Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

  1. #21
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Politically Correct n. Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

    You can call it that but I prefer to see it as simply not being a dick. And as a member of these United States, I have a Constitutional Amendment that protects my speech and the speech that I don't like, limiting libel and slander. Not to mention things like profiling can save your life, and profiling isn't exactly "Politically Correct"
    You can certainly call it whatever you want, but by definition, you are being 'politically correct' when you avoid doing such things. Again, I didn't invent the term, but I wholeheartedly support it. And it's my guess you do too, regardless of what you choose to call being 'politically correct'. And profiling can save your life? Most definitely. I'm sure that searching every Muslim on a daily basis in the military would have prevented this terrible act from occurring. But are you for searching Muslims simply because they're Muslims, and letting all non-Muslims avoid being searched? If so, that's where we disagree. Treat 'em all the same - you search one group, search the other.


    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Because without Political Correctness, common courtesy and workplace regulation go right out the window? Why do we need some arbitrary term, created by Marxists no less, to require us to be civil? This isn't school. We aren't little kids who have to be nice to each other. Sure it's nice when we are but we can make our own decisions on how we want to act and deal with the consequences accordingly.
    You wanna change the term? How about 'not being a jerkface'. So, let's say we do just that - change the term, but the definition remains the same. Next thing you know, we have folks coming to these forums and everywhere else saying 'i'm tired of people not being jerkfaces'. It's the actions - not the term - that gets people.



    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    HINT: I saw it, and in a very un-politically correct move, I made an assumption about you based on a stereotype. See, it's not all that bad.
    You weren't being politically incorrect. You said or did nothing offensive whatsoever - stereotype or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Because without Political Correctness, common courtesy and workplace regulation go right out the window? Why do we need some arbitrary term, created by Marxists no less, to require us to be civil? This isn't school. We aren't little kids who have to be nice to each other. Sure it's nice when we are but we can make our own decisions on how we want to act and deal with the consequences accordingly.
    Political correctness aint a doctrine, homes. It's a definition. If you act a certain way, avoiding offensive language, stereotypes, and seek neutrality in dealing with races, ethnicities, genders, etc., you're being politically correct. If it's a doctrine, i'd love to read it.


    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    My point is those people can act civilly without having some stupid word or methodology for it. It's called being civil. You're promoting a point of view that was intended to unify the working class for the sole purpose of defeating their Capitalist Overlords when Marxism didn't work in WWI...I'm repeating myself...dammit...Anyways. We all know what is civil and what isn't, that's not the problem. It's when organizations like the ACLU push PC to its limits to get things like the Pledge of Allegiance taken out of our schools because of one line that some asshole doesn't want his kids to say for fear that it may brainwash them into Christianity. We all know what is right, wrong, and acceptable. We don't need guidelines to make sure we don't hurt each others feelings. All this politeness is giving me a headache. Sometimes we just need to be rude.
    You can be as rude as you want to, so long as you're willing to suffer the consequences. And I wouldn't call the dude who wants the Pledge being taken out of school as searching for political correctness. He's just being a whackjob. I mean seriously, who is offended by the Pledge of Allegiance? We can argue about removing the 'under God' line (personally I think it should go), but I certainly aint offended by it remaining in there. I just don't say it when I recite the Pledge.

  2. #22
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,991

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    What about highlighting that this was a pretty bad mistake, and there's gonna be some pretty serious accountability?
    It's one of a hell of a double edged sword. The investigating officer has the option to be accused of harassing a man for his name and singoing him out for his rights of an opinion and risk his career... or take the chance that this guy is one of many who just shoots his mouth off. After all, he's a major...a doctor...nah.

    Now people want accountability. Perhaps if the investigating officer didn't have to weigh his career on a maybe.

    This is the same dilemma when it comes to homosexual activity. To investigate thoroughly or not to investigate thoroughly. That is the career question. How many people are eager to accuse a high ranking officer of being gay or a terrorist-to-be? This isn't the civilian world. A politician screws up, he still gets re-elected. A military man screws up, it's his career or people die or both.
    Last edited by MSgt; 11-11-09 at 02:10 AM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    It's one of a hell of a double edged sword. The investigating officer has the option to be accused of harassing a man for his name and singoing him out for his rights of an opinion and risk his career... or take the chance that this guy is one of many who just shoots his mouth off. After all, he's a major...a doctor...nah.

    Now people want accountability. Perhaps if the investigating officer didn't have to weigh his career on a maybe.

    This is the same dilemma when it comes to homosexual activity. To investigate thoroughly or not to investigate thoroughly. That is the career question. How many people are eager to accuse a high ranking officer of being gay or a terrorist-to-be? This isn't the civilian world. A politician screws up, he still gets re-elected. A military man screws up, it's his career or people die or both.
    I agree, the people who would have had to stand up and defend their positions, would have faced a long and steep climb, and that is pathetic. That said, they should have risked that, they should have stood up, they should have defended their fellow soldiers. I am quite sure this would not have happened on a marine base, as PC is out, as it should be.

    As far as homosexuals go, again, let them serve.....

  4. #24
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    PC is good until it becomes extreme. Then it just becomes a hinderance and stupid. From the Active Duty stand point...allow me,
    You and I can both agree on this. Anything taken to the extreme is just bad - political correctness is no exception.

    Regarding the military examples, I, too, have read much of what led up to the 9/11 attack on our country. Clinton Administration failing to act properly on the intel? Sure. Clinton Administration failing to act to save American lives because he wanted to be politically correct? I'd need to see some proof of that. I don't think anyone - even Clinton and his bunch - would sacrifice Americans because they didn't want to offend folks. I think that's pushing it. REALLY pushing it, to be honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    We have and will continue to sacrifice American lives all for that retarded idea of political correctness. For the average American, we have been at war since 9/11. For the military, we had been at war longer than this, but denied our role. It's personal for us. The same kind of trash that killed 3,000 Americans on American soil had been killing military personel for a decade+.
    Being politically correct aint retarded, and we certainly aint sacrificing American lives to be that way. Let's call it what it is - a mistake. This whackjob that shoots up an army base down at Fort Hood didn't get away with it because everyone wanted to be politically correct. The nutcase radicals that hijacked planes didn't get away with it because our society is willing to sacrifice folks in order to be non-offensive to Muslims. No, that just don't happen. And if it does, i'd love to see some cold, hard evidence - and that's something anyone who is anti-PC has never provided. And I don't mean a bunch of folks being pissed off because they want every Muslim searched and separated so they take to blogs and spew a bunch of nonsense that folks will hopefully take as fact. I mean some real, solid, social research-type stuff done by a gang of scientists and psychologists out to get to the bottom of things.

    People get bent out of shape at this whole PC-thing, but there is a reason it came about. And it aint because we wanted planes slammed into buildings, or our Army bases shot up.


    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    Political correctness denies us the ability to stare at and label our enemy accordingly. Come to think of it...Pearl Harbor should have just been treated as an isolated incident. Lucky for us, our enemy back then came from an established empire with a national flag instead of a never ending breeding ground throughout the Asian region with a religious banner. Or were we stronger minded people back then to even care about such nonesense?
    What do you mean, stare at our enemy and label accordingly? Got an example here? From what i've seen, 'radical muslims' are called just that. See also terrorists, fundamentalist Islam, etc. No, I don't think we have any problem labelling the enemy. But we do have mistakes. 9/11 was one of 'em. So was this.

  5. #25
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    I don't know your friends, obviously, but I find it difficult to believe that most folks want to do away with languages and practices which could offend a bunch of folks, but hey, maybe they do. I personally disagree with the people you cite who 'long for the day when people spoke their minds'. This is being politically correct we are talking about here - it's been my experience when folks talk about speaking your mind in the absence of being politically correct, it often means you wanna hurl a bunch of racial slurs around and not get in trouble for it. And I say have at it - Freedom of Speech and all that. But i'd prefer to keep that stuff out of the workplace, or out of a public broadcast service like the news.
    Excuse me, racial slures? WTF are you talkin about. I think you have the wrong idea of what I am getting at here. I am not talking about using racial slurs. Im talking about not parsing words. Im talking about saying what you mean and meaning what you say regardless of who it may offend. My point is some people are so freakin thin skinned they are offended way to easily. If all the red flag evidence points to Hasan being a jihadist why does the media continue to try and claim otherwise. All I want from the media is the facts. Tell me the facts and let me make up my own mind.
    When America is strong the world is calm, When America is weak tyrants and terrorist slaughter the meek. ~ SgtRock

  6. #26
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    It's one of a hell of a double edged sword. The investigating officer has the option to be accused of harassing a man for his name and singoing him out for his rights of an opinion and risk his career... or take the chance that this guy is one of many who just shoots his mouth off. After all, he's a major...a doctor...nah.

    Now people want accountability. Perhaps if the investigating officer didn't have to weigh his career on a maybe.
    Hold on a second. From what I read, the Muslim whacko that shot up the military base was running his mouth openly about performing terrorist activities. If so, I doubt very seriously that someone red-flagging this guy is gonna face investigation for profiling or being politically incorrect. And if he's "one of the many", as you said, then we have a much bigger problem than being 'politically correct' if you have masses of military personnel openly talking about performing terrorist activities.

    However, i'm a pretty open-minded fella. That comes with the 'liberal' title, I reckon, so in fairness, i'd certainly love to read something that shows unequivocally that this whacko that shot up Fort Hood got away with it because of political correctness.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    This is the same dilemma when it comes to homosexual activity. To investigate thoroughly or not to investigate thoroughly. That is the career question. How many people are eager to accuse a high ranking officer of being gay or a terrorist-to-be? This isn't the civilian world. A politician screws up, he still gets re-elected. A military man screws up, it's his career or people die or both.
    Not being a military man, I don't understand why accusing a high ranking officer of being gay can be anything like accusing someone of being a terrorist. That's something you'll have to explain to me. But regarding the terrorist, I reitierate that it was a mistake. But blaming it on being 'too PC'? I heard a lot of that in this thread, yet no one - not a soul - has offered up specifics as to what we SHOULD do. You think everyone dropping the whole 'political correctness' stuff is what needs to be done? Fine. Tell me WHAT exactly we can do here. Be specific (ie, you want to strip search every Muslim within 100 miles of a military base? No one with Islamic roots should be allowed into the military? What?).

  7. #27
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    Excuse me, racial slures? WTF are you talkin about. I think you have the wrong idea of what I am getting at here. I am not talking about using racial slurs. Im talking about not parsing words. Im talking about saying what you mean and meaning what you say regardless of who it may offend. My point is some people are so freakin thin skinned they are offended way to easily. If all the red flag evidence points to Hasan being a jihadist why does the media continue to try and claim otherwise. All I want from the media is the facts. Tell me the facts and let me make up my own mind.
    The guy shot up a military base and talked about a bunch of radical Muslim bullpuckey. He openly preached how our 'war on terror' is a war on Islam. He even went nuts during some psychiatric convention and started his radical Muslim speech during the event, shocking his colleagues. Yet you're beef is that they aren't mentioning the term 'jihadist'? I think terrorist is more fitting, to be honest. Or how about Muslim fundamentalist whacko? And besides - my Muslim is rusty - but wouldn't 'jihadist' be incorrect? From what I understand, aren't there various forms of Jihad or something?

    Seriously, what media story has attempted to portray this guy as some sort of innocent victim who lashed out in self defense? I'd love to read that radical Islam puff piece just for it's sheer stupidity.

    So, where are these words being 'parsed' for political correctness? What media source?
    Last edited by Singularity; 11-11-09 at 02:56 AM.

  8. #28
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Hold on a second. From what I read, the Muslim whacko that shot up the military base was running his mouth openly about performing terrorist activities. If so, I doubt very seriously that someone red-flagging this guy is gonna face investigation for profiling or being politically incorrect. And if he's "one of the many", as you said, then we have a much bigger problem than being 'politically correct' if you have masses of military personnel openly talking about performing terrorist activities.

    However, i'm a pretty open-minded fella. That comes with the 'liberal' title, I reckon, so in fairness, i'd certainly love to read something that shows unequivocally that this whacko that shot up Fort Hood got away with it because of political correctness.

    . Not being a military man, I don't understand why accusing a high ranking officer of being gay can be anything like accusing someone of being a terrorist. That's something you'll have to explain to me. But regarding the terrorist, I reitierate that it was a mistake. But blaming it on being 'too PC'? I heard a lot of that in this thread, yet no one - not a soul - has offered up specifics as to what we SHOULD do. You think everyone dropping the whole 'political correctness' stuff is what needs to be done? Fine. Tell me WHAT exactly we can do here. Be specific (ie, you want to strip search every Muslim within 100 miles of a military base? No one with Islamic roots should be allowed into the military? What?).
    None of that. Its an over reaction. But when a service members claims that muslims should strap bombs to themselfs and detonate in Times square or when they say muslims should rise up against the country he has taken an oath to protect that is a red flag. that is something people should not fear reporting to there chain of command or the authorties. In this case people were not reporting the red flags Hasan exposed out of fear that they would be labled bigots or Islamophobes. Thats a problem. Thats where political correctness results in people being killed by a JIHADIST
    When America is strong the world is calm, When America is weak tyrants and terrorist slaughter the meek. ~ SgtRock

  9. #29
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    None of that. Its an over reaction. But when a service members claims that muslims should strap bombs to themselfs and detonate in Times square or when they say muslims should rise up against the country he has taken an oath to protect that is a red flag. that is something people should not fear reporting to there chain of command or the authorties. In this case people were not reporting the red flags Hasan exposed out of fear that they would be labled bigots or Islamophobes. Thats a problem. Thats where political correctness results in people being killed by a JIHADIST
    And where did you come by this information? What evidence is there that this guy was not exposed because everyone wants to be 'politically correct'? Was there some study done about political correctness in the military that you are using as a basis for this?

    Like I mentioned earlier, this is your opportunity to turn me into an 'anti-PC' person. Show me unequivocal evidence that being PC is responsible for this shooting, tell me EXACTLY how you think we should rectify the situation, and we can work together to eliminate such nutcases from shooting up any more military bases. But we're gonna need something a little more than 'omg political correctness is killing our soldiers'. That aint answering a thing.

  10. #30
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,991

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    I am quite sure this would not have happened on a marine base, as PC is out, as it should be.
    No, this most definately would not have happened on a Marine Corps Base. One does not join the Marine Corps with reservations of loyalty to Corps and country. And the other branches may scoff or ridicule our sense of nit picking when it comes to customs and courtersies, but it serves a disciplinary purpose.

    Despite the occasional internal fumble, we believe in equality and fairness. Politicial "correctness" takes this to a pathetic level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    As far as homosexuals go, again, let them serve.....
    Sure. They served just fine until Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" forced focus on them. Up until this point, homosexuality was a deep, dark secret not discussed. Afterwards, the number of homosexuals exiting the military sky rocketed.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •