Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Nov 09, 2009, 09:53 PM
I got too many hobbies!
BRETT65's Avatar
United States, OK, Oklahoma City
Joined May 2009
51 Posts
Discussion
What does the terrorist attack at Ft. Hood say about America?

Yes it was a terrorist attack. A politically motivated radical muslim attacked our troops and some civilians. Saying it was a result of any type of traumatic stress syndrome is a farce.

Political correctness and the fear of being labeled a bigot kept this guy from being removed from the military. The fear of muslim backlash kept him in his position. Peeople ought to be courtmarshalled for not doing their duty by getting rid of a guy who openly supported suicide bombings, spoke out against his own brethren in the Army, and now appears to have tried to contact Al Qaeda. This was all known about before his attack, and nothing was done.

Obviously the tensions between the muslim world and our own have not been changed at all by the laxist attitude of Obama. Fewer people now feel like relations with the middle East are going to get better than before, and it seems as if they feel the same way. They are praising what this guy did.

Because it was a terrorist attack, those wounded are supposed to recieve the purple heart. Let's see if the administration can admit to what it was, and if they will do anything about the people who allowed the terrorist to stay in his position in our Army. I doubt they will, the department of the interior and a shout out was more important than discussing the attack when he made his address Thursday afternoon.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...or_wrong_track

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...rld_down_to_16

Even NBC in Chicago can see it. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/polit...President.html
BRETT65 is offline Find More Posts by BRETT65
Last edited by BRETT65; Nov 09, 2009 at 11:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 09, 2009, 10:35 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,892 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRETT65 View Post
Saying it was a result of any type of traumatice stress syndrome is a farce.
Agreed. Making any declaration of cause before the investigation is complete is a farce. BTW, your entire post is a farce for that reason.
4 Scale is offline Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Last edited by 4 Scale; Nov 09, 2009 at 11:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 09, 2009, 11:18 PM
I got too many hobbies!
BRETT65's Avatar
United States, OK, Oklahoma City
Joined May 2009
51 Posts
If the durka fits...
BRETT65 is offline Find More Posts by BRETT65
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 09, 2009, 11:33 PM
Against it with you
Sprydle's Avatar
Houston, TX
Joined Feb 2006
80 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRETT65 View Post
If the durka fits...
The durka? Yeeees. Too much Southpark perhaps?

Can we suppose that your analysis is as flawed as your knowledge of Islamic clothing?
Sprydle is offline Find More Posts by Sprydle
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 09, 2009, 11:46 PM
Figure 9 Expert
Chompers's Avatar
USA
Joined Feb 2007
665 Posts
the New York Tomes main page has an article titled "U.S. Knew of Fort Hood Suspect’s Tie to Radical Cleric".
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?hp

guys lets discus the OP and not start making attacks against other members OK?
Chompers is offline Find More Posts by Chompers
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 09, 2009, 11:54 PM
Registered User
HELModels's Avatar
Joined Aug 2003
2,629 Posts
I agree with the part about that Shooter not being cut out for the duty he was trained. It's sad that the Army needed a body in that spot so bad that even that fool, after all his anti rantings, would suffice. I would think another soldier who had survived and overcome adversity of war, even without any advanced degrees, could have done that kook's duty without arms or legs. I doubt that Shooter had ever helped anyone, ever. He probably just categorized and warehoused whatever came his way.
HELModels is online now Find More Posts by HELModels
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2009, 12:03 AM
Suspended Account
Ohio
Joined Aug 2008
1,288 Posts
I don't know what it says about America, but I don't think Obama is actually doing anything productive in this regard...
Metieval is offline Find More Posts by Metieval
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Nov 10, 2009, 04:31 AM
Official Old Git!
Hampshire, UK
Joined Sep 2000
1,383 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRETT65 View Post
Yes it was a terrorist attack. A politically motivated radical muslim attacked our troops and some civilians. Saying it was a result of any type of traumatic stress syndrome is a farce....
I'd be interested in knowing when a single 'whacko' (for whatever reason) suddenly becomes a 'terrorist'.

I guess to justify that I'd expect him to be part of the relevant organisation, be following plans directed by that organisation, be rewarded by that organisation - rather than somebody who has just done it on their own.

Yes, I read that he has communicated with a radical cleric - but I rather suspect that just fed his obsession, but I dunno.

Personally, I believe it's too easy to have lovely comfy labels that can be used, which them enables people to be use them at random on large groups, and then this means whatever you wish to do can be justified by that label.

It seems a bit like using such a label as 'all Americans are obese, arrogant, loud-mouthed, gun wielding yobs' or 'all British are stuck up, snobby, upper class twits with bad teeth' - and just as ridiculous!
Norman Adlam is online now Find More Posts by Norman Adlam
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2009, 04:42 AM
Registered User
saltyzoo's Avatar
United States, FL, Tampa
Joined May 2008
140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Adlam View Post
I'd be interested in knowing when a single 'whacko' (for whatever reason) suddenly becomes a 'terrorist'.
Stop listening to the talking points and think for yourself. The definition of terrorism has never had anything to do with an organized group. Think Timothy McVeigh.

My dictionary says:

Quote:
ter⋅ror⋅ism
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Absolutely nothing there about a group.

Quote:
I guess to justify that I'd expect him to be part of the relevant organisation, be following plans directed by that organisation, be rewarded by that organisation - rather than somebody who has just done it on their own.
His motivation was clearly political. He was attempting to contact other terrorists. You have to really ignore reality to not see this.

Quote:
Yes, I read that he has communicated with a radical cleric - but I rather suspect that just fed his obsession, but I dunno.
Do you believe that most suicide bombers are mentally healthy? That none of them are obsessed? Do you really think that terrorism is a bunch of perfectly mentally healthy people that are just "mis-guided"? Was Timothy McVeigh mentally healthy? Mental health has nothing to do with whether or not he was a terrorist.

Quote:
Personally, I believe it's too easy to have lovely comfy labels that can be used, which them enables people to be use them at random on large groups, and then this means whatever you wish to do can be justified by that label.
So "whacko" and "obsessed" are ok, but "terrorist" is not? Even when it's absolutely 100% accurate? Labels don't kill people. Terrorists kill people.

Quote:
It seems a bit like using such a label as 'all Americans are obese, arrogant, loud-mouthed, gun wielding yobs' or 'all British are stuck up, snobby, upper class twits with bad teeth' - and just as ridiculous!
Uh, yeah, ok. How about "All Americans are obese, arrogant, loud-mouthed, gun wielding yobs that are too stupid to protect themselves from somebody that's telling them in a dozen ways they want to kill them"?
saltyzoo is online now Find More Posts by saltyzoo
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2009, 04:43 AM
Suspended Account
Ohio
Joined Aug 2008
1,288 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Adlam View Post
I'd be interested in knowing when a single 'whacko' (for whatever reason) suddenly becomes a 'terrorist'.
Possibly, when that single 'whacko' suddenly does a 'terrorist' act.
Metieval is offline Find More Posts by Metieval
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Nov 10, 2009, 05:13 AM
Official Old Git!
Hampshire, UK
Joined Sep 2000
1,383 Posts
Hmmm.... OK.

Similar definitions on the web....

terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for ...

So, a logical extension of these definitions would seem that all soldiers who are fighting are also 'terrorists', are they not? They are 'employing terror as a political weapon', are generally 'organized in small cells' etc... (See the problem with these emotive labels? )

I believe the problem with these 'global' labels is that you start re-acting to them in an inappropriate way, quite often aggravating the problem rather than ameliorating it. For example, if he's just a 'whacko' maybe there is a failure in checking the mental health of senior professionals. If he's a 'terrorist' (maybe a member of a terrorist organization) then perhaps there is a failure in background checks when such people join.

P.S. Saltyzoo, I'm afraid I do think for myself. I care a rats arse about what convenient labels others wish put on things, whether it be one group or another - I'm more interested in what is actually happening behind it all!

To be more correct... "Labels don't kill people, terrorists don't kill people - people kill people!"
Norman Adlam is online now Find More Posts by Norman Adlam
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2009, 05:38 AM
urs
Registered User
switzerland
Joined Dec 2000
707 Posts
people

<<<To be more correct... "Labels don't kill people, terrorists don't kill people - people kill people!" <<<<


No normal people do not kill people. Stop making excuses for what abnormal people do...call a spade a spade and start aplying fixes....this muslem terorist nutcase should not have been in his position but was because we must not offend the muslems amongst us. (of which a LARGE prčportion support each and every violent act ) I am absolutly disgusted that almost the first thing the presidant does after a like act is to say DONT BLAME THE MUSLEMS.

urs
urs is offline Find More Posts by urs
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2009, 05:49 AM
Official Old Git!
Hampshire, UK
Joined Sep 2000
1,383 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by urs View Post
<<<To be more correct... "Labels don't kill people, terrorists don't kill people - people kill people!" <<<<


No normal people do not kill people. Stop making excuses for what abnormal people do...call a spade a spade and start aplying fixes....this muslem terorist nutcase should not have been in his position but was because we must not offend the muslems amongst us. (of which a LARGE prčportion support each and every violent act ) I am absolutly disgusted that almost the first thing the presidant does after a like act is to say DONT BLAME THE MUSLEMS.

urs
I don't think I defined them as being 'normal' ... errr.. whatever normal is!

I guess the president should round up all the blacks, students, company workers etc then - as they seemed to also have killed others. I afraid there wouldn't seem to be many left..

Or maybe they are just a small minority spread throughout the population, and need to be treated as such...

Pretending that you can 'fix' such a problem by picking on and demonizing one particular group is no fix whatsoever, as you've failed to address the root problem.

P.S. I'm happy to offend anyone, equally. Muslins, Catholics, Black, White, Red, Americans, French, British..... makes no difference to me!
Norman Adlam is online now Find More Posts by Norman Adlam
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2009, 06:48 AM
Registered User
saltyzoo's Avatar
United States, FL, Tampa
Joined May 2008
140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Adlam View Post

To be more correct... "Labels don't kill people, terrorists don't kill people - people kill people!"
This moral relativism is exactly why I disagree with you. When people kill people to terrorize them, IT IS TERRORISM. I don't agree with calling people not terrorizing other people terrorists, but refusing to call terrorists terrorists (and more importantly, to TREAT terrorists like they are terrorists) is getting people killed. Stand up, grow a backbone, and don't be scared to label people when they are terrorizing others. It's not the label that's the problem. It's the people that fit the label that are the problem. THAT is the point my "slogan" was making.
saltyzoo is online now Find More Posts by saltyzoo
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2009, 06:59 AM
St. Boondock
FL Knifemaker's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
731 Posts
Our new found political correctness will get even more people killed. When our DHS Secretary can't even USE the word terrorism, something is VERY wrong. A human caused disaster?? That's what we now have in the whitehouse

PC run aMUCK
FL Knifemaker is offline Find More Posts by FL Knifemaker
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas DT56 Life, The Universe, and Politics 333 Nov 09, 2009 02:49 PM
Discussion Panetta does/does not believe Cheney "rooting" for another terrorist attack craab Life, The Universe, and Politics 8 Jun 16, 2009 02:14 PM
Discussion Plane lands waaay fast; what does this say about the CG? Andrew McGregor Electric Plane Talk 26 May 18, 2007 09:36 AM
What does that say about Heli's that we have a CRASH KIT ? Happymcc Micro Helis 16 Oct 14, 2005 04:01 PM
What does charging time say about a pack? mexico Batteries and Chargers 5 Jun 16, 2005 09:42 AM