Ft. Hood
11-10-2009, 05:15 PM
#33
Fastest Color
SuperBike
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lithia, FL
Posts: 2,091
It's a "tragedy" when people die in earthquakes, floods and tornadoes. This was mass murder by a long time professed raghead jihadhist, who instead of getting a dishonorable discharge, was promoted by the superior officers who knew exactly who and what he was (because he told them).
From Col. Ralph Peters;
"Hasan isn't the sole guilty party. The US Army's unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood.
Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Medical Center or at Fort Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.
Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.
There's another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who've been assigned to his care? And he's not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?
For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I'm ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him."
hzryr61, If you want to read the rest of the column, it's here;
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...N7gl7zdsJ31vnJ
If you'd rather continue on with your sanctimonious, politically correct sleepwalk, good luck and God Bless.
From Col. Ralph Peters;
"Hasan isn't the sole guilty party. The US Army's unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood.
Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Medical Center or at Fort Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.
Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.
There's another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who've been assigned to his care? And he's not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?
For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I'm ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him."
hzryr61, If you want to read the rest of the column, it's here;
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...N7gl7zdsJ31vnJ
If you'd rather continue on with your sanctimonious, politically correct sleepwalk, good luck and God Bless.
11-10-2009, 06:19 PM
#34
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
My heart goes out to the families of those killed and wounded.
Hopefully the US Military will see the error of their PC ways. Political correctness has no place in the military. Other than outright blatant racism, either deal with it or get out. And I'm saying that as a Veteran.
Out of respect for the victims of this horrendous act of cowardice, see "Obamageddon" thread, post #568 for my rant.
Hopefully the US Military will see the error of their PC ways. Political correctness has no place in the military. Other than outright blatant racism, either deal with it or get out. And I'm saying that as a Veteran.
Out of respect for the victims of this horrendous act of cowardice, see "Obamageddon" thread, post #568 for my rant.
Last edited by VTRsurfer; 11-10-2009 at 06:53 PM.
11-10-2009, 06:47 PM
#35
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hudson Valley, New York
Posts: 105
11-10-2009, 07:12 PM
#36
I could ride in
SuperBike
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, TN
Posts: 1,729
PC BS is just that Dave, Bovine Scatology. You are really enjoying the scent.
Here's a bit from another forum:
' We can frame the debate however we want. But without acknowledging how the muslim world sees it, we are turning a blind eye to the problem.
"The real linkage is that there is a strong security imperative to prevent the consolidation of a narrative in which America is engaged in a clash of civilizations with Islam, and instead to nurture a narrative in which al-Qaeda and its affiliates represent a marginal fringe to be jointly combatted."
Personally, I don't care what you call it--clash of civilizations or battling fringe groups that have significant support among "moderate" muslims. The fact is that terrorism poses a real threat. A clear and present danger. And we have a legal and moral imperative to protect our civilians and our troops abroad from this threat as effectively as possible. To do that, it would seem to me that you develop a framework to understand how the enemy sees the world and why these mass murders have such broad support and appeal among islamists. But whenever a terrorist act takes place, all I see from you lefties is an attempt to deconstruct that framework before it's even complete.
The experts who do understand that framework are westernized Muslims themselves like Hirsi Ayan Ali and Walid Shoebat and Nonie Darwish. They were immersed in Islam and are uniquely qualified to say whether it is or is not a clash of civilizations. I am inclined to listen to them. '
Here's a bit from another forum:
' We can frame the debate however we want. But without acknowledging how the muslim world sees it, we are turning a blind eye to the problem.
"The real linkage is that there is a strong security imperative to prevent the consolidation of a narrative in which America is engaged in a clash of civilizations with Islam, and instead to nurture a narrative in which al-Qaeda and its affiliates represent a marginal fringe to be jointly combatted."
Personally, I don't care what you call it--clash of civilizations or battling fringe groups that have significant support among "moderate" muslims. The fact is that terrorism poses a real threat. A clear and present danger. And we have a legal and moral imperative to protect our civilians and our troops abroad from this threat as effectively as possible. To do that, it would seem to me that you develop a framework to understand how the enemy sees the world and why these mass murders have such broad support and appeal among islamists. But whenever a terrorist act takes place, all I see from you lefties is an attempt to deconstruct that framework before it's even complete.
The experts who do understand that framework are westernized Muslims themselves like Hirsi Ayan Ali and Walid Shoebat and Nonie Darwish. They were immersed in Islam and are uniquely qualified to say whether it is or is not a clash of civilizations. I am inclined to listen to them. '
Last edited by LineArrayNut; 11-10-2009 at 07:19 PM.
11-11-2009, 12:47 PM
#39
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Yeah. If a blue eyed blond guy gunned down 40+ black folks while shouting "White Power", I'm ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that Dave in New York would demand he simply be referred to as "a killer"! And admonishing us to not "rush to judgment" until we "had all the facts", understood the poor fellow's childhood, upbringing, and how many times he'd been teased and insulted!
Last edited by RK1; 11-11-2009 at 12:52 PM.
11-11-2009, 01:01 PM
#40
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
What kind of climate exists at the top of the Army that otherwise good officers would be afraid to report this maggot and demand he be thrown out of the Army?
11-11-2009, 01:26 PM
#41
Administrator
MotoGP
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kempner, TX
Posts: 4,402
11-11-2009, 01:30 PM
#42
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 2,455
I understand your point, but hind sight is always 20/20. I currently have the unique opportunity to deal with separating people from the Army. I've learned the ins and outs pretty well.
As a generalization, the longer you have in and the more rank you have the harder it is. The amount of money spent on a person comes in to play a little bit as well. In the case of this doctor he fits all three of those things. The Chain of Command for this guy would have an uphill battle trying to convince the Army to let him go. At the time, he hadn't really done anything wrong(as of this posting). Just being bad at your job and having a loud and annoying mouth isn't reason enough for the Army to "throw away" all the time and money invested in him. As far as the terrorist connections he might have had, his Chain of Command might not have even been aware of it. If they were, they needed evidence and proof that he was doing something against Army regulations.
I agree that it's not right, but it's the way it is. We can all sit here and say that the Army messed up, and maybe a few individuals did. But that doesn't mean that it's time to start blaming his Chain of Command or calling them weak. He got bad evaluations, moved out of a decent job at Walter Reed. His career was over no matter what, it was just a matter of time. That's how the Army does it to people who haven't done anything wrong, particularly officers. End their careers with paperwork, let them finish their time and be done with it.
Honestly, what would kicking him out of the Army really done. A terrorist is a terrorist. If his motivations were ideological or political he would have gone on to kill others somewhere else. Then we would all be screaming at the military for not keeping him under control when they had the chance. It's a lose-lose for the Army...
As a generalization, the longer you have in and the more rank you have the harder it is. The amount of money spent on a person comes in to play a little bit as well. In the case of this doctor he fits all three of those things. The Chain of Command for this guy would have an uphill battle trying to convince the Army to let him go. At the time, he hadn't really done anything wrong(as of this posting). Just being bad at your job and having a loud and annoying mouth isn't reason enough for the Army to "throw away" all the time and money invested in him. As far as the terrorist connections he might have had, his Chain of Command might not have even been aware of it. If they were, they needed evidence and proof that he was doing something against Army regulations.
I agree that it's not right, but it's the way it is. We can all sit here and say that the Army messed up, and maybe a few individuals did. But that doesn't mean that it's time to start blaming his Chain of Command or calling them weak. He got bad evaluations, moved out of a decent job at Walter Reed. His career was over no matter what, it was just a matter of time. That's how the Army does it to people who haven't done anything wrong, particularly officers. End their careers with paperwork, let them finish their time and be done with it.
Honestly, what would kicking him out of the Army really done. A terrorist is a terrorist. If his motivations were ideological or political he would have gone on to kill others somewhere else. Then we would all be screaming at the military for not keeping him under control when they had the chance. It's a lose-lose for the Army...
11-11-2009, 03:46 PM
#43
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 4,138
[quote=RK1;242780]Thank you, Drew. My initial reaction to Ft. Hood was sadness and tears. I only got really angry when I starting learning the info I've been linking in this thread, who this POS really is and how superiors in his chain of command lacked the guts to do anything about him. [quote]
You're right RK - as much as I didn't want it to happen the flood was undeniable. In terms of human emotion I think betrayal ranks right up there with watching the ****'s kill your children.
This wound will bleed for decades.
You're right RK - as much as I didn't want it to happen the flood was undeniable. In terms of human emotion I think betrayal ranks right up there with watching the ****'s kill your children.
This wound will bleed for decades.
11-11-2009, 04:40 PM
#44
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 2,455
I just thought of something. I read somewhere that his court martial will take 5+ years to complete, which is entirely possible for a case this big. Meanwhile were still paying him his salary as a Major, thousands of dollars a month. They can't stop his pay until he is officially convicted.
How's that for a slap in the face...
How's that for a slap in the face...
11-12-2009, 05:55 AM
#46
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Westerly, RI
Posts: 1,216
This is an interesting read
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574285,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574285,00.html
11-12-2009, 03:39 PM
#47
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hudson Valley, New York
Posts: 105
Yeah. If a blue eyed blond guy gunned down 40+ black folks while shouting "White Power", I'm ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that Dave in New York would demand he simply be referred to as "a killer"! And admonishing us to not "rush to judgment" until we "had all the facts", understood the poor fellow's childhood, upbringing, and how many times he'd been teased and insulted!
"Allahu Ahkbar" is a phrase that means (roughly) "God is Great", it's not a racist figure of speech like "White Power" is in your example.
It's easy to forget that this guy was an American citizen, serving in the armed forces, everyone just wants to jump all over him and call him a jihadist (and go out and kill all Muslims too, on principle evidently). Someone sent me a link from doublex.com that summed up what I was trying to say very eloquently:
"If we write Hasan off as nothing but a religious zealot, we're missing the bigger picture. This shooter wasn't some mysterious other or foreign power. He was, like Timothy McVeigh, like Seung-hui Cho, like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, a citizen of the United States—and he chose a particularly American methodology for his terror. People in other countries (other than those at war) just aren't as inclined to shoot up their schools and workplaces. When we put aside the idea of Hasan as part of a jihad, we're not avoiding reality—we're looking it squarely in the face. We have met the enemy, and far too often, he is us." - KJ Dell'Antonia
My personal beliefs as to what kind of justice gets meted out have nothing to do with how this animal gets tried, but the fact is he will, either by a Federal court or military court-martial. Just like you would be entitled to a trial by jury if you went out with a bunch of white supremacist pals to kill some inner-city black kids, or Hispanics that you thought might be illegal aliens (or, for that matter, just murder a bunch of people at random because you're upset about your life, and can't cope with your problems like a rational adult). That's the justice system we have in this country, and it was around far longer that either of us has been, or will be. I think the right to a fair trial is one of the things that makes this country great; I suppose here is another case where we differ in opinion.
Still and all, if insulting me personally for defending (or at least reminding you of) the principles of our country is what gets you off, go for it! Sticks and stones, etc. It's not going to bring back anyone's lost lives though, and it's not going to make the suffering of their families any less.
11-12-2009, 05:50 PM
#48
I could ride in
SuperBike
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, TN
Posts: 1,729
Dave,
While I can see some of your point, others, like a flippant attitude to RK1 are OUT OF LINE. And your position just plain sucks. The guy is an Islamo-Fascist Jihadist. A terrorist. A mole. A clearly identifiable (except for the PC BULLSHIT) security risk That Could have and Should have been eliminated with predjudice from the Army and identified as a security risk to the public and stripped of personal arms. I have been badged in as a TVA NPG contractor and have unescorted access to any part of the plant that I have authorization to be in. That required a VERY THOROUGH and seriously debilitating 2 week scrutiny that allows me to not have any weapon stronger than an inkpen. And this dillweed gave off LARGE signals that a demoralized security apparatus JUST LET RIDE because of the very same PC BULLSHIT that you keep promoting. Name me one recent Baptist terrorist. Name me thousands of recent Islamic terrorists. SEE THE DIFFERENCE? They are not us. They MAY be YOU.
While I can see some of your point, others, like a flippant attitude to RK1 are OUT OF LINE. And your position just plain sucks. The guy is an Islamo-Fascist Jihadist. A terrorist. A mole. A clearly identifiable (except for the PC BULLSHIT) security risk That Could have and Should have been eliminated with predjudice from the Army and identified as a security risk to the public and stripped of personal arms. I have been badged in as a TVA NPG contractor and have unescorted access to any part of the plant that I have authorization to be in. That required a VERY THOROUGH and seriously debilitating 2 week scrutiny that allows me to not have any weapon stronger than an inkpen. And this dillweed gave off LARGE signals that a demoralized security apparatus JUST LET RIDE because of the very same PC BULLSHIT that you keep promoting. Name me one recent Baptist terrorist. Name me thousands of recent Islamic terrorists. SEE THE DIFFERENCE? They are not us. They MAY be YOU.
Last edited by LineArrayNut; 11-12-2009 at 06:18 PM.
11-12-2009, 06:36 PM
#49
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
I was in Naval Security Group from 1966-70, which required a Top Secret Crypto Security Clearance. When I was being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence in 1966, an ONI investigator went to every house on my street asking what they knew of me. My friend's mom next door told me of her 1/2 hour interview, or I would have never known. They spent a reported $10,000 on our clearances in 1966 dollars. It took over a year before it was final. We went to Class A School for 5 months before getting our duty stations.
If you sneezed wrong or cheated on your wife, you were out of NavSecGru and off to Viet Nam on a destroyer or river boat.
This guy gave off so many warning signs (warning signs isn't even correct, more like red flags) that he never would have made it through Class A School, let alone to a duty station.
It sounds like many looked the other way, and in one respect you almost can't blame them in the "modern PC Army". Look at what some liberals in the present Administration have wanted to do in respect to prosecuting members of the CIA (not to mention George Bush and Dick Cheney) for "questionable interrogation techniques".
If WWII was fought under modern PC constraints, we would have lost.
People like this guy need to be weeded out of the military. And before anyone labels me as racist, let me mention that one of my closest friends for the last 20 plus years is a freedom loving, practicing Muslim who fled his country in Northern Africa when it was taken over by a dictator several decades ago.
If you sneezed wrong or cheated on your wife, you were out of NavSecGru and off to Viet Nam on a destroyer or river boat.
This guy gave off so many warning signs (warning signs isn't even correct, more like red flags) that he never would have made it through Class A School, let alone to a duty station.
It sounds like many looked the other way, and in one respect you almost can't blame them in the "modern PC Army". Look at what some liberals in the present Administration have wanted to do in respect to prosecuting members of the CIA (not to mention George Bush and Dick Cheney) for "questionable interrogation techniques".
If WWII was fought under modern PC constraints, we would have lost.
People like this guy need to be weeded out of the military. And before anyone labels me as racist, let me mention that one of my closest friends for the last 20 plus years is a freedom loving, practicing Muslim who fled his country in Northern Africa when it was taken over by a dictator several decades ago.
11-12-2009, 10:23 PM
#50
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
That depends RK - are you the blue eyed blond guy in question?
"Allahu Ahkbar" is a phrase that means (roughly) "God is Great", it's not a racist figure of speech like "White Power" is in your example.
It's easy to forget that this guy was an American citizen, serving in the armed forces, everyone just wants to jump all over him and call him a jihadist (and go out and kill all Muslims too, on principle evidently). Someone sent me a link from doublex.com that summed up what I was trying to say very eloquently:
"If we write Hasan off as nothing but a religious zealot, we're missing the bigger picture. This shooter wasn't some mysterious other or foreign power. He was, like Timothy McVeigh, like Seung-hui Cho, like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, a citizen of the United States—and he chose a particularly American methodology for his terror. People in other countries (other than those at war) just aren't as inclined to shoot up their schools and workplaces. When we put aside the idea of Hasan as part of a jihad, we're not avoiding reality—we're looking it squarely in the face. We have met the enemy, and far too often, he is us." - KJ Dell'Antonia
My personal beliefs as to what kind of justice gets meted out have nothing to do with how this animal gets tried, but the fact is he will, either by a Federal court or military court-martial. Just like you would be entitled to a trial by jury if you went out with a bunch of white supremacist pals to kill some inner-city black kids, or Hispanics that you thought might be illegal aliens (or, for that matter, just murder a bunch of people at random because you're upset about your life, and can't cope with your problems like a rational adult). That's the justice system we have in this country, and it was around far longer that either of us has been, or will be. I think the right to a fair trial is one of the things that makes this country great; I suppose here is another case where we differ in opinion.
Still and all, if insulting me personally for defending (or at least reminding you of) the principles of our country is what gets you off, go for it! Sticks and stones, etc. It's not going to bring back anyone's lost lives though, and it's not going to make the suffering of their families any less.
"Allahu Ahkbar" is a phrase that means (roughly) "God is Great", it's not a racist figure of speech like "White Power" is in your example.
It's easy to forget that this guy was an American citizen, serving in the armed forces, everyone just wants to jump all over him and call him a jihadist (and go out and kill all Muslims too, on principle evidently). Someone sent me a link from doublex.com that summed up what I was trying to say very eloquently:
"If we write Hasan off as nothing but a religious zealot, we're missing the bigger picture. This shooter wasn't some mysterious other or foreign power. He was, like Timothy McVeigh, like Seung-hui Cho, like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, a citizen of the United States—and he chose a particularly American methodology for his terror. People in other countries (other than those at war) just aren't as inclined to shoot up their schools and workplaces. When we put aside the idea of Hasan as part of a jihad, we're not avoiding reality—we're looking it squarely in the face. We have met the enemy, and far too often, he is us." - KJ Dell'Antonia
My personal beliefs as to what kind of justice gets meted out have nothing to do with how this animal gets tried, but the fact is he will, either by a Federal court or military court-martial. Just like you would be entitled to a trial by jury if you went out with a bunch of white supremacist pals to kill some inner-city black kids, or Hispanics that you thought might be illegal aliens (or, for that matter, just murder a bunch of people at random because you're upset about your life, and can't cope with your problems like a rational adult). That's the justice system we have in this country, and it was around far longer that either of us has been, or will be. I think the right to a fair trial is one of the things that makes this country great; I suppose here is another case where we differ in opinion.
Still and all, if insulting me personally for defending (or at least reminding you of) the principles of our country is what gets you off, go for it! Sticks and stones, etc. It's not going to bring back anyone's lost lives though, and it's not going to make the suffering of their families any less.
When I have more time, I might respond to the rest of your post.
11-12-2009, 10:56 PM
#51
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
I'm curious as to what this sentence says about your beliefs. Do you think murdering innocents for being of the "wrong" religion is somehow less despicable than murdering them for their race? Why would you think that? Please explain.
11-13-2009, 02:24 PM
#53
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 987
Anyone who shouts something religious about their god, while shooting others (who he beleives have a different god)... is killing in the name of religion.
Shouting "God is great" before pulling the trigger means he felt that his actions were justified by his god. He is wrong of course, but that's clearly the way he felt.
But... I do believe he acted on his own. He was the one who was troubled and couldn't take it anymore, he wasn't carrying out the wishes of some larger organization. He's a self-proclaimed Jihadist, and he proved it.
I'll reserve judgement on what the Army should've or could've done to prevent it until the facts come out, if ever. Some of it sounds like monday-morning quarterbacking, some of it sounds like PC being given more creedence than common sense.
