Jump to content

Gunman kills 12, wounds 30 at Fort Hood


Recommended Posts

It seems that political correctness in run amok in this tragedy, as PC definitely playing a part in playing down his motives for killing.

Then you can only blame those who cower at ever mention of courtesy and consideration and worry that they are somehow doing the wrong thing. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Scriblett,

As Lorne Gunter says: Imagine if a fundamentalist Christian soldier had shot up a room full of unarmed Muslims while shouting "Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour." Imagine he had a fascination with Old Testament stories of how God smote his followers' enemies. His pastor had advocated a new crusade to rid the Holy Land of non-Christians. He had hung out at a survivalist camp for a cultish group of white supremacists who claim a Heaven-sent mission.

Ok, I'm imagining - now what ? I'm imagining a lot of people blaming his Christianity and his militia background for it, jumping the gun as to the reasons for his actions and condemning Christianity and calling for more PC behavior.

Kind of like the mirror image of what's happening now. So what ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can't link!?!?!?

can't get more linked in then an ACTUAL VIDEO OF THE EVENT no?%!?!?

here it is AGAIN! (7th time!):

Here I was thinking it was a different event but, lo, it is still the same Henri Bourassa/Lester B Pearson high school fracas that has already been pointed out was multi racial and not racial but rather part of the linguistic tensions. Tsk Tsk.

and yeah "oktoberfest" is the equivalent of a white advocacy group... like the NAACP is to blacks... of course, of course... yes we all know its true!

lol...

)

I listed example after example that whites are not permitted to celebrate their "diversity":

I see you have used your noraml tactic of ewhen proven wrong, to change the criteria. You said and I quote "celebrate their diversity"

Oktober fest is not a celebration?

Shame...

you ask me for a link of a news story that hasn't been at all proselytized in the news... that was my central point... our media IGNORES BLACK ON WHITE CRIMES... and GIVE STAR BILLING TO WHITE ON BLACK ONES...

thank you once again for conceding my point...

The point is it was covered and by more than just you tube. The radio and print gave ample time and space to the ongoing tensions between two highschools and because your are a honest as a 3 dollar bill, you either ignore or obfuscate.

what's next? back to square 1?

you're still going to dispute VIDEO evidence and tell me that the Parc Carignan agression never happened?

It happened...just not the way you and your bodies at Stormfront wanted.

When you get tired of being here, perhaps Ringling Bros. has an opening for you.

Edited by M.Dancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you can only blame those who cower at ever mention of courtesy and consideration and worry that they are somehow doing the wrong thing. :lol:

Excuse me! May I please chop off your head? Thank you very much! You are so courteous and considerate.

Courteous and considerate if it is a blind obligation is how sheep act.

It has to be understood that there are individuals who do not have your best interests at heart. Unfortunately, being courteous and considerate cannot be universally applied. I cite the killing of 13 soldiers in Ft. Hood as an example of where courteous and considerate are not the best approach. There are many examples of this in history. A more famous example is of Lord Chamberlain in Britain during the nineteen-thirties.

I do believe this is the strategy of Barack Obama as well, being courteous and considerate.

Mind you in non-threatening environments it is a good practice to be courteous and considerate. And for the most part, 99% of the time, perhaps, we in North America are in a non-threatening environment. WE can even piss off our parents and not get a spanking these days. Heh. Heh. Heh. There are all manner of things that can be done to piss off other people once you have certain "rights" granted you, and although those "rights" look very courteous and considerate they are sometimes used as license to act inconsiderately and discourteously. And unfortunately, one can only look the other way - or face the full wrath of the politically correct crowd descending upon them if they should point their finger inthe worng direction.

I suppose that political correctness brings about a sort of obtuse myopia. It puts us in a kind of Wonderland similar to where Alice found herself where there are things that shouldn't be. Unfortunately, when those things are allowed to continue in the real world they wind up in tragedy. When you cannot condemn any individual of a particular race, religion, ethnicity for fear of being called a hate-monger then we are all for it. We must live with the likes of Osama Bin Laden, Major Hasan, delinquent kids, gangsta rap, criminality, et al, because we must be courteous and considerate above all. Who are "we"?

Everyone that ends up suffering because of the likes of Bin Laden, Hasan, delinquincy, criminality, etc., and the suffering is not bound to race, religion, ethnicity or any of those things. We are so intent to ensure equality we miss the point that none of us are equal. And it is certainly preferable to those who wish to take advantage of others that those others all believe that everyone is equal and must be courteous and considerate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you show up in public wearing a hood, people aren't interested in rallying behind your cause, even if it's something like "help find lost kittens a home day". I'm sorry, but that's just how it is.

That isn't how it is these days. Is it really wearing a hood that is the discerning factor? Helping to find lost kittens a home will rally quite a few people regardless.

We don't act as individuals these days we act as special interests. It is a way for individuals to feel safe - "united we stand"!

I have gone back and forth on whether I support anti-hate legislation but unfortunately those who defend it invariably end up being associated with the ugly element of society. Should any literature be banned ? In a perfect society, no it shouldn't. In our society, it absolutely should be IMO.

That sounds rather far-right and is rather unlike you! I AM shocked.

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny,

That isn't how it is these days. Is it really wearing a hood that is the discerning factor? Helping to find lost kittens a home will rally quite a few people regardless.

We don't act as individuals these days we act as special interests. It is a way for individuals to feel safe - "united we stand"!

We're discussing an example that shows that it's exactly how it is. We act as individuals, which is why events such as "European Heritage Day" would be shut down even if there could conceivably be some good to come out it.

It's not special interest, but personal revulsion that causes people to react to such things.

That sounds rather far-right and is rather unlike you! I AM shocked.

It's not an easy decision, and I was against banning literature in the past, but hearing US commentators demonizing all Muslims on the radio made me realize that minorities need protection from liars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny,

We're discussing an example that shows that it's exactly how it is. We act as individuals, which is why events such as "European Heritage Day" would be shut down even if there could conceivably be some good to come out it.

It's not special interest, but personal revulsion that causes people to react to such things.

It's not an easy decision, and I was against banning literature in the past, but hearing US commentators demonizing all Muslims on the radio made me realize that minorities need protection from liars.

Please tell us which US commentators are demonizing Muslims. I've listened to recent radio shows from both Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, and neither of them said anything remotely resembling an overall demonization of Muslims. They are always clear that they are referring to extremist/fundamentalist Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be David Horowitz

Show me what he said recently that demonized Muslims. If he has a radio show I will download it. I see NO anti-Muslim rhetoric AT ALL in the American media. What I do see is extreme left-wing radicals and extremist Muslim/Islamic organizations attacking those who recognize extremist/fundamentalist Islam as the threat it is as prejudice/racist bigots. In other words, I see left-wing extremists demonizing those who make honest, common sense observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gabriel,

I have heard others but it was Horrowitz, whom I heard on AM radio in 2005 with an absolutely hateful diatribe that convinced me that complete freedom of speech is dangerous. Check out his Wikipedia page - he seems to be a complete nut, and former associate of some terrorists himself.

You can get enough of a flavour for what he says from that page, and thanks to him I'm again in favour of banning hate literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gabriel,

I have heard others but it was Horrowitz, whom I heard on AM radio in 2005 with an absolutely hateful diatribe that convinced me that complete freedom of speech is dangerous. Check out his Wikipedia page - he seems to be a complete nut, and former associate of some terrorists himself.

You can get enough of a flavour for what he says from that page, and thanks to him I'm again in favour of banning hate literature.

Well, I am in agreement with you in regards to freedom of speech requiring limitations. There is no doubt in my mind that freedom of speech SHOULD NOT be absolute. That being said, I'm not about to trust Wikipedia's editorializing, as I know Wikipedia if full of left-wingers who lie and misrepresent the records/statements/opinions of those who they disagree with. I will also NOT take you word for it that he ever spewed a hateful diatribe about Muslims. From what I know of Horowitz, he is critical of extremist/fundamentalist Islam. There is nothing controversial of hateful or prejudiced or racist or bigoted about identifying who our enemies are. Extremist/fundamentalist Islam IS NOT equal to other forms of Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am in agreement with you in regards to freedom of speech requiring limitations. There is no doubt in my mind that freedom of speech SHOULD NOT be absolute.

There should be no limitations on what you can say, that is the point where it stops being 'free speech' and turns into controlled speech. We need more people to speak their mind openly without worrying about some crazy screwball hurting them, who missinterprets what they actually said or meant to say. People all get caught up in emotions and when that happens, they don't think straight and spew irrelevant garbage most sane people would simply ignore. Ignore them on the outset, but keep an eye on them, this is the best way to marginalize any topic or person.

However if there was a problem with this Dr. Hasan, it's those who recognized the issue and did not say anything that is the problem. Hasan can say whateveer he wants. The USA is set up to facilitate just that in documents like the Bill of Rights. If people are scared that they will get back lash from speaking out against Hasan, then you have been succesful in aquiring free speech limitations. Hasan has the right to make a threat (I guess),and others have the right to see that he does not act upon the threat.

I don't agree with all BC_2004 says, but I will not and nor will anyone else, deny his right to say what he wants to say. He has the freedom to say what he wants, and we all have the same freedom to agree or disagree with what he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gabriel

Well, I am in agreement with you in regards to freedom of speech requiring limitations. There is no doubt in my mind that freedom of speech SHOULD NOT be absolute. That being said, I'm not about to trust Wikipedia's editorializing, as I know Wikipedia if full of left-wingers who lie and misrepresent the records/statements/opinions of those who they disagree with. I will also NOT take you word for it that he ever spewed a hateful diatribe about Muslims. From what I know of Horowitz, he is critical of extremist/fundamentalist Islam. There is nothing controversial of hateful or prejudiced or racist or bigoted about identifying who our enemies are. Extremist/fundamentalist Islam IS NOT equal to other forms of Islam.

Well, your question was who was I listening to and the answer is Horowitz. He baits, deceives and generates hate dishonestly and it's clearer that he's doing this when you hear him live.

I think I've answered your question here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the mainstream media is finally dropping the "post tramatic stress sydrome/we don't really know why the shooter did what he did" theme.

When someone makes an anecdotal reference to something someone else said and then doesn't refer to it anymore, is that really dropping a theme?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gabriel,

I have heard others but it was Horrowitz, whom I heard on AM radio in 2005 with an absolutely hateful diatribe that convinced me that complete freedom of speech is dangerous. Check out his Wikipedia page - he seems to be a complete nut, and former associate of some terrorists himself.

You can get enough of a flavour for what he says from that page, and thanks to him I'm again in favour of banning hate literature.

But Michael, How would you ever know he was a complete nut?

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom to tell lies.

One must be able to express an opinion.

If we don't allow freedom of expression we will never have discussion and debate. Restricting speech would also not allow the detection of liars if all truth is oppressed.

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, back to the topic. It looks like the mainstream media is finally dropping the "post tramatic stress sydrome/we don't really know why the shooter did what he did" theme.

I note that among the items found in Hasan's apartment was a shoebox full of prescription drugs???

I will say that, in my opinion, Islamist extremism was his motivating factor, but I think what gave him the gonads to commit the act of terror were the drugs.

The act was treasonous, it was cowardly, unreasonable, irrational, illogical and perhaps there were signs of this. If something would have been done to intervene in his erratic or perhaps simply unacceptable extremist behavior what would have been the corrective action that would have prevented this travesty? A discharge from the army? Would he then have practiced medicine in the community or would he receive treatment for some diagnosed mental illness? Many have said there were signs of his extremism but what steps would have been taken to remedy and neutralize any danger? Would he have feared a discharge as much as he feared deployment?

The only thing that could have been done to prevent this tragedy is to have discharged him with the understanding he leave America. Then the tragedy would have occurred somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny

But Michael, How would you ever know he was a complete nut?

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom to tell lies.

One must be able to express an opinion.

If we don't allow freedom of expression we will never have discussion and debate. Restricting speech would also not allow the detection of liars if all truth is oppressed.

I thought freedom of speech did mean freedom to tell lies.

I'm not sure what the subtleties are being truths/untruths/opinions/facts in law, and I don't care. It's enough to focus on a reasonable interpretation of the text.

We're not interested in detecting liars, but in preventing people from generating civil discord. violence against identifiable groups. [edit]

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny

I thought freedom of speech did mean freedom to tell lies.

No. That must be made obvious.

I'm not sure what the subtleties are being truths/untruths/opinions/facts in law, and I don't care. It's enough to focus on a reasonable interpretation of the text.

Opinions may be interpreted as lies if someone has a contrary opinion. But let's differentiate between opinion and fact. Because lictor doesn't like multiculturalism and feels it's divisive, which I agree with by the way, because it separates cultures, and the fact is that it is divisive and not unifying. Remember how the tradition of the RCMP uniform was changed. Whether or not it should have changed and accommodated another culture is not the problem. The problem was it was enforced by law and was divisive. I don't think prejudice or racism played a part particularly, it was more a desire to maintain tradition, as any culture attempts to do. The resultant law did overide any objections and the culture was thus perceived to be of less importance to our bureaucrats than other cultures. What we need is to let society and not law engineer the culture. Unfortunately, I can agree that without much individuality in society any change from the majority concept of culture would be difficult.

An argument for multiculturalism perhaps has some merit in that cultural change may become impossible and society stagnates, as is evident in places such as Afghanistan.

In the end reason must be balanced with force (law).

If a multicultural country is the object of society the government will use it's force to enable that. However, I think the government took it upon itself to engineer the multicultural society at the expense of the existing culture. Not a wise or reasonable course if the cultural identity of Canada is entriely lost in the process.

My opinion.

We're not interested in detecting liars, but in preventing people from generating civil discord. violence against identifiable groups. [edit]

Wouldn't it be nice to have detected that Hasan was a traitor to his pretended allegiance to the American armed forces? The life he lived was an entire lie.

For the most part no one is going to tell you they are going to instigate "violence against identifiable groups" or "generate civil discord". If they did you would probably disbelieve them and write them off as discontented ninnies or just nutcases, as happened in Hasan's case.

Was Hasan a true American patriot, an Islamist extremist, or a nutcase? I think only the fact he was a nutcase was detected and they moved him around because he was annoying.

One could make the case he was schizophrenic or had multiple personality disorder, and I think that probably will be his defense, but I think those things are fabrications and excuses for destructive behavior. Let's just call it being a liar.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...