I'm guessing no one in this thread was there that night or in that persons head, and we will never know what really happend because the military will just say he was insane or suffereing from some mental illness whether he was or wasn't. But hey, they aren't always the most honest people are they? Pat Tillman anyone? 

Dude you're quoting fucking wikipedia for medical iillness/medical info related matters.

For fear? Yes. Just to kill? No, Serial Killer. Also if it is true he has mental problems then probably neither. He shouldn't be in the army if that's the case though.

hmmmmmmmmmm. it's opinion plan and simple. my grandfather is retired from working with crazy people, and the military so i'm sure he's more qualified then you.

noobie did not ask for an educated guess so back off. i'm not much for debates or discussion these days so this conversation was pointless on your part but thanks for your logical opinion i guess.

i got loads of respect aand have agreed with you in the past, but this isn't a conversation you can win, cause there isn't one to be had.

If you'd bother to look, you'd note that they are documenting specific cases of spree murders where people were committed.

Not the kind of thing that's unerliable. 

As if that mission would ever succeed in the first place. 

If that's really your grandfather's opinion then it's a good thing he is retiring.  I'm guessing you've just completely misunderstood what he's said though.

There is specific evidence to the contrary of such opinion, that has been presented.  I would ask him, "If the mentally ill aren't spree killers, why are most spree killers who don't comit suicide committed in mental institutions."

Your defense now seems to boil down to "Well he didn't ask for an informed opinion."

Which is like saying if someone asks you "Is the world round" and you say "No the world is flat" then there is no way to prove you wrong, because well... they didn't ask you "give a correct opinion of if the world is round or not."

I mean... specific demonstratable facts.  You are right in that there isn't a conversation to be had, but that's only because I am demonstratably correct.  People with mental illnesses do go on spree killings, therefore that it was a spree killing does not rule out mental illness.  It's simple fact.

Get over it. You don't know what really happend, and neither do I, or anyone here. We can come to our own opinions, but you seems to be arguing this subject like you have all the facts and it's a matter of fact what you're saying. If you want to contend that he was mentally ill thats fine, but don't word it like its matter of fact based on the the fact that you suplied a wiki link. 

Edit: I wanna add to this that of course no one wants to believe that this guy got drunk and decided to get some revenge for his country, but it is a possibility.

If you'll note, I bolded a specific sentence in your post to which I replied to.

Which was " Oh, and I'm from Canada, and do think there is an element of terrorism involved since if he just went crazy he could have easily shot his own countymen."

This is a dumb argeument because in general, mentally ill spree killers ofton forgo killing tons of people before they actually start killing.

Usually starting with those who they feel activly wrongted them, and only after that turning on others, and often times themselves.  He would, if mentally ill, likely start with the citizens of Aghanistan because he would see them as the source of his breakdown. (do to specific terrorists.)

Whether or not the military is telling the truth, it is completely cosnistant that a soldier who had a mental breakdown from being in multiple active combat zones, would go insane and start a spree killing in a villiage moving from house to house.

To say otherwise shows an lack of knowledge about mental illness.

In fact, to say otherwise is to ignore why cases where entire villiages including children and women being killed could often be written off as mental illness from combat stress.

That said, there is no political reason for such a thing to done, and if anything it works GREATLY against the US currently.

Certainly not. America grows terrorists (in greater numbers than the odd Muslim who tries to hook up with Al Qaeda), but they aren't the type of people to join the army or associate with the Federal Government at all. Their incidents usually aren't that high-profile, either, but they're out there, just not in the army.