Reply With Quote
He wanted to leave.. how's that?
My condolences to her."How,how,how" you little whinny .
He should have been kicked out. TONS of reasons why. You go google them and put the pieces together. I'm going to my wife. Good night.
If there was a law or policy he clearly broke before the Ft. Hood tragedy, you should say what it is. I'm sure you can't since you are incapable of making any real argument. I think he should have been allowed to leave if, as it has been reported, he asked to leave.
He wanted to leave.. how's that?
If there is a law against wanting to leave, I haven't seen it.
you satirical ing bas
Why do you have to play these games
Well, I heard on the news this morning the authorities are leaning towards him acting as a Jihadist. I guess they are uncovering some damning evidence on him.
I don't get the faux outrage by the resident dead enders. Clearly the guy is guilty and will pay for actions. What else is there to say? I know these morons want to make an issue out of it, but the guy will pay for this. Unlike the conservatives on this board I choose to wait until more informaiton becomes clear and verified before I run down the street yelling he's a terrorist and victim of political correctness.
Seriously. There is so much idiocy being thrown around that it makes this thread maddening to read.
As of May, 2009, there are 1,445,000 active duty military personnel. In this population, there are about 3500 muslims, or 0.24 percent. Of that very tiny fraction, there have been three separate incidents of "unfriendly" fire. That's not a very promising statistic.
An interesting graphic
Even meek, mild-manored RINO, David Brooks, thinks the media whitewashed this attack.
The Rush to Therapy
We’re all born late. We’re born into history that is well under way. We’re born into cultures, nations and languages that we didn’t choose. On top of that, we’re born with certain brain chemicals and genetic predispositions that we can’t control. We’re thrust into social conditions that we detest. Often, we react in ways we regret even while we’re doing them.
But unlike the other animals, people do have a drive to seek coherence and meaning. We have a need to tell ourselves stories that explain it all. We use these stories to supply the metaphysics, without which life seems pointless and empty.
Among all the things we don’t control, we do have some control over our stories. We do have a conscious say in selecting the narrative we will use to make sense of the world. Individual responsibility is contained in the act of selecting and constantly revising the master narrative we tell about ourselves.
The stories we select help us, in turn, to interpret the world. They guide us to pay attention to certain things and ignore other things. They lead us to see certain things as sacred and other things as disgusting. They are the frameworks that shape our desires and goals. So while story selection may seem vague and intellectual, it’s actually very powerful. The most important power we have is the power to help select the lens through which we see reality.
Most people select stories that lead toward cooperation and goodness. But over the past few decades a malevolent narrative has emerged.
That narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world. It is a narrative that sees human history as a war between Islam on the one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other. This narrative causes its adherents to shrink their circle of concern. They don’t see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so.
This narrative is embraced by a small minority. But it has caused incredible amounts of suffering within the Muslim world, in Israel, in the U.S. and elsewhere. With their suicide bombings and terrorist acts, adherents to this narrative have made themselves central to global politics. They are the ones who go into crowded rooms, shout “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” and then start murdering.
When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did that in Fort Hood, Tex., last week, many Americans had an understandable and, in some ways, admirable reaction. They didn’t want the horror to become a pretext for anti-Muslim bigotry.
So immediately the coverage took on a certain cast. The possibility of Islamic extremism was immediately played down. This was an isolated personal breakdown, not an ideological assault, many people emphasized.
Major Hasan was portrayed as a disturbed individual who was under a lot of stress. We learned about pre-traumatic stress syndrome, and secondary stress disorder, which one gets from hearing about other people’s stress. We heard the theory (unlikely in retrospect) that Hasan was so traumatized by the thought of going into a combat zone that he decided to take a gun and create one of his own.
A shroud of political correctness settled over the conversation. Hasan was portrayed as a victim of society, a poor soul who was pushed over the edge by prejudice and unhappiness.
There was a national rush to therapy. Hasan was a loner who had trouble finding a wife and socializing with his neighbors.
This response was understandable. It’s important to tamp down vengeful hatreds in moments of passion. But it was also patronizing. Public commentators assumed the air of kindergarten teachers who had to protect their children from thinking certain impermissible and intolerant thoughts. If public commentary wasn’t carefully policed, the assumption seemed to be, then the great mass of unwashed yahoos in Middle America would go off on a racist rampage.
Worse, it absolved Hasan — before the real evidence was in — of his responsibility. He didn’t have the choice to be lonely or unhappy. But he did have a choice over what story to build out of those cir stances. And evidence is now mounting to suggest he chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.
The conversation in the first few days after the massacre was well intentioned, but it suggested a willful flight from reality. It ignored the fact that the war narrative of the struggle against Islam is the central feature of American foreign policy. It ignored the fact that this narrative can be embraced by a self-radicalizing individual in the U.S. as much as by groups in Tehran, Gaza or Kandahar.
It denied, before the evidence was in, the possibility of evil. It sought to reduce a heinous act to social maladjustment. It wasn’t the reaction of a morally or politically serious nation.
Hasan's 50-PAGE PowerPoint presentation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009110903704
I don't have a problem with much of what this guy says: the media has depicted the situation as a crazy rampage before all the facts were in.
In their defense, if this were a terrorist attack, you have to wonder what the strategic purpose of killing the victims was. I don't want to diminish the tragedy of their murder but it doesn't seem the victims were symbolically meaningful, so there's grounds for the assumption that this was an isolated incident.
lol @ Obama using harsher language about the Tiller Adult Abortion than the conehead.
Are you surprised? One murderer clearly belonged to a terrorist movement, another doesn't yet appear to.
Actually, I was quite pleased with what Obama said about this. He was much harsher than the willingly blind MSM.
Obama also seemed to acknowledge what many on this forum will not.
everyone but you understands that, darrin.
I would add that the media was much quicker to point out the religious and/or political beliefs of the man who "assasssinated" George Tiller. They were even willing to make Bill O'Reilly an accomplice.
The media also quickly latched onto the "right-wing" political philosphy of that Von Brunn dude that shot the security guard at the Holocaust museum -- ignoring the fact that the man was a 911 twoofer and dispised the Bush-Cheney admin.
darrin likes to argue with himself.
Again, because Tiller's murderer fell within a direct and demonstrable sphere of influence from day 1, and because this particular sphere of influence has high visibility in this country and is associated with hot-button political issues. As far as we know so far, the Ft. Hood shooter was curious about Muslim extremism, but not explicitly involved with the movement.
I don't care how you shuck it, man -- neo-nazis are classified as right-wingers by most. There was no journalistic failure in the coverage of Von Brunn.The media also quickly latched onto the "right-wing" political philosphy of that Von Brunn dude that shot the security guard at the Holocaust museum -- ignoring the fact that the man was a 911 twoofer and dispised the Bush-Cheney admin.
many of us choose to wait until all of the facts are in before jumping to a conclusion. I know that's a foreign concept to the obama haters so it may be difficult for you , or the other dead enders for that matter, to understand this.
That poor Marine who attacked the Greek priest must have been suffering from PTSD.
'Roid rage would seem to be the hasty conclusion in this case.
Poor guy.
What part of that is unacknowledged by most here?
So I looked over the slides, I don't see what would paint him a religious extremist based on those slides.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
