Jump to content

Gunman kills 12, wounds 30 at Fort Hood


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pliny

No. That must be made obvious.

Well, shouldn't it be ? The idea of making lying illegal seems like excessive state intrusion to me. I'm not sure why you would support that - it seems impractical.

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.

Culture is pretty difficult to change, and sometimes it needs to be changed. The US civil rights act in the 1960s, coupled with centrally programmed culture (corporate control, advertising, press and entertainment media controlled from New York City) broke down prejudices that were ingrained. Would America have eventually changed ? Perhaps. South Africa didn't change until 25 years later though.

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.

I was going to use that as a 2nd example after the US. Imagine what a progressive but intelligent government could achieve if there was a will there.

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.

I'm of the opinion that culture is fluid. We should try to preserve history, in order to provide some meaning and some sense of belonging to our descendants but we shouldn't try to preserve culture.

Values are something that we should preserve at the core ( as they're defined in our constitution ) but those too need to be modified over longer periods of time. We went to war for God, Queen and Country in the 20th century and lost over 100,000 Canadian lives in the World Wars alone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that significant numbers of teenage men would be willing to die for Prince Charles. Maybe I'm out on a limb here.

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.

You don't need these people to tell you - you can recognize it in what they say. It's evident when you hear Horowitz that he's identifying and putting blame on a group - whether or not you agree with his point of view.

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.

I don't think the Hasan case is relevant to a discussion on multiculturalism, freedom of the press and so forth - whether he was a patriot, an extremist, or unstable. He was a threat and that's enough to know.

I appreciate the fact that multiculturalism, and culture change in general imposed by law is difficult. And I'm not entirely comfortable with sections of our constitution that limit free speech either. But the best thing that can result from these parts of our system are that they generate interest and intense discussion, such as happens here.

If there are enough eyes, and differing points of view on the philosophy behind these things it will help ensure that some kind of consensus - however brittle - will result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was obviously not enamoured with Virginia. He should reside where his loyalties lie, wouldn't you think?

Not at all....we don't deport US citizens (except in fraudulent cases). There are millions of Muslims living fine, upstanding lives in the USA...have been for decades. But what we will do is convict and execute according to the law....just ask the now deceased DC Sniper. Allah Akbar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The authorities were non-responsive when the pentagon was attacked. They did not take precautions nor heed the warning signs of the 9 11 tradgedy - and now they ignored a classic Manchurian candidate at Fort Hood..Either those that are in control are stupid or wicked and facilitate this perpetuation of ongoing warfare and general public fear and apprehesion - Either way it should not have happened - shame on them - Now poor Obama is having second thoughts about sending over 40 thousand men and women to Afghanistan - perhaps he understands that many will be killed and maimed and guilt is setting in. They could leave that theatre tomorrow and it would make no difference - what a waste of life and resourses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all....we don't deport US citizens (except in fraudulent cases). There are millions of Muslims living fine, upstanding lives in the USA...have been for decades. But what we will do is convict and execute according to the law....just ask the now deceased DC Sniper. Allah Akbar!

That is, I suppose, a kind of deportation! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey BC - someone is aware that certain people are a danger to the inner nest. Seems that facilitation of evil events is the same as committing them directly - They knew who this guy was. They knew that he was capable of great and devestating mischief. They knew that he was capable of acting out this crime in time...BUT they don't give a f**k.

How and I as HOW - could it be that the Pentagon that is the very nerve centre and brain of the American international miltary complex would allow these supposed fanatics to strike the head of the dragon itself? HOW is this posssible that this that is the most powerful building in the world holding the very fuel of American projective power suffer such a wound..It's almost biblical in scope - that the dragon suffers a head wound and recovers!

There is something very very fishy going on here. It reminds me of a person who must be attacked..who must be villianized. It is as if I or you would put a child in danger...fail to protect that vulnerable person...Then we see a lone wolf luking about - we know the wolf will consume the child...we know that it is a matter of time - But we must have justification for the legalized and moblizing of a wolf hunting party..so we allow the wolf to kill..and act surprised but in our hearts we have caused this situation..IT is impossible that the higher ups did not see this coming - It is impossible that they could not fend off an attack by amateurs of the Pentagon - what the hell is wrong with America? Are the stupid or are the evil - to eat your own young and push it off as something that could not be averted is absurd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny

Well, shouldn't it be ? The idea of making lying illegal seems like excessive state intrusion to me. I'm not sure why you would support that - it seems impractical.

I never advocated a law to make lying illegal - and it would be impractical. I advocate for better education. Barack Obama may not be lying and really believe what he says but his demagoguery should be seen for what it is - just plain feel good politics. He speaks mainly in generalities and slogans and not effective or even sensible policy. People would do better to just ignore his kind of rhetoric.

Culture is pretty difficult to change, and sometimes it needs to be changed. The US civil rights act in the 1960s, coupled with centrally programmed culture (corporate control, advertising, press and entertainment media controlled from New York City) broke down prejudices that were ingrained. Would America have eventually changed ? Perhaps. South Africa didn't change until 25 years later though.

Were laws necessary? It was laws that kept Blacks in the back of the bus all those years and kept prejudices ingrained. Laws gave them force.

Society was progressing, all that was necessary was to strike down segregation and racist laws that was perpetuating inequality and racism.

I was going to use that as a 2nd example after the US. Imagine what a progressive but intelligent government could achieve if there was a will there.

I am not against progress but the aggrandizement of the State is not progress and the granting of powers to the State to define progress is a mistake.

I'm of the opinion that culture is fluid. We should try to preserve history, in order to provide some meaning and some sense of belonging to our descendants but we shouldn't try to preserve culture.

Culture is definitely fluid, I agree.

Values are something that we should preserve at the core ( as they're defined in our constitution ) but those too need to be modified over longer periods of time. We went to war for God, Queen and Country in the 20th century and lost over 100,000 Canadian lives in the World Wars alone.

Well, values and mores are learned social behaviors, as long as they reflect understanding in application and are not blindly followed, such as killing the first born if it is female as the Eskimos did. There may have been a purpose for that long ago but it is not an applicable or acceptable practice anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that significant numbers of teenage men would be willing to die for Prince Charles. Maybe I'm out on a limb here.

I won't be calling you "Shirley" on that one.

You don't need these people to tell you - you can recognize it in what they say. It's evident when you hear Horowitz that he's identifying and putting blame on a group - whether or not you agree with his point of view.

You recognize it but some obviously don't.

I don't think the Hasan case is relevant to a discussion on multiculturalism, freedom of the press and so forth - whether he was a patriot, an extremist, or unstable. He was a threat and that's enough to know.

I appreciate the fact that multiculturalism, and culture change in general imposed by law is difficult. And I'm not entirely comfortable with sections of our constitution that limit free speech either. But the best thing that can result from these parts of our system are that they generate interest and intense discussion, such as happens here.

If there are enough eyes, and differing points of view on the philosophy behind these things it will help ensure that some kind of consensus - however brittle - will result.

Well, a balance of reason and force are necessary. Remember, the State only supplies the force and reason must not be left to the politician or the bureaucrat and force engaged only to correct injustice which must not be confused with "making" all things equal.

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lying is illegal. In this world we live in institutions have formed where lying is passable..and exceptable - it is because the very buisness of politics and law is all about lying - technically it is illegal but morally it is okay these days.. To quote a legalist.."It may be immoral but it is legal"... Lying kills - If I say to a man in a darkened rain storm that the bridge is NOT washed out...when in fact it is - and that person drives off into the river and drowns - then my lie has killed the person..I would have committed murder - Lying about weapons of mass destruction killed thousands of civilians and soldiers..but apparently it is legal...what a strange and nasty system we have - sorry - lying is bad ...BUT in the alternative - I personally have stopped telling the truth to corrupt and lying people - I leaned the hard way not to be kind to the wicked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny,

Were laws necessary? It was laws that kept Blacks in the back of the bus all those years and kept prejudices ingrained. Laws gave them force.

Society was progressing, all that was necessary was to strike down segregation and racist laws that was perpetuating inequality and racism.

That's kind of a semantic distinction. In fact there were laws in some cases, and practices in other cases. Laws can be brought in to enforce behavior that society sees as moral, however as you point in the reason has to come from elsewhere.

I believe we are on the cusp of understanding each other here, and it seems to me that the grey area is the area where we may differ, which is as it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny,

That's kind of a semantic distinction. In fact there were laws in some cases, and practices in other cases. Laws can be brought in to enforce behavior that society sees as moral, however as you point in the reason has to come from elsewhere.

I believe we are on the cusp of understanding each other here, and it seems to me that the grey area is the area where we may differ, which is as it should be.

Law should be a matter of black and white. Of right and wrong. Either something generates distruction of peace,property and responsible general freedom OR it generates mayhem, poverty and suffering. There should be no semantics in regards to real rule of law. Death is not life and life is not death..there are no grey areas. Semantics are always deceptive - You could say "I did not murder the man, I simply changed him"..This buisness about are consitution and bill of rights being an "evolving and breathing" document only opens the door to self serving deviancy. Having mentined that..the older I get - the more black and white things appear - BUT living in a world of moral relavatism puts me in a very un-popular light...a visionary can see if you do this - that will occur which will lead to an unhappy end...There should be firm laws in place that lead to social harm..but there are not - because society does not think in moral terms..nor does the judicary...Most are self serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OB

Clearly, that's not the case or you wouldn't have had federal and state courts overruling each other in the 1960s. [edited to add] Or trying to overrule each other in the states' case.

People forget the America - is the unitied countries of America - the united states..of course this supposed republic that has never been well defined is going to battle it out and attempt to over rule the other. It might mean calling America, America..and dump the united. The idea of a federal feudalism attempting to say that individual states are free to come and go as they please is kind of absurd. A country signifies real estate (land holdings) - A nation signfies a family, a large extended family..apparently America is not one big happy family - nor are our provinces...When they said that Quebec is a nation with in a nation (a family within a family) was the easiest way to appease Quebec - They could not have said it was a country withing a country or that would have send out the message that Quebec is NOT a tenant state. Point being. Feudalism and federalism is the same thing - I just want to know where the king is...? lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must say one more thing on this topic. I will keep it simple. If they saw it coming - or a possiblity of it coming - or even a semi-imagined threat of this horror coming - why did they not stop it...? I have the answer to that - the whole system has gotten to the point that there is no protective symbolic patriarchy anymore - IF I want to protect my son from the local dope fiend that might effect my son...I should just be able to go break his coke sniffing nose - That would be a pre-emptive and protective thing to do...but we live in a world of tolerance - where evil has protection - so we have to wait till the bad thing happens..then it is to late - AND If the authorities would have done what was right and removed this crazed Major Islamic Shrink - THEY would have saved lives but THEY would have been persecuted for not being polically correct..so political correctness cost the lives and bodies of all these soldiers - better to be politically correcty and "tolerant" and let evil kill rather than offend evil - what a mess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all....we don't deport US citizens (except in fraudulent cases). There are millions of Muslims living fine, upstanding lives in the USA...have been for decades. But what we will do is convict and execute according to the law....just ask the now deceased DC Sniper. Allah Akbar!

Or just ask Timothy McVeigh. Allah Akbar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or just ask Timothy McVeigh. Allah Akbar?

I love this reply. Actually, Webster's apparently has a new definition for the words "split second"

It's now defined as the length of time between a violent muslim attack and someone on the left expressing concern about "possible backlash against muslims" and bringing up "Timothy McVeigh".

It happens so often (about every 4 months since 9-11 statistically) it's gotten to the point of pure comedy.

Perhaps we'll get used to the next headline: "Muslims fear backlash against muslims in the wake of tomorrow's bombings".

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this reply. Actually, Webster's apparently has a new definition for the words "split second"

It's now defined as the length of time between a violent muslim attack and someone on the left expressing concern about "possible backlash against muslims" and bringing up "Timothy McVeigh".

It happens so often (about every 4 months since 9-11 statistically) it's gotten to the point of pure comedy.

Perhaps we'll get used to the next headline: "Muslims fear backlash against muslims in the wake of tomorrow's bombings".

:lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one guy who covers all the bases.

Call it what it is: "islamist terror".

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, "Allahu akbar!" ("God is great!") committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it's an act of terror. Period.

The classic signs of islamist terrorism were present.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit -- well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

Obama doesn't believe in islamist terrorism.

But the president won't. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there's no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

Nasan will cost taxpayers a mint.

Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There'll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn't dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.

The army was derelict in its duty.

Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Fort Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would've been gone with the simoom. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.

A religion of peace indeed!

But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?

A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she's becoming too Westernized.

Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we're assured that "Islam's a religion of peace."

I guarantee you that the Obama administration's nonresponse to the Fort Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/call_this_horror_by_its_name_islamist_HT78Wt6NkWoCGq5HIOwlII

When thinking of Obama's immediate reaction to the Fort Hood massacre all that resonates are his words "don't jump to conclusions". Americans in general are miles ahead of him in having a handle on the real problem that islamist terrorism increasingly presents for their country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, you didn't blame his religion, but as you admit you did factor it in, whether or not you did with him specifically.

What exactly is wrong with stating that his religion was central to his violence? Sure, he was a loser, but if he was a loser and a Mennonite I doubt he'd have picked up a pair of pistols and started shooting people while shouting God is Great.

As for the idiots who cheer on his actions, well, plenty of people cheer on torture, rape, soldiers losing their marbles and shooting into crowds

Could you perhaps provide a few citations for this odd statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There have to be limits on those who advocate violence. Do you want a charismatic Muslim Imam to be entirely free to get up in front of crowds of gullible young men every day and scream about how God demands they kill on his behalf, that they destroy the evil non-believers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of a semantic distinction. In fact there were laws in some cases, and practices in other cases. Laws can be brought in to enforce behavior that society sees as moral, however as you point in the reason has to come from elsewhere.

Reason blocked by the force of law will not prevail. It took millenia to erase legally recognized slavery. It took almost the whole history of mankind's existence to consider women something more than chattel. The rescinding of racist/segregationist laws would not have eliminated racism/segregation immediately - however, we would have to hope without the force of law to protect racist/segregationist social concepts that reason would bring about understanding that Blacks were indeed entitled to the sanctity of person and property as much as anyone else.

The granting of privilege and rights by government to "special interests" or "pressure groups" is a major block to social harmony. The majority used to be the privileged and laws reflected that privilege when they shouldn't have but there was more unity. Now governments have learned that they can engineer society by granting "privilege" but mistakenly call it a "right".

Now it is as though there must be payback for all the travesties of justice that government had previously created by granting the majority privilege. Laws are generally a reflection of extant social mores and values but it is only when they lack reason or become threatened by new reasoning that laws are created to sustain them and "preserve" society.

I believe we are on the cusp of understanding each other here, and it seems to me that the grey area is the area where we may differ, which is as it should be.

Well, we do have our differences certainly, especially since I am a fan of Ron Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? Why would he leave America? He was born in Virginia.

He didn't seem to believe he belonged there. That video of him dressed in Arab garb at the corner store was kind of wierd, don't you think? I mean, for someone who was born and raised in the US? He's wearing foreign type clothing and speaking a foreign language and believing in foreign ideals. It sounds very much to me as though he's one of those Muslims who feels more kinship for fellow Muslims half a world away than he does for his own national citizenry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Here's one guy who covers all the bases.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.

This is what a lot of us have been saying, and the reaction has been just what those who didn't dare 'question' him for 'fear of being seen as discriminatory' wanted to avoid. We've been accused of "blaming Islam," as those who defend Islam blame it on everything else in the book.

To claim that his beliefs had nothing to do with his actions is either willful blindness or PC at it's worst extreme.

Sadly, 13 lives may have been saved had anyone heeded the warning signs and acted accordingly.

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.

I have my own issues with some of the veracity of what Horowitz claims from time to time, but terming anything he says "hate literature" seems more than just slightly over the top. I didn't hear the "diatribe" you mention but without any specific citation (I went to the wikipedia page and found nothing resembling hate literature) I would have to question even your definition of what constitutes hate literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or just ask Timothy McVeigh. Allah Akbar?

I don't believe anyone attempted to cover up the reasons behind McVeigh's terrorism. And that act, and the subsequent societal reaction pretty much devestated wiped out most of what was, at that time, a fairly substantial "Militia" movement in the US.

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
      10,753
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Matthew
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

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