• 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 Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle

Blue_State

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,228
Location
In a Blue State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Today the military awarded the victims and survivors of the 2009 Fort Hood attack with Purple Hearts and other medals, after a more than five-year-long bureaucratic struggle over whether the awards were deserved.

Kimberly Munley, the former police sergeant credited with stopping the attack, and civilian Michael Cahill, who was killed, were honored with Defense of Freedom Medals.

Fort Hood Victims Awarded Purple Hearts After Long, Controversial Battle - ABC News

About damn time.
 
It seems to me that purple hearts are a bit too much. All it does is remove value from what a purple heart really is. Now a purple heart is pretty much meaningless.
 
It seems to me that purple hearts are a bit too much. All it does is remove value from what a purple heart really is. Now a purple heart is pretty much meaningless.

They were wounded for all purposes an enemy combatant, this doesn't take anything from the purple heart.
 
No kidding - what a cluster this has been for the victims.

Typical bull**** government tactics.

I have a sneaking suspiscion that this is not the fault of the "government", but rather one individual. Designating the victims eligible for medals and benefits means acknowledging that the shooter was islamically motivated and attacked for religous reasons. Obama has had alot of trouble making those types of acknowlegements.
 
The survivors being denied benefits is a continuing outrage. And I don't think that Purple Hearts are "a bit much."
 
So does this mean anytime a soldier is killed stateside by someone for political reasons that it will merit the Purple Heart? If it does, that is fine, I just want us to be consistent.
 
So does this mean anytime a soldier is killed stateside by someone for political reasons that it will merit the Purple Heart? If it does, that is fine, I just want us to be consistent.

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
 
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?
 
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?
 
No kidding - what a cluster this has been for the victims.

Typical bull**** government tactics.

Not government tactics....OBAMA tactics.
 
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?
 
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")
 
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.
 
Not government tactics....OBAMA tactics.

Bull****.

There are hundreds of thousands who work in the government, especially the military.
 
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.
 
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:
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.

That is a lie.

The entire governmental system, specifically the DoD are the culprits.

Pentagon will not label Fort Hood shootings as terrorist attack - Washington Times
Already facing intense scrutiny for its shifting narrative about the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, the Pentagon now says it will not reclassify the Fort Hood shootings as a terrorist attack over concern about biasing the case against the gunman — an argument that is getting a mixed review from legal specialists.
 
They were wounded for all purposes an enemy combatant, this doesn't take anything from the purple heart.



These events never took place.

It is all Right Wing Lies, Propaganda and Deception, and this whole story belongs on the CT forum!

These people were killed by White, Right Wing Terrorists.

Islam, by Definition, is a Religion of Peace and Beauty... or had you momentarily forgotten.

Muslims, by Definition, are victims of Christian Agression... or had you momentarily forgotten.

We have people who can help you remember, should you forget again.

Have a nice day. :)

-
 
So does this mean anytime a soldier is killed stateside by someone for political reasons that it will merit the Purple Heart? If it does, that is fine, I just want us to be consistent.

I suspect that you know that the shooter wasn't making a statement about how Bush did it. It wasn't about politics, but you already know that. Your statement was totally invalid and you know it.
 
Let's hope they won't have to wait another 6 years to get their benefits.
 
Back
Top Bottom