Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

  1. #11
    Sage
    Skeptic Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,098

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    No, of course, it doesn't. Why are you trying to illogically extend the point to include all soldiers killed stateside for any reason for political reasons?

    The Purple Heart is awarded to those injured by an enemy, and this was a terrorist attack.

    From the Christian Science Monitor [bolding mine]:

    It was a rider included in the 2015 defense budget that expanded the parameters for Purple Heart eligibility, reclassifying the victims' injuries as the result of an attack inspired by a terrorist group, rather than a workplace injury. Since its inception, the medal’s most basic requirement has been that recipients be injured at the hands of an enemy.

    The medal ceremony this week, and the latest legislation that allowed the Purple Heart awards to move forward, reflect the new realities of war, says Phillip Carter, director of the Military, Veterans, and Society Program at the Center for a New American Security.

    “We’ve entered a more complex era where we don’t just fight overseas, but at home, too,” he says. “There’s no principled reason to divide the victims of 9/11 from Fort Hood from some victims in Baghdad.” Fort Hood shooting: why it took five years to award victims Purple Hearts (+video) - CSMonitor.com
    A politically motivated attack is terrorism. Terrorism is the targeting of noncombatants for political/religious reasons or to effect a change in policy out of fear. I guess in this case the soldiers were declared noncombatants because they weren't armed?

  2. #12
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    I guess I just don't get it. We gave John Kerry three of the things for minor scratches. AFAIK Purple Hearts are awarded to active duty soldiers who have been wounded or killed on duty. And no, being injured at the hands of the enemy has never been the bar before. One of the fellows I attended Basic with got injured pulling another soldier out of a collapsed parade stand and received a PH.

    And what benefits?

  3. #13
    Sage
    Roadvirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,300

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    About damn time is right.
    Now they need to be given the benefits they deserve.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Roadvirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,300

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    Quote Originally Posted by SMTA View Post
    No kidding - what a cluster this has been for the victims.

    Typical bull**** government tactics.
    Not government tactics....OBAMA tactics.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    I think this is an outrage. Anyone who is not poisoned with Islamophobia can see that those soldiers, even if indirectly, provoked Dr. Hasan into defending himself. Is it really so hard to empathize with the psychic pain he must have endured, being picked on and poked fun at for the crime of being Muslim? Is it any surprise that he, being only human, finally snapped under the stress of being bullied?

    Poor Nidal could not even get away from the bullying when he went to his favorite strip club and sat at the lip log with his roll of bills. Reportedly the girls laughed at him when they thought he couldn't hear them, calling him things like "shrimp," "egghead," and "dinky winky." Apparently he tried to dismiss them as infidel whores--but just imagine his anger and frustration when even his money couldn't buy their company!

    No, Nidal Hasan was the real victim here, taunted and shunned everywhere he went. We are all guilty for failing to understand him and respect his faith. Sure, he encouraged the soldiers he counseled to turn on their country and embrace Islam. And sure, he was itching to strike a blow at American infidels in the name of Allah. But when has anyone tried to see his side of things, to understand how invalidated and icky he must have felt? When will all this Islamophobia ever stop?

  6. #16
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    07-26-17 @ 09:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    49,504

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    Quote Originally Posted by BrewerBob View Post
    A politically motivated attack is terrorism. Terrorism is the targeting of noncombatants for political/religious reasons or to effect a change in policy out of fear. I guess in this case the soldiers were declared noncombatants because they weren't armed?
    The right wing became obsessed with declaring this terrorism because he's a Muslim. Muslim = terrorist, right?

    He was convinced somehow to turn on his comrades. That's espionage, of sorts, on part of the extremists who turned him. America tries to turn various insurgents over to our side all the time. Is that terrorism? No, that's war. He deliberately targeted unarmed people, which is murder and a war crime. But it was a military target. This is war, isn't it? Is it terrorism to attack an enemy soldier? No, that's silly. Yes, he shot some civilians also. Guess what? American soldiers kill civilians too when attacking military targets. A war crime if done deliberately, a tragedy if done accidentally. Terrorism in neither case.

    In reality, the attack was murder, treason, and a war crime, but not terrorism. Yelling "praise Jesus" before you attack a military target doesn't turn it into terrorism. Oh, wait, he said the other thing. Essentially the same thing, but Muslim and in a different language, so it must be terrorism!

    (I harp on that because I recall Fox News going on and on and on about "Zomg he said allah ackbar, and Obummer wont call it terrorism boohoo")
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Well, certainly the customer is not an N-word.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You know her?

  7. #17
    Sage
    Skeptic Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,098

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The right wing became obsessed with declaring this terrorism because he's a Muslim. Muslim = terrorist, right?

    He was convinced somehow to turn on his comrades. That's espionage, of sorts, on part of the extremists who turned him. America tries to turn various insurgents over to our side all the time. Is that terrorism? No, that's war. He deliberately targeted unarmed people, which is murder and a war crime. But it was a military target. This is war, isn't it? Is it terrorism to attack an enemy soldier? No, that's silly. Yes, he shot some civilians also. Guess what? American soldiers kill civilians too when attacking military targets. A war crime if done deliberately, a tragedy if done accidentally. Terrorism in neither case.

    In reality, the attack was murder, treason, and a war crime, but not terrorism. Yelling "praise Jesus" before you attack a military target doesn't turn it into terrorism. Oh, wait, he said the other thing. Essentially the same thing, but Muslim and in a different language, so it must be terrorism!

    (I harp on that because I recall Fox News going on and on and on about "Zomg he said allah ackbar, and Obummer wont call it terrorism boohoo")
    Yeah, the fact that the target was military in nature really makes it difficult for me to consider it terrorism. Murder, treason, espionage? Absolutely.

  8. #18
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    07-26-17 @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    21,098

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    Quote Originally Posted by Roadvirus View Post
    Not government tactics....OBAMA tactics.
    Bull****.

    There are hundreds of thousands who work in the government, especially the military.
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  9. #19
    Sage
    Roadvirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,300

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    Quote Originally Posted by SMTA View Post
    Bull****.

    There are hundreds of thousands who work in the government, especially the military.
    Obama's the one that labelled this "workplace violence", which is why it took so damn long for these soldiers the recognition they deserved, and still without the financial benefits they deserve.

  10. #20
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,998

    Re: Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The right wing became obsessed with declaring this terrorism because he's a Muslim. Muslim = terrorist, right?

    He was convinced somehow to turn on his comrades. That's espionage, of sorts, on part of the extremists who turned him. America tries to turn various insurgents over to our side all the time. Is that terrorism? No, that's war. He deliberately targeted unarmed people, which is murder and a war crime. But it was a military target. This is war, isn't it? Is it terrorism to attack an enemy soldier? No, that's silly. Yes, he shot some civilians also. Guess what? American soldiers kill civilians too when attacking military targets. A war crime if done deliberately, a tragedy if done accidentally. Terrorism in neither case.

    In reality, the attack was murder, treason, and a war crime, but not terrorism. Yelling "praise Jesus" before you attack a military target doesn't turn it into terrorism. Oh, wait, he said the other thing. Essentially the same thing, but Muslim and in a different language, so it must be terrorism!

    (I harp on that because I recall Fox News going on and on and on about "Zomg he said allah ackbar, and Obummer wont call it terrorism boohoo")
    Terrorism as a term is so poorly defined that it's open to endless interpretations.
    As such it's very hard to rule a case as "not terrorism", while on the other side it's also very easy to portray incidents as terrorism, even when they aren't really the classic cases of all-out attacks on civilians in the name of politics/religion/some ideology, attempting to murder as many of them as possible.

    Regarding Nidal Malik Hasan and the Fort Hood incident, you're quite wrong in asserting that he was "turned" by anyone, there is no evidence to any connection to terrorist links as far as I know and in fact he acted on his own, in the name of his religion, against his fellow colleagues attempting to murder as many of them as possible. With that being considered it isn't really wrong to portray the incident as terrorism, as the motivation was a political-religious one, against Americans, reasoned with the politics of the United States in the Mideast. It is also not a result of war or open conflict. Hasan did not belong to a specific faction nor was he turned by a specific faction that the US is in open war with. And no the war on terrorism is not a declaration of war on every potential terrorist.

    What it clearly isn't is a war crime, by the way, since a war crime is a violation of the laws of warfare, and since Hasan was not in an open warfare with his fellow soldiers it cannot possibly be a war crime. It is a crime, it is a treason, it is mass murder, and it might be terrorism.
    Last edited by Apocalypse; 04-12-15 at 05:32 PM. Reason: NOYB
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •