• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

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.

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?).
 
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:
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
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Here's your first hand proof:

America Between The Wars: Derek Chollet & James Goldgeier
The Battle For Peace: Tony Zinni
New Glory: Ralph Peters

You are looking at this wrong. Clinton didn't sacrifice Americans because he wanted to be politicially correct. But the result of his politicial correctness wound up killing Americans. There is a difference. There was no design here. Often, the decisions we make occur without any understanding of the future consequences. Clinton was our first President with no military experience. He made decisions based on that and ignored the troubles of this world because of that ignorance. His social ideal of perfect bliss and politicial correctness forced a sense of closed mindedness to the outside world that was raging against our military. Ignoring it encouraged it and Americans were killed.

These are consequences, not designs.


Being politically correct aint retarded, and we certainly aint sacrificing American lives to be that way.

Yet we did. For fear of being viewed as a nation who looks down upon all Muslims, we ignored the extreme hatred and violence of the few. And it was the few that had been begging for attention.

The consequences of this is what has even Army officials too cautious about investigating obvious threats. It's quite a contradiction. In today's world, in which most of America is groveling to, it is wrong to blame all of Islam for a single man's (or tens of thousands of them) behavior. But somehow, it is equally wrong to investigate one man's possibilities because it means we are attacking and offending all of Islam.

This over zealous portrayal of political correctness has prescribed this contradiction. It's a fear of identity. While our enemies have no reservations about killing Americans as they sleep, we are concerining ourselves with how to deal with them while focusing far too much on how least to offend the others. If we are afraid of offending a few into violence, then what does that say about our enemy and the rragile civilization that breeds them?


What do you mean, stare at our enemy and label accordingly? Got an example here?

I mean we refuse to address the civilization for fear of what it looks like. The enemy is the Arab Middle East...not a few Muslims on a rampage. Ever wonder why the radical and extremist recruitment pool in the region is without bottom? Or why militarily powerful Arab nations condemn their terrorists, but refuse to aid in killing them where they amass? Or why so many organizations continue to exist and build under the watchful eyes of host governments? Or why the slaughter of Muslims by other Muslims go without being addressed?


Instead of declaring publicly that we are facing a failed civilization full of hatred and blame we make nice and pretend that the Middle East's troubles will go away just as soon as we kill a man in a cave. As soon as he is killed all the hatred and fanaticism against America will simply disappear just like democracy in Iraq magocally appeared after we took Baghdad. Al-Queda was and is made up of Muslims from throughout the region. The terror that Muslims inflict upon Muslims is legendary and ignored by every single Arab nation in the region because as long as the slaughter is inflicted upon non-Arab tribes then it is silently approved of.

Ever notice how the further away from the Arab heartland, the healthier religion and the individual got? The heartland of Islam is a cancer. Muslims are far more productive to society and sucessful in the west where they exist under democracies just like the rest. In fact, the loudest voices for Islamic reform come from Egypt, on the African continent are rermoved from the local of Mecca and Medina.

Of course, all of this is far too politically incorrect to state and thusly the notion that our enemy is just a few "rogues" of Islam will carry us further into disaster.
 
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.

There are consequences for being wrong. Accusing a senior officer of misconduct is serious. You had better be right. And without at least another senior officer of equal to higher rank in your corner, you had better have more than just a circumstantial base. Without the act of a terrorist activity or at least a discovery of a terrorist plot, we can't even convince most moronic Americans of what we have imprisoned in Gitmo. But this Major was supposed to be given less rights than that scum? Welcome to what the American society is producing.

In the Marine Corps, this freak would not have made Major and been escorted off the base. We hate bureaucracy and we hate the PC mentality even more. Media be damned because we can easily afford and have the ability to shove the cameras away. We answer to know one outside our chain. This is not the case for the Army.

The Army is full of bureaucracy and procedures that get in the way of virtually everything. The constant hiccups on the battlefield, internal discipline problems, and media blunders over the last twenty years has taken its toll on our Army. Ever wonder why all the war protestors seem to come from the Army side? Or why subordination and the refusal to wear UN or NATO blue is an Army thing? Or why so many petty things become huge media stories from the Army? It's not because they are the only ones (though they are overwhleminly the majority). It's because the civilian population and the media see all the military as "army." They focus on the Army, which makes the Army far more aware of media cameras than anybody else. No Marine cares about a news camera. General Mattis (Marine) got in trouble for stating that "killing some people is fun," in regards to the Tali-Ban for what they are. No Army general would ever state such a thing because his career would be on the line and it is too politicially incorrect. The leadership in the Army has become gun shy when it comes to being exactly what they are supposed to be. And everything trickles down hill.

There are no more Patton in the Army. PC did this as did the bloated Defense Industry.
 
He openly preached how our 'war on terror' is a war on Islam.

So prisoners at GITMO are innocent for spewing such things, but an American in uniform is guilty for his opinions? America better figure out what they want. Because the military will never turn on its own, while giving more rights to the enemy.

This is that politicial correctness that has us running around with our heads up our asses.
 
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.




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.





You weren't being politically incorrect. You said or did nothing offensive whatsoever - stereotype or not.



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.




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.

I can agree with most of this, except we don't need the term "Political Correctness" because people can be nice on thier own. You're a proponent of being nice. But you think, for whatever reason, that starting with Political Correctness is when people started being nice to other people that were different from them. That is your delusion, not the fact that being nice is good and we should all be nice.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom