PC Stupidity. Defense Dept. calls Ft. Hood Shooting "workplace violence".

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

www.foxnews.com...

Can we cut the PC business?
Calling the Ft. Hood shootings "workplace violence" is akin to calling Mt. St. Helens eruption, "landscaping".

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

This attempt to weaken and maginalize the threat that still exists from radical islam is not going to work. Especially if these terrorist jackwagons continue to try to harm military and civilian targets in America.

Comment, don't comment. But just be aware that the next time this happens, (and it will) the spineless simps in DC will find any and every excuse for these murderers.

reply to post by beezzer


The shooter was in the military so technically it was his workplace. I'd need to see his particulars to come to a conclusion on the matter. I didn't see a manifesto or anything like that so I can't say for certain.

In other news I am drunk and shocked I type this well while drunk.

Next, they'll say all the soldiers killed or maimed while at war are just victims of "workplace violence" since they got their injuries during the performance of their job duties.

Now-Now "beezer": not all muslims are Jihadi "terrorists"....
just the ones protected by the one in the oval office(and his psuedo intellectual radical minions).

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by beezzer

 

The shooter was in the military so technically it was his workplace. I'd need to see his particulars to come to a conclusion on the matter. I didn't see a manifesto or anything like that so I can't say for certain.

In other news I am drunk and shocked I type this well while drunk.

So if someone tried to assassinate the president (god forbid) since he's just "doing his job" it could be marginalized as wrokplace violence as well?

You're TWI (typing while intoxicated)
License and registration please.

Originally posted by FortAnthem


Next, they'll say all the soldiers killed or maimed while at war are just victims of "workplace violence" since they got their injuries during the performance of their job duties.

Exactly! (I wouldn't put it past them)

Originally posted by 46ACE
Now-Now "beezer": not all muslims are Jihadi "terrorists"....
just the ones protected by the one in the oval office(and his psuedo intellectual radical minions).

edit on 10-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

I just consider the ones trying to kill me as terrorists.

Does that mean my father-in-law is muslim?

Originally posted by beezzer


So if someone tried to assassinate the president (god forbid) since he's just "doing his job" it could be marginalized as wrokplace violence as well?

You're TWI (typing while intoxicated)
License and registration please.

Only if said person worked in the white house. I don"t think it matters if he killed people over jihad or if his NCO pissed him off it was the same result. Call it whatever you want-Dead people are still dead, nothing makes it better;

Originally posted by antonia


Only if said person worked in the white house. I don"t think it matters if he killed people over jihad or if his NCO pissed him off it was the same result. Call it whatever you want-Dead people are still dead, nothing makes it better;

While I agree that dead is dead, to marginalize the act lessens the impact and response. Terrorism vs workplace violence would elicit vastly different responses and levels of punishment.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by antonia


Only if said person worked in the white house. I don"t think it matters if he killed people over jihad or if his NCO pissed him off it was the same result. Call it whatever you want-Dead people are still dead, nothing makes it better;

While I agree that dead is dead, to marginalize the act lessens the impact and response. Terrorism vs workplace violence would elicit vastly different responses and levels of punishment.

How is killing someone in the name of Allah worse than killing your boss because he made you mad? It's the same result. Emotionally it might generate a different response but, logically there is no difference between the murders. It's still murder. What do you think one should get the death sentence and one shouldn't?

Originally posted by antonia

How is killing someone in the name of Allah worse than killing your boss because he made you mad? It's the same result. Emotionally it might generate a different response but, logically there is no difference between the murders. It's still murder. What do you think one should get the death sentence and one shouldn't?

edit on 10-12-2011 by antonia because: opps

If you kill your boss over a poor APR ( annual performance review) vs indiscrimanate killing in the name of a religion, there is a vast difference.

In the former, the even is isolated between the individuals. And there is a specific cause-effect paradigm.

In the latter, the event is identified as an action towards a "population" or "ideology" or "religion". There is no individual-specific isolation or identificaton.

reply to post by beezzer


I don't see it that way, murder is murder and it should be punished regardless of motivation. If you murder someone you should get a sentence for that death. No murder is somehow worse than another, all life is equal. What's next? Maybe we can say murdering a welfare queen is somehow better than murdering a solider? Either way it's the same result. It's best to punish crime rather than ideology.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by beezzer

 

I don't see it that way, murder is murder and it should be punished regardless of motivation. If you murder someone you should get a sentence for that death. No murder is somehow worse than another, all life is equal. What's next? Maybe we can say murdering a welfare queen is somehow better than murdering a solider? Either way it's the same result. It's best to punish crime rather than ideology.

But murder is not treated equally.

When I fire my weapon on a battlefield, I "commit" murder.
When I succeed, I get a shiny item I place in my shadowbox or on my class A's.

If I "tweeked" and decided to "off my boss" I get a jail sentence.

The motivation is different.
The environment is different.
The reward/punishment is different.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by beezzer

 

I don't see it that way, murder is murder and it should be punished regardless of motivation. If you murder someone you should get a sentence for that death. No murder is somehow worse than another, all life is equal. What's next? Maybe we can say murdering a welfare queen is somehow better than murdering a solider? Either way it's the same result. It's best to punish crime rather than ideology.

But murder is not treated equally.

When I fire my weapon on a battlefield, I "commit" murder.
When I succeed, I get a shiny item I place in my shadowbox or on my class A's.

If I "tweeked" and decided to "off my boss" I get a jail sentence.

The motivation is different.
The environment is different.
The reward/punishment is different.

'

You and the party you shot walked out onto the battlefield in the expectation you could very well be shot that day and accepted that so therefore it not murder. It is very different from what happened at Ft. Hood.

reply to post by antonia

Exactly!!!!

The individual for his specific reasons, chose NOT the battlefield, but chose to apply the same balltlefield ideology/mindset to an environment where he would be at an advantage over unarmed personnel.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by antonia

 

Exactly!!!!

The individual for his specific reasons, chose NOT the battlefield, but chose to apply the same balltlefield ideology/mindset to an environment where he would be at an advantage over unarmed personnel.

And how is that different from every other murder that occurs on a daily basis? Most of them do not anticipate their victim being armed. Should there be a harsher punishment for someone who kills an unarmed person versus an armed person?

reply to post by beezzer


I saw an interesting theory presented in a movie that I watched: The Fort Hood shooting was a false-flag attack to keep people scared of domestic terrorism, as was the Christmas Day bomber and the shoe bomber. The three men were connected through Awlaki, an al-CIAda operative.

The people get scared, Homeland Security swoops in and clamps down further on the 4th Amendment to save them, and the threat of terrorism is renewed, allowing the agenda to continue to play out. Then later, the man allegedly responsible for training these people supposedly gets killed by one of the puppets of the wealthy elite, Obama. This gives people some much-needed support for Obama as well as the war on terrorism.

Wars continue, the wealthy elite continue to profit, and the Constitutions value continues to shrink as Big Brother grows. Society progresses down the road that they steer us down.

reply to post by antonia


If we're going to play cop-lawyer, I'd say motivation describes the intent and would deterine punishment.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by beezzer

 

I saw an interesting theory presented in a movie that I watched: The Fort Hood shooting was a false-flag attack to keep people scared of domestic terrorism, as was the Christmas Day bomber and the shoe bomber. The three men were connected through Awkali, an al-CIAda operative.

The people get scared, Homeland Security clamps down further on the 4th Amendment, and the threat of terrorism is renewed, allowing the agenda to continue to play out. Then later, the man allegedly responsible for training these people supposedly gets killed by one of the puppets of the wealthy elite, Obama. This gives people some much-needed support for Obama as well as the war on terrorism.

Wars continue, the wealthy elite continue to profit, and the Constitutions value continues to shrink as Big Brother grows. Society progresses down the road that they steer us down.

edit on 11-12-2011 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)

But marginalizing the actions at Ft. Hood fly in the face of any false-flag that they'd want to capitalize on.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by antonia

 

If we're going to play cop-lawyer, I'd say motivation describes the intent and would deterine punishment.

I'd say it depends on if the end result was the intended result. There is a difference between accidently killing someone and intentionally doing so. Such silly emotional arguments are why baby and women killers can get next to no time in prison. In my mind if you kill someone intentionally you have no place in society and should be removed from it for the rest of your days regardless of your motivation.