toolbox 0 #1 May 21, 2013 Why wasn't the fort hood shooting considered and islamic extremist act of jihad? The shooter was in contact with islamic extremist groups,and had been expressing islamic extremist views shortly before the shooting spree. Why wasn't this guy considered a traitorous enemy combatant by Obama? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,099 #2 May 21, 2013 >Why did Obama call the fort hood shooting workplace violence? Because he went to Fort Hood, his workplace, and shot 13 people there. So it was workplace violence. It was also gun violence, and Islamic extremist violence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,499 #3 May 21, 2013 Ummm - because that's what it was. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 May 21, 2013 billvon>Why did Obama call the fort hood shooting workplace violence? Because he went to Fort Hood, his workplace, and shot 13 people there. So it was workplace violence. It was also gun violence, and Islamic extremist violence. workplace violence typically connotes a case of a disgruntled worker taking revenge on his perceived oppressors. If Fort Hood was about Islamic Jihad, then it's not a very proper description. If he was just pissed (or insane) at his life and used Islam as an excuse, then yes. Gun violence, otoh, is rarely a helpful term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 532 #5 May 21, 2013 Maybe that's why he's still being paid his salary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,099 #6 May 21, 2013 >workplace violence typically connotes a case of a disgruntled worker taking revenge >on his perceived oppressors. Sometimes it's that. Sometimes it's a guy who just goes crazy. Sometimes it's a guy with a political point to make, or someone who does not like his co-workers race, or religion, or ethnicity. Sometimes it's just a thief. Sometimes it's a combination of the above. Here's a list from the Florida sheriff's office: =========== Listed below are the five types of violence that occur in the workplace: Armed Robbery: This is the most prevalent form; constituting approximately 75-80% of workplace violence. The assailant(s) use force to obtain money and / or goods. Customer / Client-on-Employee / Supervisor: This type of crime differs from armed robbery in the respect that monetary gain is not the motivation for violence. Employee or Former Employee-on-Fellow Employees and / or Supervisors: This is perhaps the most notorious type of workplace violence; otherwise known as the "disgruntled employee". Spouse / Partner-on-Employee: This type of incident is usually an artifact of domestic violence that spills over into the workplace. Terrorism / Hate Crime: This type of workplace violence is typically motivated by intentions to advance a religious or political agenda. ============ >Gun violence, otoh, is rarely a helpful term. If you are wondering whether he used a gun or a bomb it's pretty useful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,099 #7 May 21, 2013 >Maybe that's why he's still being paid his salary. He's still being paid a salary because he's a soldier, and thus his pay cannot be suspended until he has been proven guilt per the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 532 #8 May 21, 2013 One of the few ways to be paid after a crime. Not many civilians are quite so lucky. Hopefully they will dock his pay sufficiently to cover these amounts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #9 May 21, 2013 billvon >Why did Obama call the fort hood shooting workplace violence? Because he went to Fort Hood, his workplace, and shot 13 people there. So it was workplace violence. It was also gun violence, and Islamic extremist violence. You forgot to mention that it would be counter productive to the current administrations previous (pre election) projected image.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,099 #10 May 21, 2013 >You forgot to mention that it would be counter productive to the current >administrations previous (pre election) projected image. And of course the military does not want their image as hallowed heroes tarnished by this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #11 May 22, 2013 This guy was a US military officer who shot up his fellow soldiers. He was not just another pissed off postal worker,he was a professional soldier. He is known to have had contact with islamic extremist prior to the attack. He knew what he was doing when he attacked his fellow servicemen and women. He should be treated as an islamic terrorist and the shooting should have been declared as a terrorist attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,099 #12 May 22, 2013 >He was not just another pissed off postal worker,he was a professional soldier. Correct. His workplace was a military base. >He knew what he was doing when he attacked his fellow servicemen and women. Most workplace killers do. >He should be treated as an islamic terrorist Except he's in the military, which means they - not you - get to decide. (Given that he will probably get the death penalty, not too much difference in any case.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #13 May 22, 2013 >not too much difference in any case. Big difference to the people who were wounded and to the families of those who were killed. Big difference from a political standpoint as well. The biggest difference is that most workers do not take an oath like the people who serve in our military do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,099 #14 May 22, 2013 >Big difference to the people who were wounded and to the families of those >who were killed. Hmm. I suspect what really bothered those families is that their son/daughter/husband/wife was killed, not that it happened in their workplace. But that's just me. >Big difference from a political standpoint as well. Yes, I am sure that anti-Islamic types could call it what they like and use it for some excellent spin. Using dead soldiers for spin is not high on my list, personally. >The biggest difference is that most workers do not take an oath like the people >who serve in our military do. Uh, right. And most soldiers do not take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. But we would call a doctor who went on a rampage in a hospital a "workplace killing" too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 May 22, 2013 billvon>Big difference to the people who were wounded and to the families of those >who were killed. Hmm. I suspect what really bothered those families is that their son/daughter/husband/wife was killed, not that it happened in their workplace. But that's just me. >Big difference from a political standpoint as well. Yes, I am sure that anti-Islamic types could call it what they like and use it for some excellent spin. Using dead soldiers for spin is not high on my list, personally. >The biggest difference is that most workers do not take an oath like the people >who serve in our military do. Uh, right. And most soldiers do not take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. But we would call a doctor who went on a rampage in a hospital a "workplace killing" too. If he was screaming Allah Akbar as he murdered people we certainly would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,099 #16 May 22, 2013 >If he was screaming Allah Akbar as he murdered people we certainly would. Agreed; that would be a workplace killing too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #17 May 22, 2013 billvon>If he was screaming Allah Akbar as he murdered people we certainly would. Agreed; that would be a workplace killing too. This was no workplace violence just because it happened "at work". There is evidence Hasan was in contact with a member of al qaeda before the attack. Quote: Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL), a former prosecutor at the base, told KXAS he and a bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel asking for the casualties incurred in the Fort Hood attack to be reclassified to allow the victims the benefits tied to combat-related injuries. “What happened here is not a case of workplace violence,” Rooney said to the station. “What happened here was an attack on our military by a terrorist element specifically targeting our military, which just so happened to be in the United States of America.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/21/report-fort-hood-shooting-suspect-made-278000-while-in-jail/Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 May 22, 2013 billvon>If he was screaming Allah Akbar as he murdered people we certainly would. Agreed; that would be a workplace killing too. Yeah, and he would also be a serial killer. What makes it terror is that he was doing it for a religious, political or ideological cause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,099 #19 May 22, 2013 >Yeah, and he would also be a serial killer. What makes it terror is that he was >doing it for a religious, political or ideological cause. Agreed. It would be all three. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,099 #20 May 22, 2013 >This was no workplace violence just because it happened "at work" By definition it was. If it happened at home it would be domestic violence AND terrorism AND serial killing. Since it happened at work it was workplace violence AND terrorism AND serial killing. “What happened here is not a case of workplace violence,” Wow, a politician trying to score political points off a mass killing! Shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #21 May 22, 2013 "Wow, a politician trying to score political points off a mass killing! Shocking". Trust me. This is bigger than you think. The wounded and the families of those killed will have their day.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 282 #22 May 22, 2013 rickjump1 Trust me. This is bigger than you think. This phrase keeps getting trotted out again and again and again lately. I'm sorry, but it's got about as much impact as it would if you used that line on a one night stand... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #23 May 22, 2013 rickjump1The wounded and the families of those killed will have their day. Indeed they will. They will testify at the defendant's trial. If you meant more than that, then I have a generic "foil hat" comment to offer you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 1,882 #24 May 22, 2013 Quote it's got about as much impact as it would if you used that line on a one night stand... I'm so going to remember that so I can use it some time Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #25 May 22, 2013 wmw999 Quote it's got about as much impact as it would if you used that line on a one night stand... I'm so going to remember that so I can use it some time Wendy P. I've just added it to my hard drive in the Steal This Joke folder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
