Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

  1. #31
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    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.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #32
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    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.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #33
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    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.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    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 by EpicDude86; 11-11-09 at 02:38 PM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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