• 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 Report: No Mention of Islam, Hasan Not Named

U.S. Army Retired

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
14
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Political Correctness strikes again under the Obama Administration. This is just going to make people angrier. One thing to keep in mind is that Fort Hood is the largest U.S. military installation in the world. Why are we so sensitive in a time of War? What happened to being brutal with the desire to win the war at all costs? America needs to wake up and understand that this Political Correctness or fear of offending a group of people are making this country weak and our citizens vunerable to attack by these people. We have got to get off this kick and become the America like we were during WW2 with a determination to kill the enemy without hesitance and without regard to their customs and traditions.

Fort Hood Report: No Mention of Islam, Hasan Not Named - Yahoo! News

Nidal_Hasan_260103s.jpg




The U.S. military's just-released report into the Fort Hood shootings spends 86 pages detailing various slipups by Army officers but not once mentions Major Nidal Hasan by name or even discusses whether the killings may have had anything to do with the suspect's view of his Muslim faith. And as Congress opens two days of hearings on Wednesday into the Pentagon probe of the Nov. 5 attack that left 13 dead, lawmakers want explanations for that omission.


John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan's view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military's activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report's silence on Islamic extremism "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become," he told TIME on Tuesday. "It's definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens." (See pictures of Major Nidal Malik Hasan's apartment.)


The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn't in keeping with the military's ethos; it's a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren't afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.
 
Last edited:
Why are we so sensitive in a time of War? What happened to being brutal with the desire to win the war at all costs?

wow, yeah, thats a good policy, look how well that worked in vietnam, you ****ed up the entire country for generations and still lost.
 
wow, yeah, thats a good policy, look how well that worked in vietnam, you ****ed up the entire country for generations and still lost.

We lost Vietnam because of stupidity in DC, not because of the military. We could have won Vietnam... but we fought the war out of DC... and we were too nice.
 
I personally think there are two reports. One for the public eyes which is all "Hopey" and "Changey," while the other confronts reality.

No evidence, of course, but just my hope.
 
We lost Vietnam because of stupidity in DC, not because of the military. We could have won Vietnam... but we fought the war out of DC... and we were too nice.

Yes of course you were - I bet that's what all the old Nazis say about WW2.

If only Lieutenant Calley and company had not been so nice. Was it all that 'niceness' that caused roughly 4 million Vietnamese to die? :)
 
Yes of course you were - I bet that's what all the old Nazis say about WW2.

If only Lieutenant Calley and company had not been so nice. Was it all that 'niceness' that caused roughly 4 million Vietnamese to die? :)

In short: yes. It's widely acknowledged that quick wars, carried out with vigor, are faster and less deadly than long, protracted wars carried out with one hand.
 
Political Correctness strikes again
Indeed. How pathetic. How utterly pathetic. We are being led by a bunch of limpwristed nutless wonders.
Why are we so sensitive in a time of War?
A half century of the corrosive effects of liberalism.

It's widely acknowledged that quick wars, carried out with vigor, are faster and less deadly than long, protracted wars carried out with one hand.

Indeed.
 
Last edited:
In short: yes. It's widely acknowledged that quick wars, carried out with vigor, are faster and less deadly than long, protracted wars carried out with one hand.

Actually a good and valid point. :2wave: But that was not Mr Vicchio's claim. He clearly stated that you lost in Vietnam because you were 'too nice'. I was merely trying to ascertain the nature of this 'niceness'. I doubt he was using the word in the 19th century sense - to indicate delicacy, so I assume he was implying that the US prosecution of the war in Vietnam was too gentle and pleasant. The savagery of Calley and his like, and the death toll of circa 4 million, would not appear to support claims of gentleness or pleasantry. So I am left rather wondering what he meant. :)
 
In short: yes. It's widely acknowledged that quick wars, carried out with vigor, are faster and less deadly than long, protracted wars carried out with one hand.
What the hell are you talking about?
 
I personally think there are two reports. One for the public eyes which is all "Hopey" and "Changey," while the other confronts reality.

No evidence, of course, but just my hope.

You're gonna havta' hope a little harder because the present regime actually believes the problems the US has is a result of us and not fundamentalist muslims.
 
John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan's view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military's activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military.

If a person from the 9/11 commission forged it then I do not trust it. Maybe 1 guy didn't take out 13? Maybe the these things actually weren't in the report because they are not part of the truth.
 
Actually a good and valid point. :2wave: But that was not Mr Vicchio's claim. He clearly stated that you lost in Vietnam because you were 'too nice'. I was merely trying to ascertain the nature of this 'niceness'. I doubt he was using the word in the 19th century sense - to indicate delicacy, so I assume he was implying that the US prosecution of the war in Vietnam was too gentle and pleasant. The savagery of Calley and his like, and the death toll of circa 4 million, would not appear to support claims of gentleness or pleasantry. So I am left rather wondering what he meant. :)

You fight wars to win. We did not politically fight that war to win. We didn't hit infrastructure that we should have. We didn't bomb their capital back into the stone age.
Jack Estes served in Vietnam during the height of the war (68-69). It is his opinion that "the United States won the war militarily. We never lost a major battle and that is a verified and documented fact. We never had the advantage and could have won the war in 90 days," says Estes. "We had the sophisticated equipment and the highest trained men,the only problem was that the United States government would not let us use these resources." This is what caused the percieved loss of the Vietnam war, Congress. If the government would have quit trying to figure out a way around the war it would have been over in no time, but since they were trying to find an approach that pleased everyone they made the situation worse by dragging it out. The press was also way out of line. The media does not belong in the war. Because of the twisted media coverage the war was portrayed much differently than it really was and the American people were basically lied to. These lies enraged the American people and caused discontent in the American's opinion about Vietnam and the young men who were sent there to fight. Estes also does not understand "how America lost the war if the South was taken over by the North after all but a handful of American troops had been withdrawn from Vietnam two years before." He compared it to blaming the US if Kuwait was taken over by Iraq today even though US troops were withdrawn some time ago. It seems that most veterans feel that if the blame is to be placed on anyone, it needs to be placed on the bureaucrats who were in washington at the time not the troops who were sent over to fight.
http://journals2.iranscience.net:800/mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/teachviet/INTERV.html
 
You fight wars to win. We did not politically fight that war to win. We didn't hit infrastructure that we should have. We didn't bomb their capital back into the stone age.

Ummm ... but you lost the fight to one of the smallest, poorest countries in the world. :confused:
 
No mention of Hasan and Muslims?
But those right winger extremists in trucks with gun racks Napolitano spoke about could be mentioned with the ease of farting after eating a bathtub full of beans.

wow, yeah, thats a good policy, look how well that worked in vietnam, you ****ed up the entire country for generations and still lost.

The Commies did a nice clean up job on those who did not obey, just as they had The Soviet Bloc.

The Vietnamese generals also say there was no way the US should have lost, but because the press propagandized against their own country... they had levearge, exploited it to the point the US abandoned the country.

We won the Tet Offensive... but the press reported it as a defeat. How ill.

The press and misinformed peacenik Leftists ****ed up the country for generations, and millions died because of their lunacy. Had we eliminated the Red Menace, we would have assisted with their recovery... as we always do. Instead they had the generous, tolerant and human rights minded Commi nations to "help".

America's left has a lot of blood on their hands. In fact they're bathed in blood. Worse... they have no interest in learning from history; just think... we have a fool in the White House that thinks the world will change because he and his goody, goody intentions.

A statement Obama made on Nov. 21, 2007, while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio:

I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently...

The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that’s something that this administration has failed to understand.”
And people voted for this dangerous clap trap.

.
 
Last edited:
Hood massacre report gutless and shameful - NY Post

There are two basic problems with the grotesque non-report on the Islamist- terror massacre at Fort Hood (released by the Defense Department yesterday):

* It's not about what happened at Fort Hood.

* It avoids entirely the issue of why it happened.

Read more: Hood massacre report gutless and shameful - NYPOST.com
 
Ummm ... but you lost the fight to one of the smallest, poorest countries in the world. :confused:

Well, we didn't, but if we did -- how does that contradict what he said?
 
Perhaps it occurred to somebody that public government discussion of the events of that day might be seen to be jeopardising his right to a fair trial, leading to his aquittal?
 
Ummm ... but you lost the fight to one of the smallest, poorest countries in the world. :confused:

......armed by one of the most populous one (china) and one of the most advanced one (soviet union) and popularly supported by the majority of the population of western europe.
 
......armed by one of the most populous one (china) and one of the most advanced one (soviet union) and popularly supported by the majority of the population of western europe.

The North Vietnamese were certainly supported politically by China and Russia, but I'm not sure how extensively they were armed by those nations. It seems to me that if Russia had comprehensively armed North Vietnam, the Viet Minh would have been sporting up to date Russian hardware, such as T55 tanks and MIG 22 interceptors. In the event, they had completely outdated Russian equipment, circa the Korean war period. As for the Chinese, they are the traditional enemies of the Vietnamese, and invaded Vietnam a very few years after the end of the US-Vietnamese war.

And the support of Western Europe, and much of the rest of the world, for the unification of Vietnam, should have told Americans something. But then more current US attitudes to Europe over Iraq were equally cavalier - so ... :confused:
 
Europeans don't exactly have an admirable track record to look to as a barometer of how to handle tyrants. They allowed the rise of Hitler under the guise of diplomacy and Germany is now negotiating a billion dollar gas deal with Iran.
 
Europeans don't exactly have an admirable track record to look to as a barometer of how to handle tyrants. They allowed the rise of Hitler under the guise of diplomacy and Germany is now negotiating a billion dollar gas deal with Iran.

Erm ... it could be said that the world, which includes the US, allowed the rise of Hitler, and it was Europeans - the British and the French, who declared war on Germany, not the USA. So let's not get too 'holier than thou'. :mrgreen:

And why should the Germans not buy their gas (by which I take it you mean actual gas, and not petroleum or crude oil,) from Iran? :)
 
Erm ... it could be said that the world, which includes the US, allowed the rise of Hitler, and it was Europeans - the British and the French, who declared war on Germany, not the USA. So let's not get too 'holier than thou'. :mrgreen:
Yes, the UK declared war after ignoring Churchill for years and instead embracing the imbecility of Chamberlain. I guess it was good they finally woke up, but at the expense of millions of lives.

And why should the Germans not buy their gas (by which I take it you mean actual gas, and not petroleum or crude oil,) from Iran? :)
You're right, it's a good thing to support those that openly call for the destruction of a nation.
 
Yes, the UK declared war after ignoring Churchill for years and instead embracing the imbecility of Chamberlain. I guess it was good they finally woke up, but at the expense of millions of lives.

Yes, but they did, and the USA didn't.

You're right, it's a good thing to support those that openly call for the destruction of a nation.

I wouldn't think so, but Iran has not formally called for the destruction of any nation. US President Reagan, on the other hand, called for the destruction of the Evil Empire (aka the Soviet Union). :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom