Ft. Hood Was Not Terrorism


Locutus
+2
#1
Remember this tomorrow when the same President Obama is lying to convince the American people that he is fighting hard against terrorism.

via sda:

Obama Doctrine: Ft. Hood Was Not Terrorism, Wounded Soldiers Get No Benefits



Victims of the Nov. 2009 Ft. Hood shooting are being denied benefits commensurate with combat injuries because the Obama administration refuses to label the attack an act of terrorism.

Instead, the shooting Maj. Nidal Hasan carried out after screaming "Allahu Akbar" it is still being labeled "workplace violence."

The difference between labeling the incident "workplace violence" and "terrorism" is not only the rightful recognition 13 of our troops deserve for being killed in service to their country on Nov. 5, 2009, but also ongoing benefits that would help survivors pay for the physical therapy, and other medical and psychological treatments that might be necessary to a full recovery.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has openly stated that the shooting, which took place in his state, was an act of terrorism and that the president such recognize it as such. He said, "President Obama's refusal to call it an act of terror is a shining example of this administration's devotion to political correctness over the defense of our men and women in uniform."


Obama Doctrine: Ft. Hood Was Not Terrorism, Wounded Soldiers Get No Benefits
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+3
#2
And Obama should be hung out to dry on that. Workplace violence- BS.
 
The Old Medic
Conservative
+1
#3
Locutus, please stop this foolishness. It's absolutely meaningless what any article says, Obama and his cronies are not about to change this. The ONLY way it will change is if the Republicans get control of the Senate, and win the Presidency, and kick all of those Neo-Communists out of Government employment.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by The Old MedicView Post

Locutus, please stop this foolishness. It's absolutely meaningless what any article says, Obama and his cronies are not about to change this. The ONLY way it will change is if the Republicans get control of the Senate, and win the Presidency, and kick all of those Neo-Communists out of Government employment.

You can always convince someone with a differing opinion using that - Sure to convince them on facts alone.
 
Kreskin
#5
If it wasn't election time the right wouldn't give a rats ***.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

If it wasn't election time the right wouldn't give a rats ***.

Do you understand that the soldiers killed lose benefits due to FFn wordplay- Obama not wanting to admit that it was an act of terror- And that is the truth.
 
Kreskin
+1
#7
Was it an act of terror? I don't know.

This is one case, an anectodal situation. And here the anti-Nanny Staters want entitlements handed out. Shoe's on the other foot. Good thing those families weren't same sex, the rightwingers would be in a real pickle to argue it.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Was it an act of terror? I don't know.

In my opinion yes- Take the time and read up on the connections to that wacko in Yemen- note the slip-ups by the Military and the Intelligence community-
I may be in error - but this would be the 1st successful terror attack in the US since 911.
 
Highball
#9
I wonder why this doesn't meet the criteria but the shooting of US troops in supposed secured safe areas in Afghanistan do? Both shooters were in uniform and on duty? This is a great example of US Judicial inconsistency.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by HighballView Post

I wonder why this doesn't meet the criteria but the shooting of US troops in supposed secured safe areas in Afghanistan do? Both shooters were in uniform and on duty? This is a great example of US Judicial inconsistency.

How does this involve the Judiciary.
 
B00Mer
Republican
+1
#11



Of course this is not “an act of terrorism” it is attributable to an internet video.

....
 
EagleSmack
+3
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Was it an act of terror? I don't know.

This is one case, an anectodal situation. And here the anti-Nanny Staters want entitlements handed out. Shoe's on the other foot. Good thing those families weren't same sex, the rightwingers would be in a real pickle to argue it.

Amazing how the left is going to compare benefits to wounded soldiers to those that want the Obama Phones.
 
petros
+1
#13
Quote:

Instead, the shooting Maj. Nidal Hasan carried out after screaming "Allahu Akbar" it is still being labeled "workplace violence."

And if he yelled "Jesus ****ing Christ, see ya in hell you *******s."?
 
Kreskin
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Amazing how the left is going to compare benefits to wounded soldiers to those that want the Obama Phones.

Is that an Apple product, the iObamaPhone?
 
B00Mer
Republican
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

And if he yelled "Jesus ****ing Christ, see ya in hell you *******s."?

Terrorism, just like the attacks in Northern Ireland that was carried out in the name of "Jesus Christ", just the Catholic or Protestant version.

Where women and children, and men were killed in acts of terrorism.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Is that an Apple product, the iObamaPhone?

You'll have to ask her... I'm not "entitled" to have one.

Original Obamaphone Lady Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube

 
petros
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Terrorism, just like the attacks in Northern Ireland that was carried out in the name of "Jesus Christ", just the Catholic or Protestant version.

Where women and children, and men were killed in acts of terrorism.

When somebody wigs out it's terrorism if they yell something before they kill?

If you don't yell anything it's what?

According to this forum, the Irish Christians are forgiven and it was different.
 
B00Mer
Republican
#18
Look, definition of terrorism is: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Both this shooting at Ft. Hood, and the North Ireland bombing, however disguised up the vial of religion, all have political motivation against the attackers.

Removal of Catholics from a region, or the removal of the infidels (the west) out of the Middle East.
 
EagleSmack
+4
#19  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

And if he yelled "Jesus ****ing Christ, see ya in hell you *******s."?

Oh they would have branded that guy as a terrorist in a heart beat if he yelled that.
 
Kreskin
+1
#20
Is going postal considered terrorism?
 
Highball
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

How does this involve the Judiciary.

The Adjutant General Judge of the Tribunals made this determination. Isn't that judiciary? Harvard grad and all that stuff?
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+1
#22
Was he attempting to coerce the government into something? Or did he just snap and want to kill some people? It doesn't matter if he made a religious reference, and environmental reference, or screamed 'save the seals'. It's his intent that makes the difference between terrorism and good old work place murderer.

Now... why is it people are hung up on that, and not on the injustice of the fact that WHY someone shoots you is the defining factor in what benefits you get from work? Are you any less shot? Were you any less at work? wtf is up with that?
 
petros
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Is going postal considered terrorism?

Only if you yell something.
 
DaSleeper
+3
#24
Would Obama have labelled what Timothy McVeigh did, domestic terrorism, or, a farming accident since fertilizer was used????

What the administration tells it's citizens sure is fertilizer......
 
B00Mer
Republican
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Is going postal considered terrorism?

...and did you watch the video above, it clearly stated a difference between work place violence and terrorism for religious or political motivation.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Would Obama have labelled what Timothy McVeigh did, domestic terrorism, or, a farming accident since fertilizer was used????

What the administration tells it's citizens sure is fertilizer......

Timothy McVeigh was trying to get a message across though. What about this case makes it text book terrorism and not just a 'going postal' instance?
 
petros
#27
COKE!.....PEPSI!

****....Ummmm aaaargh!

KABOOM!

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Timothy McVeigh was trying to get a message across though. What about this case makes it text book terrorism and not just a 'going postal' instance?

Excellent point. McVeigh did indeed have a grudge against his employer.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

...and did you watch the video above, it clearly stated a difference between work place violence and terrorism for religious or political motivation.

The difference though is that religious motivation usually expresses itself beyond yelling one religious phrase.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by HighballView Post

The Adjutant General Judge of the Tribunals made this determination. Isn't that judiciary? Harvard grad and all that stuff?

Would you have a link for that please.
 
B00Mer
Republican
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Timothy McVeigh was trying to get a message across though. What about this case makes it text book terrorism and not just a 'going postal' instance?

Timothy McVeigh was terrorism too.. but are we at war with militia groups?? We are at war with an Islamic ideology of hate towards the west that will kill "infidels" (that's you and me) at any chance they get..

We are at war, even though most don't want to admit to it.. ignorance is bliss I guess.. we are at war with an ideology of hate, that will attack us overseas or hear at home.. and kill as many as possible..

So what is the difference between 9/11 and Ft. Hood?? Both fanatical Muslims, living in the USA and attacks innocent American's in the name of Allah.

O.K. then 9/11 was not terrorism in your opinion.. after all, it was just 12 pilot students that had a point to make..

...and by the way, those terrorists where hypocrites. They claim to be dying for their faith, yet before they died, where out smoking, drinking, picking up *****s.. so rather than 12 virgins, I guess they are sitting at the right hand of Satan.

Quote: Originally Posted by HighballView Post

The Adjutant General Judge of the Tribunals made this determination. Isn't that judiciary? Harvard grad and all that stuff?

Harvard Grad is key word for Liberal Dumbass.
 

Similar Threads

3
Robin Hood has been identified
by 1an | Apr 30th, 2012
15
Fort Hood shooting
by DaSleeper | Nov 14th, 2011
1
New Robin Hood
by Herboozle | Sep 22nd, 2010
3
Robin Hood returns to TV.
by Blackleaf | Apr 7th, 2006
no new posts