It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama and the Fort Hood Shootings

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:46 PM
November 5, the day before the US Presidential elections will be the third anniversary of the massacre of 13 US soldiers at Ft. Hood by Islamic terrorist, US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

The Obama administration has refused to acknowledged that the attack was a terrorist attack. The Defense Department has insisted on covering up the nature of the attack. The reports it released following the attack failed to mention Hasan's Islamic motivations. Still today the Defense Department insists on defining the massacre as a case of "workplace violence."

To advance this fiction, the Defense Department has refused to award Purple Hearts to the families of the soldiers murdered by Hasan, or to those who were wounded in his attack. It has refused to compensate the families of those murdered or the survivors who were incapacitated at the level the US military compensates the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty and soldiers wounded by enemy fire.

This year Congress tried to rectify this obscenity by including Purple Heart citations for Ft. Hood casualties in the Defense Appropriations Act.

Obama said he would veto the bill, (and thus deny the military funding), if they didn't remove the clause about the medals. That is how far Obama is willing to go to keep up this fiction, cover up the existence of enemy forces within the US military, deny the threat posed to the US by radical Islam, and in the process, punish and dishonor American soldiers who were killed in the line of duty in an act of war against the US by a self-proclaimed "Soldier of Allah."

There is no precedent in US history for this sort of behavior by an American president. None.

Watch the video below, with testimony from the victims of the attack. It was produced by the Coalition for Ft. Hood Heroes. And think about them, and the commander in chief who refuses for ideological reasons to recognize what happened that day, and so dishonors them every single day.

Think about four more years of this reckless behavior if he is reelected the day after the third anniversary of the massacre, and then share this video with everyone you know.

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:52 PM
Initial reports of secondary shooters, over seventy bullets fired, Nassan looking cheerful in the convenient store surveillance video, the list goes on and on. The entire thing was on a military base, yet a female local police officer stopped the massacre. Thanks DHS, your billions of dollars of security was upstaged by a young lady.

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:43 PM
the fort hood shooting is the perfect case to show that the enemy is an ideal that can strike at any moment and at any place.

that al qaeda struck at the heart of one of americas biggest bases with an ideology that can infiltrate america any where, any place and that is protected by the first amendment.

unfortunately, most leaders are too short sighted or lack the necessary wisdom to separate the two.

they destroy the bridge instead of stopping the tank.

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by dontreally

Isn't EVERY premeditated shooting a "terrorist act"? They need to determine if he was connected to any terror group - or as the evidence suggests, was a lone nut with an apparent vendetta against the US or the military. I'm all for labeling it an act of terrorism, but not because the shooter is a Muslim. Wade Michael Philips (the soldier in Afghanistan) committed an even more heinous act and is a Christian, instead of shooting up his fellow soldiers he shot up civilian women and children in their beds - was he labeled a terrorist? Don't make it a double standard - 'he's a Muslim, thus any act of violence from him makes his a terrorist'.

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

They need to determine if he was connected to any terror group - or as the evidence suggests, was a lone nut with an apparent vendetta against the US or the military.

Being involved in communications with the current leader of Al Qaeda isn't enough evidence?! The fact that he even maintained communications with such a high standing figure - was even able to peruse Islamist terrorist sites, without even being discovered - or rather, bothered - by the military, is amazing.

new topics

top topics

log in