0
toolbox

Why did Obama call the fort hood shooting workplace violence?

Recommended Posts

davjohns

1. There are two sides to this. Some people want to play down the Islamic element and therefore do not call it terrorism. But it is. I also note that the British did not prosecute IRA for terrorism when that battle was ongoing. They treated them purely as criminals. It kept their cause from taking on legitimacy. Perhaps it is more insulting to this guy to just treat him as a criminal. Worse, suggest that his jihadist perspective is the result of mental defect. Hmmmm.... Personally, I just want to refer to it all as, 'the circumstances precipitating his execution' as soon as possible.

2. I'm still trying to figure out why it took the administration so long to call the Boston Marathon bombing 'terrorism'. Surely nobody thought it was a pick pocketing gone horribly wrong?



First off, the Boston marathon bombing wasn't a terrorist attack, it was a pressure cooker that failed it's pressure test...

Second, as long as they don't label the fort hood shooting work place violence instead of a terrorist attack, the victims are not eligible for purple hearts and can be denied certain VA benefits...

Third, I heard Obama gets a kick back from VA of 5% of all benefits that get denied to veterans and there is legislation in the works to have that money funneled to Democratic campaign funds....B|

....OK, I made the third part up...:ph34r:

But because Obama is try to say "GM is alive and Bin Laden is dead" there are troops that are being denied services...
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toolbox

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?

http://news.yahoo.com/dod-ft-hood-massacre-likely-criminal-act-single-025957402--abc-news-topstories.html Interesting article from ABC News. This one won't go away, and US Army admits it would change the classification of this event should "new, relevant evidence" arise. More political correctness/pressure from the white house won't keep a lid on this one.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On occasions, people in high places, including those wearing stars, step on their pricks big time, and this is not going away.

Quote: Munley said, "It is clear that the Army and the government will continue to not take responsibility for allowing a known terrorist to slip through the ranks while having multiple associations with the now-deceased Anwar al-Awlaki and has complete disregard for those injured on that horrifying day."

In Chipman's letter, he said the Army is willing to reconsider their classification of the event should "new, relevant evidence" arise".

"The Army's decision, in no way, diminishes the common goal of ensuring the victims are treated and cared for promptly and compassionately," the letter says. "Although we cannot undo the outcome of that day, taking care of those affected by the Fort Hood shooting... remains one of the Army's top priorities."
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll have to mull this one over.

I don't know of a way to make 9/11 clearly an act of terrorism. It could have simply been the criminal acts of a lone group of men. Since they all died in the acts, it is hard to be certain what their intentions were.

ETA:

Did some quick research. It appears to me that he was motivated by extremist Islamic views...and mental problems.

Found this definition: "There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."

I think the known facts and circumstances suggest his actions were consistant with this definition. The fact that he also had mental issues does not change that. It does bring up a huge discussion about religious extremism and mental health, however.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns

I'll have to mull this one over.

I don't know of a way to make 9/11 clearly an act of terrorism. It could have simply been the criminal acts of a lone group of men. Since they all died in the acts, it is hard to be certain what their intentions were.

ETA:

Did some quick research. It appears to me that he was motivated by extremist Islamic views...and mental problems.

Found this definition: "There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."

I think the known facts and circumstances suggest his actions were consistant with this definition. .

\

So which government or segment of the civilian population was intimidated or coerced? Were you? I certainly wasn't.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really...So Hussien Obama could avoid an act of terrorism occurring during his term! He did a great dis-service to the survivors by not calling it what it was TERRORISM. For those of you who disagree, when a piece of shit starts firing shouting Allah Akbar its terrorism! BTW the survivors get no financial relief/help because it was classified workplace violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend


So which government or segment of the civilian population was intimidated or coerced? Were you? I certainly wasn't.



How about the segment that the airlines occupy? Both government and civilian population.

When they stopped allowing toenail clippers, tie tacks with a silhouette of a gun, or any lighters past security perhaps?

When they started making everyone, even little old ladies remove their shoes to check for bombs? Like any woman would ever blow up a pair of shoes!

When anyone going onto an airliner had to endure hours of wait for a search that was pathetically inadequate, I think the terrorists achieved their objectives.

Look at the aftermath of the Boston bombing. Civilians intimidated by a teenager into allowing warrantless searches of their homes because it was an "emergency."
US Senators calling for the suspension of the suspect's constitutional rights.

I'd say that in both cases, the terrorists did a pretty good job of scaring the living daylights out of the sheep and making them submit to indignities that did very little to make them safer. (note that even after the "Shoe Bomber" failed, the "Underwear Bomber" could have been very successful if he had constructed the bomb properly).
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hussien Obama



Yes!! Yet another thread in which you remind us of how foreign-MOOZLIM-ish he is.
I'm sure you don't realize it, but every time you folks do shit like that, intelligent conservatives who would actually like to win some elections outside of Red States just in despair and wish you were on some other team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

***
So which government or segment of the civilian population was intimidated or coerced? Were you? I certainly wasn't.



How about the segment that the airlines occupy? Both government and civilian population.

.

The airlines were intimidated/coerced by the Fort Hood gunman? Tell us more.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

Quote

Hussien Obama



Yes!! Yet another thread in which you remind us of how foreign-MOOZLIM-ish he is.
I'm sure you don't realize it, but every time you folks do shit like that, intelligent conservatives who would actually like to win some elections outside of Red States just in despair and wish you were on some other team.



And the Democrats thank you for your campaign contribution.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

******
So which government or segment of the civilian population was intimidated or coerced? Were you? I certainly wasn't.



How about the segment that the airlines occupy? Both government and civilian population.

.

The airlines were intimidated/coerced by the Fort Hood gunman? Tell us more.

The quote in your post (that I left out to keep it a bit neater) had this:

Quote

I don't know of a way to make 9/11 clearly an act of terrorism

.

It wasn't really clear that it was referring to the Ft Hood shooter. My mistake.

But clearly, the anti-Islam idiots were clearly intimidated by it. Their overwhelming fear and hatred of Muslims and their places of worship show it.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

*********
So which government or segment of the civilian population was intimidated or coerced? Were you? I certainly wasn't.



How about the segment that the airlines occupy? Both government and civilian population.

.

The airlines were intimidated/coerced by the Fort Hood gunman? Tell us more.

The quote in your post (that I left out to keep it a bit neater) had this:

Quote

I don't know of a way to make 9/11 clearly an act of terrorism

.

It wasn't really clear that it was referring to the Ft Hood shooter. My mistake.

But clearly, the anti-Islam idiots were clearly intimidated by it. Their overwhelming fear and hatred of Muslims and their places of worship show it.

Nice way to take it out of context.

AFTER that sentence he wrote "Did some quick research. It appears to me that he was motivated by extremist Islamic views...and mental problems. " and "I think the known facts and circumstances suggest his actions were consistant with this definition. "

So yes, you were mistaken.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Done mulling. I have decided that there is a fact in there that is pretty decisive.

He avoided killing civilians and targeted military.

It is too easy to couple this to his recent radicalization as reported by co-workers, emails with a radical Imam asking if killing innocents was ok, his comments about Muslims killing Muslims, his concern about deploying to Afghanistan and supporting a fight against Muslims, etc. It creates a clear pattern. But even if you threw out the known history...you can't escape the one point. He targeted military. He was sending a message. He had an agenda. It was terrorism.

If it was merely insanity or workplace violence, there was no reason for him to walk past cowering civilians without engaging them. He was killing the people that he likely saw as killers of Muslims. He grew more radical, armed himself, trained himself, went to a place where there were Soldiers and civilians, and started killing the Soldiers after a brief prayer and yelling "Allahu Akbar".

Now, it is possible his wife told him she was screwing a Soldier at his work, but not which one, and he was a patient and thorough fellow. But lacking evidence of such unusual circumstances, the facts clearly indicate he was motivated by radical Islam and targeted US Military personnel based on his beliefs.

As to who was intimidated? It was the most deadly killing spree on a US Military post. It was conducted by a US Army officer. He was a counselor who was supposed to be trustworthy with people's most intimate thoughts and feelings. He targeted Military personnel in an environment where they were supposed to be relatively secure.

Let me make this perfectly clear...there certainly is such a thing as a dumb question.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. You are saying its terrorism BECAUSE he targeted military? I'd have said it was defined as terrorism more if he had targeted civilians... (9/11 for example)
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stumpy

I'm curious, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. You are saying its terrorism BECAUSE he targeted military? I'd have said it was defined as terrorism more if he had targeted civilians... (9/11 for example)



You understand correctly. I think the fact that he had a specific target set indicates it was not merely workplace violence. It was not merely a warped mind (unless you get into the radical Islam = warped mind debate). In military planning, we pick specific targets to achieve a specific effect. He chose specific targets for a specific effect. He was sending a message. Taken in context with his recent communications and actions, he was attacking those he saw as the enemies of Muslims. He was trying to intimidate or coerece a segment of the population, using violence, in support of his personal views. His actions meet the definition of terrorism.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns

You understand correctly. I think the fact that he had a specific target set indicates it was not merely workplace violence. It was not merely a warped mind (unless you get into the radical Islam = warped mind debate).



I can see your point, but I look at it a bit differently. If this were a postal worker that went into work and made it a point to only shoot the postal employees and not the civilians in line, would you label it the same way? What about someone who went into their office and shot all managers but left the worker bees alone? I am not saying your analysis is incorrect, just not necessarily a given.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns

***I'm curious, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. You are saying its terrorism BECAUSE he targeted military? I'd have said it was defined as terrorism more if he had targeted civilians... (9/11 for example)



You understand correctly. I think the fact that he had a specific target set indicates it was not merely workplace violence. It was not merely a warped mind (unless you get into the radical Islam = warped mind debate). In military planning, we pick specific targets to achieve a specific effect. He chose specific targets for a specific effect. He was sending a message. Taken in context with his recent communications and actions, he was attacking those he saw as the enemies of Muslims. He was trying to intimidate or coerece a segment of the population, using violence, in support of his personal views. His actions meet the definition of terrorism.

Using that logic, anyone (such as a postal worker) who shoots up his workplace is a terrorist. And Cho was a terrorist. And Holmes was a terrorist. And Kazmierczak was a terrorist, and Dann was a terrorist, and Lanza was a terrorist (since all of them targeted a segment of the population).

Makes the definition pretty useless, doesn't it?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
okalb

***You understand correctly. I think the fact that he had a specific target set indicates it was not merely workplace violence. It was not merely a warped mind (unless you get into the radical Islam = warped mind debate).



I can see your point, but I look at it a bit differently. If this were a postal worker that went into work and made it a point to only shoot the postal employees and not the civilians in line, would you label it the same way? What about someone who went into their office and shot all managers but left the worker bees alone? I am not saying your analysis is incorrect, just not necessarily a given.

You are correct. But you had to add facts that are not in evidence.

If he shot everyone in the office, he could have been motivated by pressures at work. He worked with military and civilians but avoided shooting the civilian co-workers.

If he shot only his supervisors, we could have concluded he felt he was being treated unfairly by management. There is no evidence he did so.

If it was people who taunted him, people with red hair, etc., we could find a different conclusion.

Like I said, there may be a reason he had it in for Soldiers. Maybe he saw someone in uniform key his car and he over-reacted. However, taken in context with his previous words, emails, and actions, it is clear he had an issue with the military for religious reasons.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...it is clear he had an issue with the military for religious reasons.



That still doesn't make it terrorism. He had to have been trying to create public fear and influence policy through the creation of terror for it to have been terrorism. Maybe he was doing that, I don't know.

Either way, what difference does it make? He acted alone. What was going through his mind when he acted shouldn't influence us as a nation, unless you believe we should bow down to "terrorists".

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was pointing out how the present administration is reluctant to call crimes such as this terrorism when I started this thread.
I do not like republicans anymore than I like democrats,but at the moment I feel democrats are more of a threat towards freedom and liberty with their nanny state tendencies and PC bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

...it is clear he had an issue with the military for religious reasons.



That still doesn't make it terrorism. He had to have been trying to create public fear and influence policy through the creation of terror for it to have been terrorism. Maybe he was doing that, I don't know.

Either way, what difference does it make? He acted alone. What was going through his mind when he acted shouldn't influence us as a nation, unless you believe we should bow down to "terrorists".



You substituted your own definition of terrorism. Fine with me. It's just hard to have a discussion when you change the terms of reference.

I'm not sure how much it matters what it is called. It does, however, change what resources are applied. Terrorism would receive attention from DHS, FBI, etc. Workplace violence is a local issue...in this case, just a Military Justice issue. I didn't see it in the OP query, but you asked, so I threw out that idea.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0