Shooting at Fort Hood

1…456810

Comments

  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    _outlaw wrote:
    If Nidal Hasan was a jihadist, then what were Scott Roeder http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 8020.story and Jack Teitel http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 38,00.html?


    Not Relevant .....................
    apparently you did not click on the links. these are examples of american christians targeting other americans and murdering them. very relevent since you said that this never happens in america.



    Because there have been, incidents were extremist Christians have gone of the deep end, do not compare with the situation at Fort Hood. Like I said earlier, this would not have happened if not for people being scared to defend there own country...because of political correctness!
    Christians have not declared their hate and desire to kill Americans. Why is it okay with you people that Muslims, kill, pray, and talk to others about their religion but it’s not ok for Christians to do the same? What do you have against Christians? This man is an Islamist terrorist. The people he killed were being sent overseas so he looks at this as saving his fellow Muslims. How can anyone Justify defending them!
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    cincybearcat wrote:
    NoK wrote:
    Shawshank wrote:

    No dipshit, I'm not joking. If you lived in the real world, you'd see where people walk on eggshells when it comes to this issue.

    Very classy response.

    This video will give you a little insight into the real world and how truly respectful you bunch are..

    http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?do ... firefox-a#

    "You bunch"...nice touch there. This place reeks of hypocrisy.

    Thank you I thought it was a nice touch myself. Did it offend you? Well cry me a river.

    Do you even know what I meant by "you bunch"? Probably not but you just felt the need to express your useless opinion.

    You bunch = people like aerial, shawshank, prfctlefts who think blanket bans on Muslims in your war-mongering army is not discrimination but precaution. Add to that list the rest of those people who think the same. If that includes you then let me open the doors and welcome you in.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,464
    aerial wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    _outlaw wrote:
    If Nidal Hasan was a jihadist, then what were Scott Roeder http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 8020.story and Jack Teitel http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 38,00.html?






    Because there have been, incidents were extremist Christians have gone of the deep end, do not compare with the situation at Fort Hood. Like I said earlier, this would not have happened if not for people being scared to defend there own country...because of political correctness!
    Christians have not declared their hate and desire to kill Americans. Why is it okay with you people that Muslims, kill, pray, and talk to others about their religion but it’s not ok for Christians to do the same? What do you have against Christians? This man is an Islamist terrorist. The people he killed were being sent overseas so he looks at this as saving his fellow Muslims. How can anyone Justify defending them!

    for the last time i am not defending the shooter. i am not defending muslims or defaming christians. do you really not see how there is a correlation between these issues? you have said that christians have never murdered americans because of religious reasons and i called bullshit on your claim. instead you focus on side issues like political correctness and call it the soup du jour cause for the fall of america. if this guy was all over the radar a few months ago and nobody did anything about it, then they are guilty of negligence. the same as bush and co were gulity of negligence when they got the "bin laden determined to hijack planes and use them as missles" national security brief before 9/11.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    Because there have been, incidents were extremist Christians have gone of the deep end, do not compare with the situation at Fort Hood. Like I said earlier, this would not have happened if not for people being scared to defend there own country...because of political correctness!
    Christians have not declared their hate and desire to kill Americans. Why is it okay with you people that Muslims, kill, pray, and talk to others about their religion but it’s not ok for Christians to do the same? What do you have against Christians? This man is an Islamist terrorist. The people he killed were being sent overseas so he looks at this as saving his fellow Muslims. How can anyone Justify defending them![/quote][/quote]

    for the last time i am not defending the shooter. i am not defending muslims or defaming christians. do you really not see how there is a correlation between these issues? you have said that christians have never murdered americans because of religious reasons and i called bullshit on your claim. instead you focus on side issues like political correctness and call it the soup du jour cause for the fall of america. if this guy was all over the radar a few months ago and nobody did anything about it, then they are guilty of negligence. the same as bush and co were gulity of negligence when they got the "bin laden determined to hijack planes and use them as missles" national security brief before 9/11.[/quote]

    You have me confuse with someone else. I didn’t say that. .....How can they do anything when everyone is so damn quick to cry Racist Bigot! As they do on this site without even knowing the person. The way it is today who ever would have been the person to call him out would have been the one that got kicked out of the service. I see it alot since Obama came in office. The bad guy some how becomes the victim and the good guy turns into scum.
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Apparently this dude WAS on the defense department's radar, for quite some time ... Is doing nothing about his mental state negligence? I would argue yeah, absolutely. Of course, what might folks have said if the military HAD taken early action here? Probably something about discrimination against Muslims. You lose either way ... Early action in these kinds of cases gets equated with racial or some other form of profiling and gets decried (even in cases where there is a legitimate reason to be worried), so that's out. On the other hand, doing nothing means many lives lost.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,894
    NoK wrote:
    Thank you I thought it was a nice touch myself. Did it offend you? Well cry me a river.

    Do you even know what I meant by "you bunch"? Probably not but you just felt the need to express your useless opinion.

    You bunch = people like aerial, shawshank, prfctlefts who think blanket bans on Muslims in your war-mongering army is not discrimination but precaution. Add to that list the rest of those people who think the same. If that includes you then let me open the doors and welcome you in.

    Take a deep breath.

    Somone so upset over peole blanketing others together probably should do the same thing.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Take a deep breath.

    Somone so upset over peole blanketing others together probably should do the same thing.

    Just once, I'd like to see someone freak out on here when overgeneralizations are being made about Israelis or Christians or conservatives. In reality, though, somewhere in this place's collective unconscious there exists a list of acceptable targets (Israel, Christians, white people, conservatives, etc.) and a list of unacceptable targets (Muslims, minorities, liberals, etc.). Its a biased, slanted place. I'd say "leftist", but I refuse to believe that its that simple. Surely someone who really is a socialist would decry violence like this instead of take an opportunity to rant about a pet cause ... Right?
  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    cincybearcat wrote:

    Take a deep breath.

    Somone so upset over peole blanketing others together probably should do the same thing.

    Take a deep breath yourself and reread what I said. All the three posters above have agreed that a blanket ban on Muslims is a good idea. There is no "blanketing" others in my statements just facts.

    Nice try. Better luck next time.
  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    rebornFixer wrote:

    Just once, I'd like to see someone freak out on here when overgeneralizations are being made about Israelis or Christians or conservatives. In reality, though, somewhere in this place's collective unconscious there exists a list of acceptable targets (Israel, Christians, white people, conservatives, etc.) and a list of unacceptable targets (Muslims, minorities, liberals, etc.). Its a biased, slanted place. I'd say "leftist", but I refuse to believe that its that simple. Surely someone who really is a socialist would decry violence like this instead of take an opportunity to rant about a pet cause ... Right?


    Perhaps the reason why there is no rush to voice concern is because it is not those groups that have been constantly targeted by foreign armies such as your own and killed by the thousands, if not millions.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    NoK wrote:
    Perhaps the reason why there is no rush to voice concern is because it is not those groups that have been constantly targeted by foreign armies such as your own and killed by the thousands, if not millions.

    I am not American, for the record. I will say that soldiers are not the cause of the problem you speak of ... Politicians are.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Article from Time that highlights some of the shooter's earlier behaviors and the military's response (or lack thereof):

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... tion-yahoo
  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    rebornFixer wrote:
    NoK wrote:
    Perhaps the reason why there is no rush to voice concern is because it is not those groups that have been constantly targeted by foreign armies such as your own and killed by the thousands, if not millions.

    I am not American, for the record. I will say that soldiers are not the cause of the problem you speak of ... Politicians are.

    That is irrelevant. The issue is which group is being killed not who the "real" killers are.

    Besides the fact that your statement is irrelevant, soldiers are not mindless drones that do the bidding of a person in a higher position. I'm sure they understand their actions when they bomb the shit out of civilians with their video game drones.
  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    NoK wrote:
    rebornFixer wrote:
    NoK wrote:
    Perhaps the reason why there is no rush to voice concern is because it is not those groups that have been constantly targeted by foreign armies such as your own and killed by the thousands, if not millions.

    I am not American, for the record. I will say that soldiers are not the cause of the problem you speak of ... Politicians are.

    That is irrelevant. The issue is which group is being killed not who the "real" killers are.

    Besides the fact that your statement is irrelevant, soldiers are not mindless drones that do the bidding of a person in a higher position. I'm sure they understand their actions when they bomb the shit out of civilians with their video game drones.
    Irrelevant, are you kidding!.....and you nothing about the American Military ....what an ignorant post
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    aerial wrote:
    NoK wrote:
    That is irrelevant. The issue is which group is being killed not who the "real" killers are.

    Besides the fact that your statement is irrelevant, soldiers are not mindless drones that do the bidding of a person in a higher position. I'm sure they understand their actions when they bomb the shit out of civilians with their video game drones.
    Irrelevant, are you kidding!.....and you nothing about the American Military ....what an ignorant post
    ...
    So... you are saying... our soldiers ARE mindless drones with no conscience.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    Cosmo wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    NoK wrote:
    That is irrelevant. The issue is which group is being killed not who the "real" killers are.

    Besides the fact that your statement is irrelevant, soldiers are not mindless drones that do the bidding of a person in a higher position. I'm sure they understand their actions when they bomb the shit out of civilians with their video game drones.
    Irrelevant, are you kidding!.....and you nothing about the American Military ....what an ignorant post
    ...
    So... you are saying... our soldiers ARE mindless drones with no conscience.
    I'm tired I guess. My bad
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    edited November 2009
    NoK,

    I happen to think that many of your contributions to this thread are irrelevant, but I decided not to say so initially because these things are often in the eye of the beholder. Anyhow, what I said was not irrelevant (in my view) because I was directly responding to some of your points around the responsibility of soldiers. When a rejoinder occurs, in direct response to what someone else said, said rejoinder is not irrelevant.
    Post edited by rebornFixer on
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    aerial wrote:
    I'm tired I guess. My bad

    Who used the term "mindless drones" in the first place? I said that politicians decide when war is declared and therefore bear the ultimate responsibility for lives lost, and I stand by this statement. I'm pretty sure I've seen you make similar arguments, Cosmo, so am I not sure why you're jumping in when aerial posts a comment but not when NoK acts like I'm smoking the crack. I can agree that soldiers are not mindless drones, and that's not what I meant. Apparently if NoK had his way, everyone would quit the US military, and the fact that most soldiers have not done so means they are all horrible babykillers with no moral compass. Oh wait ... That's ridiculous hyperbole, right? Cool ... I expect the same courtesy, then. I didn't say they were mindless drones.
  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    rebornFixer wrote:
    NoK,

    I happen to think that many of your contributions to this thread are irrelevant, but I decided not to say so initially because these things are often in the eye of the beholder. Anyhow, what I said was not irrelevant (in my view) because I was directly responding to some of your points around the responsibility of soldiers. When a rejoinder occurs, in direct response to what someone else said, said rejoinder is not irrelevant.

    How about I point out to you in a step by step basis so you can understand.

    1) You said why don't people condemn others who generalise about white people, Israel, Christians

    2) I responded perhaps because they are not the ones being killed by the thousands, and millions

    3) You said "Yes but politicians are those doing the killing not soldiers"

    What the fuck does that have to do with anything in this specific debate we had? Now do you understand why your response is irrelevant?
  • NoK
    NoK Posts: 824
    rebornFixer wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    I'm tired I guess. My bad

    Who used the term "mindless drones" in the first place? I said that politicians decide when war is declared and therefore bear the ultimate responsibility for lives lost, and I stand by this statement. I'm pretty sure I've seen you make similar arguments, Cosmo, so am I not sure why you're jumping in when aerial posts a comment but not when NoK acts like I'm smoking the crack. I can agree that soldiers are not mindless drones, and that's not what I meant. Apparently if NoK had his way, everyone would quit the US military, and the fact that most soldiers have not done so means they are all horrible babykillers with no moral compass. Oh wait ... That's ridiculous hyperbole, right? Cool ... I expect the same courtesy, then. I didn't say they were mindless drones.

    If I had my way every military in the world will become an internal police force sort of like what Switzlerland has. Then an international force made up of different countries will constitute a world police force for international problems and emergencies. I guess my ways are shit and its better to just have wars though and kill millions of people.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    NoK wrote:
    How about I point out to you in a step by step basis so you can understand.

    1) You said why don't people condemn others who generalise about white people, Israel, Christians

    2) I responded perhaps because they are not the ones being killed by the thousands, and millions

    3) You said "Yes but politicians are those doing the killing not soldiers"

    What the fuck does that have to do with anything in this specific debate we had? Now do you understand why your response is irrelevant?

    Um, not quite. You missed the part where you slipped in the "foreign militaries" reference ... That was the portion I was responding to. It was a pretty clear reference to the culpability of soldiers, a conclusion further bolstered by your reference to mindless drones. I didn't respond to the rest because ... Well, because, what would be the point? If you think overgeneralizations about some groups are acceptable because of historical context, fine. I disagree, and fail to see how promoting reactance in said groups by pointing fingers left, right, and center is somehow going to produce positive change.

Categories