What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Islam is based out of Saudi Arabia. That's where the Mecca is.

Guess who is real chummy with the leaders of Saudi Arabia?
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Patman said:
Anybody afraid of nuclear energy... hey, this is a fun game :p
Click to expand...

Aww yeah. Plenty of blame to go around on this one.

I yearn for a reasonable, reliable, and safe alternative to replace fossil fuels. Then we can seriously just pull out of the Middle East altogether and just flip those guys the bird. The double deuce, even.

They think they hate us now? Just wait until the money goes bye-bye.
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Red Cloud said:
Aww yeah. Plenty of blame to go around on this one.

I yearn for a reasonable, reliable, and safe alternative to replace fossil fuels. Then we can seriously just pull out of the Middle East altogether and just flip those guys the bird. The double deuce, even.

They think they hate us now? Just wait until the money goes bye-bye.
Click to expand...

I think 9/11 taught me a lot on how pragmatic we'll act when the time comes... when it came to security screeners for the airports Dems wouldn't forsake unions and the Republicans wouldn't budge on paying them a quality salary for something that was supposed to be important.

This is to say, when a crisis does come i expect ideology to trump common sense.

I think this comes into play now... we talk about energy independence but all we get for solutions is dream technologies and we forsake the tools we have on hand now because of some spurious concerns. So, do we really mean it? I'd say that its obvious that we don't care enough to separate ourselves from the oil ticks... we're perfectly happy at the moment taking the trade off as we don't have the dream tech yet.
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Patman said:
I
I think this comes into play now... we talk about energy independence but all we get for solutions is dream technologies and we forsake the tools we have on hand now because of some spurious concerns. So, do we really mean it?
Click to expand...

I would guess not seeing how "energy independence" has been a talking point for my entire lifetime. What has been done? We've got a bunch of windmills scarring the landscape.
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Patman said:
I think 9/11 taught me a lot on how pragmatic we'll act when the time comes... when it came to security screeners for the airports Dems wouldn't forsake unions and the Republicans wouldn't budge on paying them a quality salary for something that was supposed to be important.
Click to expand...
What did you expect? Airport screening was symbolic politics par excellence. Maybe it did catch a copycat moron or two, but it had little, if anything, to do with counter-terrorism and the fight against al-Qaeda.

And huskyfan is right on energy independence. Every president since Nixon has paid tribute to that dream. Unfortunately, planning is harder than hoping.
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

and what is even sadder we could do it with atomic energy but have repeatedly chosen not to.
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

I'm pretty much of a traditionalist. Not so much that we always have to do things the old way, just occasionally. That's why I occasionally like to see the NFL throwback unis (except for the Jets and Broncos *shudder*).

And in our political life as well, it's nice to see some traditions are alive and well. Like the tradition that if you're opposed to an American military intervention somewhere you can say or do anything to advance that point of view without fear of criticism from the MSM. In my lifetime Jane Fonda pretty much established the standard. Well it's nice to know the fat, ugly, hyper-left wing old bags at Code Pink are keeping that tradition alive. Here is the key quote from their pitch for support of their seditious cafe in Killeen:


"Our soldiers clearly need more care; the last thing they need is to be put into more harm's way. Even US military officers think so--Matthew Hoh resigned from the Foreign Service in protest of the lack of clear mission and achievable results in Afghanistan, and of course the Ft. Hood shooter was a Major who did not wish to be deployed to Afghanistan."

I'm sure Matthew Hoh is kicking himself that all he could come up with to express his disagreement with our policy in Afghanistan was resign. Why, he could have massacred a bunch of unarmed soldiers and gotten an approving nod from Code Pink. So in Code Pink's world, "Dr." Hasan isn't a jihadist mass murderer, he's merely an "officer" who thinks "the last thing our soldiers need is to be put into more harms way", and came up with a dramatic way of expressing his First Amendment protected opinion. Got it.

This is a group with which candidate Obama was quite chummy, he and their
leader appeared together several times. And the leader was also one of his campaign's chief "bundlers" of donations. And this is a group that never seems to get much attention (except for reportage that's generally approving) from the legacy media. For shame.
 
Last edited:
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

http://codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=5157

This is the Code Pink release after the Fort Hood shootings. Notice the ditzy colonel refers to "thousands" of patients, presumably seen by "Dr." Hasan, whose tales of horror from Iraq and Afghanistan evidently caused him to "snap."

For one thing, there may be thousands of "patients," but "Dr." Hasan surely didn't see them. We know his colleagues were trying to shield these wounded warriors from "Dr." Hasan's tender ministrations.

And for another, this "colonel" implies there is something called pre-PTSD. There isn't. PTSD is not contagious. One becomes a PTSD patient after one has experienced traumatic stress. The only alleged "stress" suffered by "Dr." Hasan was that someone allegedly referred to him as a "camel jockey." That's not traumatic stress.
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/offic...ht-war-crimes-prosecution-us/story?id=9019904

So while we're still being cautioned about "not jumping to conclusions," and told that "Dr." Hasan's motive are still "under investigation," we learn that he wanted to throw some of his patients under the bus and have them charged as "war criminals." That inconvenient doctor/patient confidentiality thing be d****d, apparantly.

Still, the Army, our Army, wasn't able to do anything to reign in this a-hole.
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Old Pio said:
Still, the Army, our Army, wasn't able to do anything to reign in this a-hole.
Click to expand...
This side of it really does stink to high heaven. We're told that they already knew so much about this, yet nothing was done. It makes one daydream about all sorts of conspiracy theories in order to explain it... Were they "building a case" before they went to court marshall? Were they hoping to exploit any connection he may have had to al-Qaeda for intelligence reasons? Or was this really an issue of PC meets PR meets beaurocratic red tape?
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
This side of it really does stink to high heaven. We're told that they already knew so much about this, yet nothing was done. It makes one daydream about all sorts of conspiracy theories in order to explain it... Were they "building a case" before they went to court marshall? Were they hoping to exploit any connection he may have had to al-Qaeda for intelligence reasons? Or was this really an issue of PC meets PR meets beaurocratic red tape?
Click to expand...

Short of a confession, you wonder what kind of "case" they could have been building. They could have assigned this dude to a desk in the records section or some other duty where he wasn't dealing with fragile vets coming home from conflict. That's really the indefensible part of this, that the Army couldn't or wouldn't figure out a way to protect vulnerable g.i.'s from this pos.

It is scandalous that returning g.i.'s who may be suffering from PTSD, would be put in the hands of a jihadist a-hole who thinks they're war criminals, and is prepared to rat them out. Short of opening fire in a room full of unarmed soldiers, I can't think of a greater betrayal of his professional responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
This side of it really does stink to high heaven. We're told that they already knew so much about this, yet nothing was done. It makes one daydream about all sorts of conspiracy theories in order to explain it... Were they "building a case" before they went to court marshall? Were they hoping to exploit any connection he may have had to al-Qaeda for intelligence reasons? Or was this really an issue of PC meets PR meets beaurocratic red tape?
Click to expand...

who is going to feel their career is worth the risk? is it worth the humiliation if you are wrong? Is it worth being at risk for a lawsuit? Would the FBI or Army risk a high level complaint for harassing a Arabic Muslim? Does anybody want their official record to read "that guy"?

These are flaws built into the system... done so in a noble but mindless fashion, yes... but its there. I don't think its direct PC-ness but the pressures of the system. When you know only certain actions will be tolerated you adapt to those actions.
 
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Patman said:
who is going to feel their career is worth the risk? is it worth the humiliation if you are wrong? Is it worth being at risk for a lawsuit? Would the FBI or Army risk a high level complaint for harassing a Arabic Muslim? Does anybody want their official record to read "that guy"?

These are flaws built into the system... done so in a noble but mindless fashion, yes... but its there. I don't think its direct PC-ness but the pressures of the system. When you know only certain actions will be tolerated you adapt to those actions.
Click to expand...

Sure. Careerism and intertia go a long way toward explaining what happened here. However, recall that "medical" presentation he made in a room full of shrinks (most higher ranking I would guess) and he begins fulminating about how "we" love death more than "you" love life, and the whole asylum full of jihadist cant. Shouldn't someone have done something? Shouldn't someone have insisted that the "Dr." appear in a supervisor's office to explain himself?

Ironically, given what's happened, some folks who may have looked the other way to protect their careers, may have damaged them irreparably instead.

What would have been the response if, instead of jihadist propaganda, he had harrangued them with racialist KKK-type nonsense. HISTORY! He'd be gone.
 
Last edited:
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Old Pio said:
Ironically, given what's happened, some folks who may have looked the other way to protect their careers, may have damaged them irreparably instead.
Click to expand...

I don't know the military but here's the stock excuse "he did the best he could do under the circumstances"... no damage... "we all would have done the same" and move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top