Comments on: You Are Gravely Wrong, Mr. President!

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:36:40 +0000

In response to aprvious post about why the military personel was not ready for confrontation/battle. See that in March 1993 under Bill Clinton a law was passed that military personel are not allowed to carry guns in bases located in American soil unless there is a “specific threat to the military in a specific region”. Maybe if there were allowed to carry guns the 13 people will not be dead. Also, including the 2 soldiers at a recruting office killed by another Muslim man. Any “specific” thread is to be resolved by military police (MP’s) which are the only ones allowed to carry arms in American military bases stationed in ASmerican soil.

http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/john-lott-Army-Bases-Gun-Free-Zones-fort-hood-massacre-clinton-rule_1654-1.html

By: soundranger

soundranger — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:20:55 +0000

You need to disinclude your documentary on PC. Just because a white boy with a pipe goes all Alistar Cooke on you, doesn’t mean you need to lap it up like a milk-starved kitten. Horowitz? are you kidding me?
..and yes, Major(!) Hasan didn’t attract any attention because he was always “by the book” in word and in deed. He very calmly suggested to them (the military) what they should do to in the face of real conflicts that muslim-american fighters encounter. He even used Powerpoint (today’s lingua franca) to tell them.
But, in shipping him out, they worked his last good nerve.
He tried to warn them (within protocol) they weren’t listening. They never do. (See Malcolm X)

By: Xbox 360 Repai

Xbox 360 Repai — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:50:24 +0000

This was not a mental breakdown, this was terrorism. I do not understand why some people try to cover it up, call it what it is and then lets find a way to stop the senseless killings.

By: Muslims Against Sharia

Muslims Against Sharia — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:43:40 +0000

MASH message for Islamic terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan:

Mr. Hasan,

May you be swiftly executed, may you rot in Hell for eternity, and may your family be ashamed of you for as long as they shall live.

With utmost contempt,

Muslims Against Sharia

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/11/fort-hood.html

By: DarkStar

DarkStar — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:25:31 +0000

*SIGH*
I forgot the sum …. Let’s see if I can generate my points again….

Launching someone into the field of battle despite their mental state vs. someone who was a psychiatrist and used that post as a bully pulpit to preach radical islam are two different things.

True. I think dude was a terrorist.

That was intentional. And this latest report makes that point.

That’s what my point is geared towards. YES, it is intentional but given it happens in other cases, with mental illness just being one that comes to mind right away. Because of this, I don’t see where “political correctness” comes into play.

Bush was blasted for holding his hand.

He was joked about, mostly, for holding his hand. Obama was slammed for the bow.

When it was determined that the soldiers that you are talking about suffered from mental illness, nobody had a problem calling it that from jump–mental illness.

That’s where I may not be clear. Reports in the MSM made it clear that the military HAD and STILL HAVE a problem calling PTSD a mental illness. Now, mental illness is just one point that came to mind. The military, according to alleged rape victims, cover up rape cases, blame the women, put the men back in the field as well as the women, but both get transferred. And it’s reported situations like that which cause me to question the “political correctness” charge.

By: Duane

Duane — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:17:32 +0000

Another point.

When it was determined that the soldiers that you are talking about suffered from mental illness, nobody had a problem calling it that from jump–mental illness. On the other hand, Hasan has a long track record of talking about his personal conflict with going to war against fellow Muslims, yells “Allahu Akba” before opening fire and the best that we can get is that he “cracked” and his religious beliefs had nothing to do with it.

By: Duane

Duane — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:31:02 +0000

Launching someone into the field of battle despite their mental state vs. someone who was a psychiatrist and used that post as a bully pulpit to preach radical islam are two different things. Yes there are plenty of instances where unfit soldiers have been sent into battle, but you have someone who was supposedly fit enough to be a psychiatrist, fit enough to give presentations warning the military of “adverse events” and nobody says anything about that, that is more than just slight oversight in the system. That was intentional. And this latest report makes that point.

Given that didn’t happen, that’s just speculation

When the Commander in Chief stops short of calling it outright terrorism, I think that is more than just speculation.

please remember that there are conservative detractors who question the Saudi ties to the Bush family. (No, this isn’t a “Bush did it too” comment).

So why mention it? The article I linked to talks about how Saudi money has been in the US college and university system for year beyond Obama. Just as Obama was blasted for bowing to the Saudi King, Bush was blasted for holding his hand. Another point, I do remember people like Michelle Malkin pointing out the fact that the 9/11 hijackers had been partially financed by the Saudis.

By: DarkStar

DarkStar — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:32:07 +0000

but apparently political correctness,

If this were isolated, I’d agree. However, there have been instances which have been documented where people who clearly shouldn’t be sent into the field of battle because of mental issues, were sent anyway. The MSM has done enough stories about those instances that, I think, it is an established pattern.

What’s being reported, today, is the communication with the Imman was “not threatening” even though, to me, it seems like he should have been pulled in. But if there is an investigation, and nothing is solid, then investigations have to run their course.

Investigators would have been “crucified” over First Amendment rights if they had launched a full-scale probe into e-mails Fort Hood massacre suspect Army Maj.

Given that didn’t happen, that’s just speculation to be ignored like the comment I made about Jesse Jackson, Sr or Al Sharpton attempting to buy a football team and the reaction that would have occurred or not.

Now, if you want to get into Saudi influence, please remember that there are conservative detractors who question the Saudi ties to the Bush family. (No, this isn’t a “Bush did it too” comment).