|
|
Everyone in the MSM is speculating as to why this happened today. That is why on this day. The only thing I can think of is Guy Fawkes day. I'm a big fan of graphic novels so it was already on my mind today. Any other ideas?
|
Posts:
4,003
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1195 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 10:52 PM
|
JaredP
Posts: 3,058
Registered: 6/29/09
(1109 of 1194)
Re: Fort Hood
Nov 16, 2009 11:36 PM Rating:
Reply Report Abuse
Controversy? Tough shit. Meet the Constitution.
The question is not whether there will be controversy. The question is who is causing it and why?
doubletake
Posts: 3,135
Registered: 11/5/02
Subscribe
Ignore
(1108 of 1194)
Re: Fort Hood
Nov 16, 2009 11:08 PM Rate this post:
Reply Report Abuse
Having this trial in NY is a terrible idea. This mistake will create a tremendous amount of controversy- something the O team doesn't need right about now. An avoidable distraction.
...
bold added
|
|
|
Posts:
3,225
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(1194 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 10:35 PM
|
> So what?
Just pointing out that your response had nothing to do with the statement you were answering, and avoided the question entirely. Just that.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,225
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(1193 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 10:33 PM
|
> Doubletake 1108
>
> You are worried about having the trial in the US
> because there is a slim chance that the truth might
> be outed, thus upsetting the Government Lie that you
> have defended for all these years.
>
> It's a very slim chance, so don't worry. With enough
> people repeating the Lie enough times and frequently
> enough, it will stand (for the gullible)
Yes, that must be it Jet. It's a vast right wing conspiracy.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,003
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1192 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 10:26 PM
|
|
So what?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,225
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(1191 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 10:21 PM
|
> > > Controversy? Tough shit. Meet the
> Constitution.
> >
> >
> > The Constitution specifies it has to be held in
> NY
> > City?
>
> The Southern District of New York has tried many
> terrorists. This means that many issues unique to
> such cases have already been hammered out. It also
> means the NY US Marshal's service, jails and prisons
> have successfully held the most dangerous of
> criminals and actually continue to do so. Since they
> do have this experience of handling these type of
> cases, ie. handling sensitive evidence, it is the
> most logical court for speedy trials.
In other words, no- the constitution does not specify that the trial needs to be held in NY.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,511
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(1190 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 9:10 PM
|
|
Ah, the beauty of victimhood! Kinda brings a tear to my eye.....
|
|
|
Posts:
10,561
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(1189 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 12:39 PM
|
> Ok, so show of hands, or responses, who amongst you
> all think Maj Nidal Hasan is a victim?
No one. At least no one here ever suggested he was.
> I ask, because I think a lot of the media are hyping
> it that way, and i really would like to know if the
> marketing is working.
I haven't seen the media calling him a victim either.
>
> Salon is running a story on their web site:
>
> Camp
> LeJeune
>
> In it, they assert:
> >They weren't talking about Marines suffering from a
> tangle of mental and religious angst, like news
> reports suggest haunted the alleged Fort Hood
> shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan
>
> And that's not the only reference, if just happens to
> be handy.
>
> They go on by suggesting:
>
> >While military officials and the media examine
> whether the Army missed warning signs that might have
> indicated an unhinged Nidal Hasan was capable of
> killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Manion's Camp Lejeune
> story is a cautionary tale of what happens to those
> who blow the whistle on conditions for military
> personnel with mental problems.
>
> Gosh, where to start. First, how is it possible that
> Maj Nidal was a sufferer of PTSD? Cause he talked to
> those that actually had it?
Nowhere in that article does it say Nidal suffered from PTSD, so I don't know what you're asking.
> Second, why is it
> necessary for especially the liberal outlets to
> conclude that the major was mentally unbalanced? Is
> there a record that someone is aware of the major's
> long alleged mental illness? Third, why should this
> incident be used to serve as some asinine advocacy
> for additional mental health services in the
> military?
I think the fact that Nidal slipped through the cracks and is a psychiatrist himself just drew attention to how the system is working...woefully, apparently. Are you saying that should be ignored because...I dunno what exactly...because Nidal didn't have PTSD?
The article was not about Nidal. At all.
> How is it that it's more important to change the
> subject than deal with the fact that the army
> commissioned someone who had a religious allegiance
> strong enough to overwhelm his allegiance to the
> United States, and result in the massacre of soldiers
> at a soldier processing center?
Does there have to be a choice, a matter of degree? Seems to me that they have to deal with it all.
> Is it as simple as political correctness? When
> asked, Gen George Casey makes the case that
> "diversity" is more important.
More important than what?
Perhaps we should look at what Casey actually said, and the context in which he said it, and the question he was answering:
GREGORY: What about your concerns about backlash against our Muslim soldiers who are in the Army, as a result of this incident?
GEN. CASEY: Yeah. I think those concerns are real and I, and I will tell you, David, that they're, they're fueled partially, at least, by the speculation about--based on anecdotal evidence that people are presenting. I think we have to be very careful with that. Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,697
Registered:
1/15/06
|
|
(1188 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 12:18 PM
|
|
Define "victim"?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,517
Registered:
9/16/09
|
|
(1187 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 12:15 PM
|
> Ok, so show of hands, or responses, who amongst you
> all think Maj Nidal Hasan is a victim?
Not a victim.
>
> I ask, because I think a lot of the media are hyping
> it that way, and i really would like to know if the
> marketing is working.
>
> Salon is running a story on their web site:
>
> Camp
> LeJeune
>
> In it, they assert:
> >They weren't talking about Marines suffering from a
> tangle of mental and religious angst, like news
> reports suggest haunted the alleged Fort Hood
> shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan
>
> And that's not the only reference, if just happens to
> be handy.
>
> They go on by suggesting:
>
> >While military officials and the media examine
> whether the Army missed warning signs that might have
> indicated an unhinged Nidal Hasan was capable of
> killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Manion's Camp Lejeune
> story is a cautionary tale of what happens to those
> who blow the whistle on conditions for military
> personnel with mental problems.
I don't get that.
>
> Gosh, where to start. First, how is it possible that
> Maj Nidal was a sufferer of PTSD? Cause he talked to
> those that actually had it? Second, why is it
> necessary for especially the liberal outlets to
> conclude that the major was mentally unbalanced?
There are two schools of thought. I subscribe to the theory that he was a "normal American" until the US got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. He disapproved.
As it became apparent that he would have to go to one of those places he tried to get out of the Army. That didn't work. I believe he became anxious because of what he heard returning soldiers telling him and he had major issues with our involvement there as well.
> there a record that someone is aware of the major's
> long alleged mental illness? Third, why should this
> incident be used to serve as some asinine advocacy
> for additional mental health services in the
> military?
>
> When, and why did the conversation get highjacked?
>
> How is it that it's more important to change the
> subject than deal with the fact that the army
> commissioned someone who had a religious allegiance
> strong enough to overwhelm his allegiance to the
> United States, and result in the massacre of soldiers
> at a soldier processing center?
>
> Is it as simple as political correctness? When
> asked, Gen George Casey makes the case that
> "diversity" is more important. Really? Why? And
> since when? I seem to recall that gays, for example,
> can't actually serve...and for that matter, neither
> can women, in most combat roles.
>
> Is it just because folks don't want to deal with
> Hasan as a terrorist? Is it that simple?
I believe he decided to become a martyr (jihad) rather than go to the ME as a representative of the United States Army.
The Army fucked up royally, not in making him a soldier but in not paying any attention to the changes that were taking place in him.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,568
Registered:
6/11/07
|
|
(1186 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 12:14 PM
|
> I ask, because I think a lot of the media are hyping
> it that way, and i really would like to know if the
> marketing is working.
Your logic is deeply flawed. Articles that raise his mental health problems ("unhinged," etc.) do not consequently reposition him as a victim. It's not exactly new (or PC) for mass murderers to be assessed for their mental health, and for it be found to be stinky.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,974
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(1185 of 1225)
Nov 18, 2009 12:07 PM
|
Ok, so show of hands, or responses, who amongst you all think Maj Nidal Hasan is a victim?
I ask, because I think a lot of the media are hyping it that way, and i really would like to know if the marketing is working.
Salon is running a story on their web site:
Camp LeJeune
In it, they assert:
>They weren't talking about Marines suffering from a tangle of mental and religious angst, like news reports suggest haunted the alleged Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan
And that's not the only reference, if just happens to be handy.
They go on by suggesting:
>While military officials and the media examine whether the Army missed warning signs that might have indicated an unhinged Nidal Hasan was capable of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Manion's Camp Lejeune story is a cautionary tale of what happens to those who blow the whistle on conditions for military personnel with mental problems.
Gosh, where to start. First, how is it possible that Maj Nidal was a sufferer of PTSD? Cause he talked to those that actually had it? Second, why is it necessary for especially the liberal outlets to conclude that the major was mentally unbalanced? Is there a record that someone is aware of the major's long alleged mental illness? Third, why should this incident be used to serve as some asinine advocacy for additional mental health services in the military?
When, and why did the conversation get highjacked?
How is it that it's more important to change the subject than deal with the fact that the army commissioned someone who had a religious allegiance strong enough to overwhelm his allegiance to the United States, and result in the massacre of soldiers at a soldier processing center?
Is it as simple as political correctness? When asked, Gen George Casey makes the case that "diversity" is more important. Really? Why? And since when? I seem to recall that gays, for example, can't actually serve...and for that matter, neither can women, in most combat roles.
Is it just because folks don't want to deal with Hasan as a terrorist? Is it that simple?
|
|
|
Posts:
10,561
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(1184 of 1225)
Nov 17, 2009 5:44 PM
|
> When you click on Subscribe under a poster's
> username, that's what happens. Unsubscribing should
> solve it.
Got it now, thanks. I guess I inadvertently clicked subscribe at some point.
>
> Hi PW. Busy day in the peanut gallery? LOL.
Hi! Always.
|
|
|
Posts:
10,561
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(1183 of 1225)
Nov 17, 2009 5:43 PM
|
> > Ha! Why as a matter of fact, there is!
> >
> > Thanks
>
> You may miss some stunningly brilliant insights, but
> your inbox will thank you.
I'll catch up when I get here!
|
|
|
Posts:
5,356
Registered:
3/8/04
|
|
(1182 of 1225)
Nov 17, 2009 4:24 PM
|
> > At this point he's shooting in the dark. I
> didn't
> > even bother to respond to the precedent thing,
> > because if he hadn't read/heard it elsewhere
> it's
> > already been mentioned in this thread.
>
> And others!
>
> On an unrelated topic, you familiar with how these
> boards work? For some reason, there are little
> binoculars next to your name for me. I take it that
> means I'm "watching" you or something, lol...not
> quite sure, and have no clue why that is.
>
> Anyhoo, because of that, every single time you post,
> I get an email telling me you just posted! LMFAO!
> Much as I dig ya, that's annoying as shit. Happen
> n to know how I can fix that?
>
> That goes for all of yas out there! Thanks.
When you click on Subscribe under a poster's username, that's what happens. Unsubscribing should solve it.
Hi PW. Busy day in the peanut gallery? LOL.
|
|
|
Posts:
801
Registered:
9/1/08
|
|
(1181 of 1225)
Nov 17, 2009 3:55 PM
|
> Ha! Why as a matter of fact, there is!
>
> Thanks
You may miss some stunningly brilliant insights, but your inbox will thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
