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

reply to post by beezzer

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

Really? If they'll kill 3,000 innocent civilians to justify wars and the dismantling of the Constitution, killing 13 and wounding 29 to remind people of that danger would be child's play to these sick bastards.

Beezzer, I think you are right on for your thread on this. It's technically correct to call it a workplace shooting....ehhhh...yeah... I suppose. Everyone was technically at work... I guess.

It's hard to ignore the shouts of Allahu Akbar though isn't it? That makes it a little different than a postal worker blowing their last fuse or a stock broker cracking like an egg. That little detail, in my view, makes it terrorism by Religious combined with Political motivations. He yelled it and more, and I'll take him at his word.

Remember though, this is the President who turned a mean, nasty War on Terror into an even wider 'Overseas Contingency Operation' in more nations than before. He's a master wordsmith....or has the best working for him. I guess I'm not surprised at trying to change the nature of the act by the term used to describe it. A terrorist act on U.S. soil by anything but a homegrown American is terribly inconvenient for this White House. Ugh...

Soldier says ordered to delete Fort Hood video

10/15/2010

FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) — A soldier who recorded the terror of last year's deadly shooting rampage in Fort Hood using his cellphone was ordered by an officer to delete both videos, a military court heard Friday.

Under cross examination, Pfc. Lance Aviles told an Article 32 hearing that his noncommissioned officer ordered him to destroy the two videos on Nov. 5, the same day that a gunman unleashed a volley of bullets inside a processing center at the Texas Army post...

Originally posted by antonia

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.

Again, I agree. To marginalize such actions, though, lessen the potential punishment.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by beezzer

 

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

Really? If they'll kill 3,000 innocent civilians to justify wars and the dismantling of the Constitution, killing 13 and wounding 29 to remind people of that danger would be child's play to these sick bastards.

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

That's IF you work under the assumption that we (america) was responsible for that.
Caveat!
Caveat!

reply to post by beezzer

That's IF you work under the assumption that we (america) was responsible for that.
Caveat!
Caveat!

I don't believe that we were responsible for that, that's absurd. It's not fair to associate all of America with the actions of a few sinister people who stage false-flag attacks to further an agenda. It doesn't make sense to say that "we" were responsible for the attacks, instead that some bad people who have lots of power were.

But operating under that assumption, it does make sense. It makes a lot of sense.

Originally posted by 1825114
Soldier says ordered to delete Fort Hood video

10/15/2010

FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) — A soldier who recorded the terror of last year's deadly shooting rampage in Fort Hood using his cellphone was ordered by an officer to delete both videos, a military court heard Friday.

Under cross examination, Pfc. Lance Aviles told an Article 32 hearing that his noncommissioned officer ordered him to destroy the two videos on Nov. 5, the same day that a gunman unleashed a volley of bullets inside a processing center at the Texas Army post...

Now THAT is scary!

Why?

Whywhywhy???

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Beezzer, I think you are right on for your thread on this. It's technically correct to call it a workplace shooting....ehhhh...yeah... I suppose. Everyone was technically at work... I guess.

It's hard to ignore the shouts of Allahu Akbar though isn't it? That makes it a little different than a postal worker blowing their last fuse or a stock broker cracking like an egg. That little detail, in my view, makes it terrorism by Religious combined with Political motivations. He yelled it and more, and I'll take him at his word.

Remember though, this is the President who turned a mean, nasty War on Terror into an even wider 'Overseas Contingency Operation' in more nations than before. He's a master wordsmith....or has the best working for him. I guess I'm not surprised at trying to change the nature of the act by the term used to describe it. A terrorist act on U.S. soil by anything but a homegrown American is terribly inconvenient for this White House. Ugh...

We talk of motivation of the shooter, but notof the administration.

You make an excellent point.

Work place violence? How about the real crime being acknowledged? TREASON??? No can't do that because it carries the final penalty death. I love when the false flag gets thrown around That's the trademark of politicians with the big R next to there names! Not like anyone with a D would do something like that Oh yea selling guns and laundering money for Mexican cartels...

Originally posted by antonia

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?

You realize there are different rules for "spies" and"assasins" vs uniformed troops in open combat. don't you? A combatant caught out of uniform or wearing the uniform of the opposing nation can be"convicted"as a "spy" and executed.
The "rules of war" recognize the "unfair"advantage of sneaking up and blending in wearing the enemies uniform. A jihadi is at war with the u.s. I 'll wager had he survived he could conceivably be held and executed under one of those clauses by an administration who wished to prosecute "jihadi's"..Which I believe Mr. oh-bama and his other "high-minded" radical friends don't wish to per sue....