do I know? I'm: a) not a psychologist; b) never been in the military.
So, I'll link you over to this at a great milblogger over at This Aint Hell:
Yesterday, thousands of veterans suffering from PTS didnt shoot anyone...And this followup:
Well, we know that people who do have PTS dont normally hurt other people, they hurt themselves, but not the rest of us. So its unfair of Milley and the media to check off the PTS box as the cause for this incident.
As Ive been saying all along, PTS has become an excuse for bad behavior, but on closer examination, something the media is largely unequipped to accept, thats all it is an excuse. An excuse largely accepted by the social engineers and our intellectual betters who have all of the answers and none of the experience.Sounds about right to me.
Still, this is going to be laid to blame on Bush. Somehow.
Also, note that Ivan Lopez is a "white Hispanic". They say he's from Puerto Rico, which is a suburb of Peruvia. I think.
Oh, one other thing. The right-wing equivalent of the Blame Bush meme is that this is somehow Obama's fault for not allowing guns on military bases. I agree that it makes absolutely zero sense to not allow soldiers to carry weapons on bases. Of all the people in the world most trustworthy as a group to carry guns, those that serve in uniform are them.
So, I'm tempted to blame Obama fort this too. The only problem? Apparently the no guns rule goes way back to 1992 -- when George H.W. Bush was President. And was implemented in 1993, when Bill Clinton was President. (sorry, no link for this, but I read it somewhere last night but forgot to save the link)
Whenever an insane person murders someone it is tempting to blame larger forces. But in the end the only person to blame is Ivan Lopez. And thank God, he's dead.
UPDATE: I just talked to one of the Psychology professors and he pretty much verified what I wrote above. One thing he mentioned that I thought worth passing on was that he says that the current thinking is that traumatic or stressful events can affect the mind, but that such stresses have to be prolonged in order for any lasting damage. Single events don't cause psychological damage, but prolonged exposure might.
Also, he tells me that in his opinion Ivan Lopez, "is an Assh*le." That's a clinical diagnosis.
Wtf u mean he did’t see combat?
All Ive heard from left wingers is that this is all the war in Iraq’s fault..this guy served 4 months of duty in Iraq towards the end of the war, he never saw any combat, he was a nutcase BEFORE he went to Iraq but hey, nothing says exploit a tragedy by finding some way to blame Bush for it
Some people do have PTSD.
But not every troubled soldier is a sufferer of PTSD.
Personally, I think some of this stuff is used/will be used by the media to argue that mental health services for all 300 million Americans should be covered by Obamacare. It will probably triple your premiums, but who cares about that?
He was angry cuz the Army wouldn’t permit him time off to go to his mom’s funeral.
NOTHING to do with combat strees.
He was angry at the US Army, and this is how he showed it.
I do blame Obama for not immediately reversing the Bush 41 rule change.
Let me tell you who ,in fact , left our military helpless from islamic terrorists. BUSH 1. Never allow Bush 3.
I think this is the 4th shooting of a domestic military establishment since the Regime seized power.
1) 1 Jun 2009 - Little Rock Recruiting Office (Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, born Carlos Leon Bledsoe)
2) 5 Nov 2009 - Fort Hood (Nidal Malik Hasan)
3) 16 Sep 2013 - Washington Navy Yard (Aaron Alexis)
4) 2 Apr 2014 - Fort Hood (Ivan Lopez)
Another thought about this: We didn’t see these crimes, terrorist or otherwise, against our troops on American bases because they knew that 43 loved and respected them. BHO? Not so much. I believe that left the door open not only for Hasan the Terrorist, but also for anger directed at the Army/whatever branch. Just mho.
It is virtually unheard of for a military member to be denied emergency leave when there is a death in the family, unless they are in some sort of trouble, or the doctors were concerned that he might be a threat to himself, or others.
Eventually, the Army gave him a 24-hour pass. Not much time to get to the funeral, bury your mom and return to Fort Hood. He was obviously on a fairly tight leash—but they haven’t said why.
Any more, these days, it seems that everyone in society is either crazy or on some psycho drugs. I think this is a problem with our overall society!
Wasn't it actually Klintoon who deprived the military of their Second Amendment rights? Regardless of Bush 41/43's other shortcomings, they were pro-military and both served with honor. It was draft-dodger Klintoon dismantled the military and it was surely he who revoked their rights to self defense? Or am I mistaken?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
That's the vile Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, a communist who runs a little-read site drumming the Marx/Lenin party line. He brazenly poses himself in the U.S. Army uniform but never saw a nanosecond of combat nor was his service distinguished in any way.
So, you have PTSD -- or you think you do -- and yet you didn't see any combat?
I'd love to hear about your exploits in Iraq.
I had a close family friend get killed driving a truck in Iraq.
Did he convert while over there?
The NPR-media are going GA-GA with coverage on this, because this can conceivably be laid at the feet of Big Pharm. Contrast this with the deathly silence about the last guy being a disgruntled Muslim. Yah, no agenda here.
It was indeed Bush 41. Some radio hosts thought it was Clinton, but the Blaze confirmed it was during Bush 41’s term. But Clinton didn’t do anything about it, nor did 43 (and they should have). No surprise Skippy wouldn’t.
It's interesting that the state-run lamestream media preface corporations with the adjective "Big" which they use as a pejorative. Their lexicon is filled with terminology such as "Big Phama", "Big Oil" and "Big Tobacco", all of which contribute to American prosperity and the good life with desirable products and services.
One term the left-dominated media avoid is the one most apt: "Big Labor". Unionism destroys American prosperity and has caused countless corporations to die.
PS - I do, of course, agree with you about 41 & 43’s respect for the military - and vice versa. That is evident.
And don’t forget the Holy Grail “Big Government”.
Among President Clintons first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.
Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. Thats why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasans rampage.
I treat vets in my medical practice. There are many who have been in combat and have “seen the elephant”. Some of them rightfully claim PTSD, others isolate those memories in an unused part of their brain and keep them there even though they experienced events that have given them PTSD and they function normally in life.
Others were losers before they went in the military and are STILL losers but now they believe they have an excuse even if they never experienced combat. I’ve seen individuals who were granted service-connected disabilities for PTSD and they NEVER left CONUS during their service. That pis$$es me off. I’ve directly cared for people who sustained horrible trauma in my medical career but I put those experiences away and keep going. I was covered in blood and gore but nobody was shooting at me. I have nothing but respect for vets who have been in actual combat.
This Ivan guy was definitely troubled but it is unlikely that he really had PTSD. That won’t stop the libtards from claiming that he did.
This could happen to a truck driver who, say, saw a lot of convoy duty, especially at night, as was typically the norm in Iraq. He may not have come under direct enemy fire, but the threat of hitting an IED or seeing a vehicle ahead of him hit, especially with casualties, may precipitate a traumatic stress reaction.
No, the "professor" is wrong, if he is saying there has to be prolonged exposure to extreme stress in order for a PTSD to develop. There does not. Prolonged exposure is not by itself a criterion for a traumatic event. It is a risk factor, but neither a necessary nor sufficient proximal cause. The traumatic event can be of short duration, and typically is.
That having been said, there is not enough openly known about this particular soldier for anyone, no matter how much "expertise" he claims, to make a judgment about the troop's mental status at the time of the shooting. Maybe that information will come out. Maybe not. Time will tell.
There is no debate the question is settled 97 percent of MSM employees are skid marks on Journalism’s shorts.
I’ve experienced a lot of stress and trauma over the past 71 years but Daddy always told me “no one wants to hear your damned excuses, be a man”.