Obama Adm. Refuses Benefits to Victims of Hasan

[East of Eden]

According to Obamathink, this wasn't terror, it was 'workplace violence'. Question for debate: Does anyone want to defend this lunacy?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood ... N41Qm80WSo

[100%atheist]

According to Obamathink, this wasn't terror, it was 'workplace violence'. Question for debate: Does anyone want to defend this lunacy?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood ... N41Qm80WSo

Well, if it doesn't fit the milirary manual for awarding Purple Hear medals, then it doesn't. They want more support from the governement, right? And you support more support from the governement, correct?

[East of Eden]

According to Obamathink, this wasn't terror, it was 'workplace violence'. Question for debate: Does anyone want to defend this lunacy?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood ... N41Qm80WSo

Well, if it doesn't fit the milirary manual for awarding Purple Hear medals, then it doesn't. They want more support from the governement, right? And you support more support from the governement, correct?

The problem you have is Hasan's act DOES fulfill the definition on several counts:

"The manual states that the Purple Heart is awarded to service members who are killed or wounded "in action against an enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States, provided the Secretary of the military department concerned recognizes the attack as an international terrorist attack."

As defined by U.S. law, a terrorist act must be "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents," and for it to be an international terrorist act, it must involve "citizens or the territory of more than one country." All of those killed and a majority of those wounded in the attack were either active duty or reserve military personnel."

Hasan was a self described enemy of the US, his act was premeditated and politically motivated violence and he had contact with foreign terrorists in planning it. Doesn't his shouting "Allah Akbar" while shooting give you a little tip? Before this crime ever happened this creep should have been given a dishonorable discharge, made to pay back his government provided education expense, and put on a terror watch list. There were Army personel who were alarmed at his jihadist statements but were afraid to report them because of political correctness, they assumed their careers would be harmed by speaking out.

Sometimes you really wonder whose side Obama is on. Can you imagine FDR catching a German violent clandestine agent in WWII and not calling him what he was?

[Wyvern]

According to Obamathink, this wasn't terror, it was 'workplace violence'. Question for debate: Does anyone want to defend this lunacy?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood ... N41Qm80WSo

Well, if it doesn't fit the milirary manual for awarding Purple Hear medals, then it doesn't. They want more support from the governement, right? And you support more support from the governement, correct?

The problem you have is Hasan's act DOES fulfill the definition on several counts:

"The manual states that the Purple Heart is awarded to service members who are killed or wounded "in action against an enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States, provided the Secretary of the military department concerned recognizes the attack as an international terrorist attack."

As defined by U.S. law, a terrorist act must be "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents," and for it to be an international terrorist act, it must involve "citizens or the territory of more than one country." All of those killed and a majority of those wounded in the attack were either active duty or reserve military personnel."

Hasan was a self described enemy of the US, his act was premeditated and politically motivated violence and he had contact with foreign terrorists in planning it. Doesn't his shouting "Allah Akbar" while shooting give you a little tip? Before this crime ever happened this creep should have been given a dishonorable discharge, made to pay back his government provided education expense, and put on a terror watch list. There were Army personel who were alarmed at his jihadist statements but were afraid to report them because of political correctness, they assumed their careers would be harmed by speaking out.

Sometimes you really wonder whose side Obama is on. Can you imagine FDR catching a German violent clandestine agent in WWII and not calling him what he was?

You answered your own question, by your own definitions you have given it does not qualify as terrorism under the UCMJ and even under US law it does not qualify as international terrorism. Regardless of how he may have described himself in secret he was a member of the US army so unless you want to declare the US army as being enemies of the US your claim does not stand.

[East of Eden]

According to Obamathink, this wasn't terror, it was 'workplace violence'. Question for debate: Does anyone want to defend this lunacy?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood ... N41Qm80WSo

Well, if it doesn't fit the milirary manual for awarding Purple Hear medals, then it doesn't. They want more support from the governement, right? And you support more support from the governement, correct?

The problem you have is Hasan's act DOES fulfill the definition on several counts:

"The manual states that the Purple Heart is awarded to service members who are killed or wounded "in action against an enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States, provided the Secretary of the military department concerned recognizes the attack as an international terrorist attack."

As defined by U.S. law, a terrorist act must be "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents," and for it to be an international terrorist act, it must involve "citizens or the territory of more than one country." All of those killed and a majority of those wounded in the attack were either active duty or reserve military personnel."

Hasan was a self described enemy of the US, his act was premeditated and politically motivated violence and he had contact with foreign terrorists in planning it. Doesn't his shouting "Allah Akbar" while shooting give you a little tip? Before this crime ever happened this creep should have been given a dishonorable discharge, made to pay back his government provided education expense, and put on a terror watch list. There were Army personel who were alarmed at his jihadist statements but were afraid to report them because of political correctness, they assumed their careers would be harmed by speaking out.

Sometimes you really wonder whose side Obama is on. Can you imagine FDR catching a German violent clandestine agent in WWII and not calling him what he was?

You answered your own question, by your own definitions you have given it does not qualify as terrorism under the UCMJ and even under US law it does not qualify as international terrorism. Regardless of how he may have described himself in secret he was a member of the US army so unless you want to declare the US army as being enemies of the US your claim does not stand.

Army members who make anti-US statements, have contact with foreign terrorists, and murder their fellow soldiers aren't enemies of the US? So tell me, what would one have to do to be counted as such? What this vermin Hasan did is no different than the Afghan army people who are really working for the other side and who kill our men. Is that 'workplace violence' also?

[Wyvern]

Army members who make anti-US statements, have contact with foreign terrorists, and murder their fellow soldiers aren't enemies of the US? So tell me, what would one have to do to be counted as such? What this vermin Hasan did is no different than the Afghan army people who are really working for the other side and who kill our men. Is that 'workplace violence' also?

I am simply telling you that according to the definitions you provided this does not qualify as an international terrorist act. From you

"The manual states that the Purple Heart is awarded to service members who are killed or wounded "in action against an enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States, provided the Secretary of the military department concerned recognizes the attack as an international terrorist attack."

Were the people in question wounded or killed in action? To be considered in action normally means it has to happen in a war zone. Was it the result of the act of a foreign hostile force? The person that committed this act was an american citizen so again the answer is no. Has the secretary of the army declared this to be a terrorist attack? No this has not happened. Simply because Hasan had contact with another american citizen that was hostile to the US does not make this international terrorism.



Also I would like to know why you are trying to blame Obama for this when this is very obviously an internal army affair.

[East of Eden]

Army members who make anti-US statements, have contact with foreign terrorists, and murder their fellow soldiers aren't enemies of the US? So tell me, what would one have to do to be counted as such? What this vermin Hasan did is no different than the Afghan army people who are really working for the other side and who kill our men. Is that 'workplace violence' also?

I am simply telling you that according to the definitions you provided this does not qualify as an international terrorist act. From you"The manual states that the Purple Heart is awarded to service members who are killed or wounded "in action against an enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States, provided the Secretary of the military department concerned recognizes the attack as an international terrorist attack." Were the people in question wounded or killed in action? To be considered in action normally means it has to happen in a war zone.

Was 9/11 not a war zone either? These people have declared war on us.

Was it the result of the act of a foreign hostile force? The person that committed this act was an american citizen so again the answer is no.

Reread the definition, it says "or", in other words not all the definitions have to apply. Apparently you know more than those involved in the attack who are complaining about this injustice. Or maybe you really think Hasan was not an enemy of the US?

Has the secretary of the army declared this to be a terrorist attack? No this has not happened.

The statute says he has authority to do so.

Simply because Hasan had contact with another american citizen that was hostile to the US does not make this international terrorism.

He was an enemy of the US, and had contact of foreign terrorists.

Also I would like to know why you are trying to blame Obama for this when this is very obviously an internal army affair.

The OP says the Obama Administration, is he not in control of it? Who is the Commander in Chief?

Do you really think this was not a terror attack?

[Wyvern]

Was 9/11 not a war zone either? These people have declared war on us.

No 9/11 was not a war zone which is why the site was treated correctly as a crime scene and not a war zone. If you start calling every site in which someone was killed a war zone it takes the meaning out or the word.

Was it the result of the act of a foreign hostile force? The person that committed this act was an american citizen so again the answer is no.

Reread the definition, it says "or", in other words not all the definitions have to apply. Apparently you know more than those involved in the attack who are complaining about this injustice. Or maybe you really think Hasan was not an enemy of the US?

You are quite correct, the problem is of course that this episode does not satisfy any of the definitions given. I claim no special knowledge in this but it is a matter of public record that the individual was an american citizen and as such it was not the act of a foreign hostile force

Has the secretary of the army declared this to be a terrorist attack? No this has not happened.

The statute says he has authority to do so.

Until this happens it is not a terrorist attack and given this attack does not satisfy any of the other criteria it is unlikely to happen.

Simply because Hasan had contact with another american citizen that was hostile to the US does not make this international terrorism.

He was an enemy of the US, and had contact of foreign terrorists.

The foreign terrorist you are referring to was actually an american citizen living in Yemen, but he was a terrorist though. Hasan was only an enemy of the state after he did the shooting, what action did he perform beforehand that made him an enemy in your mind?

Also I would like to know why you are trying to blame Obama for this when this is very obviously an internal army affair.

The OP says the Obama Administration, is he not in control of it? Who is the Commander in Chief?

First off you wrote the OP so that's no excuse, why are you insisting on blaming Obama when the article you linked to hardly mentions the president at all, clearly this is a internal army affair just as the trial of Hasan will also be an internal army trial. Are you so naive as to think the president micromanages every decision made by every department in the US government? Your hatred of him is coloring how you present this case and takes away from the merits of it. Instead of having this case be an example of a possible bad decision by the bureaucracy you instead want to blame the president for it and in turn turn this into a political fiasco.

Do you really think this was not a terror attack?

You aren't getting it, it doesn't matter what I personally think it was. What matters is what is the criteria for presenting a service member with a purple heart and according to that at present this does not qualify without changing the definitions of terms used in the criteria.

[East of Eden]

Was 9/11 not a war zone either? These people have declared war on us.

No 9/11 was not a war zone which is why the site was treated correctly as a crime scene and not a war zone. If you start calling every site in which someone was killed a war zone it takes the meaning out or the word.

No, although the liberals wanted to call it a crime, Bush correctly saw it as terror, hence the War on Terror.

You are quite correct, the problem is of course that this episode does not satisfy any of the definitions given. I claim no special knowledge in this but it is a matter of public record that the individual was an american citizen and as such it was not the act of a foreign hostile force

Nonsense, you actually think it is impossible for an American to be an enemy of the US? Maybe the victims can get through to you:

"In the video, police officer Kimberly Munley, who was shot multiple times, says, "It was discovered, has been discovered, re-discovered that this was part of a terrorist activity."

"[The Fort Hood victims] were killed and wounded by a domestic enemy -- somebody who was there that day to kill soldiers, to prevent them from deploying," another victim, Army Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning says in the video. Manning was shot in the chest. "If that's not an act of war or an act of terrorism, I don't know what is."

Until this happens it is not a terrorist attack and given this attack does not satisfy any of the other criteria it is unlikely to happen.

Reality and the Obama administration are often two different things. What if they declared black to be white?

The foreign terrorist you are referring to was actually an american citizen living in Yemen, but he was a terrorist though.

Wait a minute, you just said American citizens can't be a terrorist, which is it?

Hasan was only an enemy of the state after he did the shooting, what action did he perform beforehand that made him an enemy in your mind?

Statements like these:

"Retired Colonel Terry Lee, who had worked with Hasan, later recalled[30] that the fatal shooting of two recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas greatly influenced Hasan. The suspect Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad later confessed he was an Al Qaeda terrorist though he was only charged with murder. Lee told Fox News that Hasan made "outlandish" statements against the American military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, that "the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor", referring to the US. While he had expressed hope Barack Obama would end both wars, he became more agitated, and frequently argued with soldiers. Hasan seemed happy about the shooting in Little Rock, except how the suspect was treated as a criminal. Hasan stated that the United States military should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and said there should be more people like the Little Rock shooter, and that people should "strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square."[31] Wikipedia

Here's a question I'd like a straight answer to: Does telling Muslims to fight against the US and telling people to do suicide bombings in NYC count as being an enemy action? As I said before, army personel who heard these treasonous statements were afraid to report them due to political correctness, they thought their career would be harmed.

First off you wrote the OP so that's no excuse,

Yes, it would be nice if you read it, I said the Obama administration. Is Bush in control of that?

why are you insisting on blaming Obama when the article you linked to hardly mentions the president at all, clearly this is a internal army affair just as the trial of Hasan will also be an internal army trial. Are you so naive as to think the president micromanages every decision made by every department in the US government? Your hatred of him is coloring how you present this case and takes away from the merits of it.

I don't hate Obama, I just think he is a failed incompetent who is doing great harm to the US.

Instead of having this case be an example of a possible bad decision by the bureaucracy you instead want to blame the president for it and in turn turn this into a political fiasco.

It already is a political fiasco.

You aren't getting it, it doesn't matter what I personally think it was.

Dodge noted.

What matters is what is the criteria for presenting a service member with a purple heart and according to that at present this does not qualify without changing the definitions of terms used in the criteria.

Complete baloney. Again, do you know more than the victims of this vermin Hasan?

Oh well, at least I got my OP question answer as to whether anyone was willing to defend this lunacy.

[Wyvern]

No, although the liberals wanted to call it a crime, Bush correctly saw it as terror, hence the War on Terror.

Terrorism is a crime if you did not know. We also have the war on drugs, does that mean having drugs is an act of war? Stop being silly.

You are quite correct, the problem is of course that this episode does not satisfy any of the definitions given. I claim no special knowledge in this but it is a matter of public record that the individual was an american citizen and as such it was not the act of a foreign hostile force

Nonsense, you actually think it is impossible for an American to be an enemy of the US? Maybe the victims can get through to you:

"In the video, police officer Kimberly Munley, who was shot multiple times, says, "It was discovered, has been discovered, re-discovered that this was part of a terrorist activity."

"[The Fort Hood victims] were killed and wounded by a domestic enemy -- somebody who was there that day to kill soldiers, to prevent them from deploying," another victim, Army Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning says in the video. Manning was shot in the chest. "If that's not an act of war or an act of terrorism, I don't know what is."

I bolded for you the important part, yes Hasan is a domestic terrorist no different than McVeigh. Why are you mixing up terms? All you are doing is confusing yourself and possibly muddying the waters. How did you arrive at the conclusion that you stated here?

Until this happens it is not a terrorist attack and given this attack does not satisfy any of the other criteria it is unlikely to happen.

Reality and the Obama administration are often two different things. What if they declared black to be white?

The secretary of the army is not a political appointment so it makes no sense for you to continually blame Obama for it. If you think otherwise please explain.

The foreign terrorist you are referring to was actually an american citizen living in Yemen, but he was a terrorist though.

Wait a minute, you just said American citizens can't be a terrorist, which is it?

Please point out where I made such a statement. I think you are conflating the term foreign with terrorist.

Hasan was only an enemy of the state after he did the shooting, what action did he perform beforehand that made him an enemy in your mind?

Statements like these:

"Retired Colonel Terry Lee, who had worked with Hasan, later recalled[30] that the fatal shooting of two recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas greatly influenced Hasan. The suspect Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad later confessed he was an Al Qaeda terrorist though he was only charged with murder. Lee told Fox News that Hasan made "outlandish" statements against the American military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, that "the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor", referring to the US. While he had expressed hope Barack Obama would end both wars, he became more agitated, and frequently argued with soldiers. Hasan seemed happy about the shooting in Little Rock, except how the suspect was treated as a criminal. Hasan stated that the United States military should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and said there should be more people like the Little Rock shooter, and that people should "strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square."[31] Wikipedia

Here's a question I'd like a straight answer to: Does telling Muslims to fight against the US and telling people to do suicide bombings in NYC count as being an enemy action? As I said before, army personel who heard these treasonous statements were afraid to report them due to political correctness, they thought their career would be harmed.

No it doesn't, it counts as free speech. Are you under the impression that free speech only covers that which you agree with? You also don't seem to understand that a recollection made after the fact such as this is not helpful in making a determination of whether a person is an enemy before any action is taken by the perpetrator. If these people were so afraid to report his supposed crimes of speaking freely they obviously couldn't have thought it was that serious. If you were convinced someone was going to go on a shooting rampage would you report it to the police or let a bunch of innocent people die because you think there might be repercussions?

First off you wrote the OP so that's no excuse,

Yes, it would be nice if you read it, I said the Obama administration. Is Bush in control of that?

Umm The OP contains the term Obamathink but it does not mention the Obama administration actually, it would be nice if you could pay attention to your own statements. How is you using an obviously derogatory and inflammatory term supposed to mean simply his administration? You say you don't hate the man but this is the nicest manner you can think of to address him?

why are you insisting on blaming Obama when the article you linked to hardly mentions the president at all, clearly this is a internal army affair just as the trial of Hasan will also be an internal army trial. Are you so naive as to think the president micromanages every decision made by every department in the US government? Your hatred of him is coloring how you present this case and takes away from the merits of it.

I don't hate Obama, I just think he is a failed incompetent who is doing great harm to the US.

Maybe you can address why you insist on blaming our president for a bureaucratic decision, unless you actually are so naive as to think the president micromanages every decision made by every department in the government.

Instead of having this case be an example of a possible bad decision by the bureaucracy you instead want to blame the president for it and in turn turn this into a political fiasco.

It already is a political fiasco.

So possibly making a point or two for the presidents opposition is worth the lives of a few dozen service members is it? Your disrespect for our president and military is noted.

You aren't getting it, it doesn't matter what I personally think it was.

Dodge noted.

How is this a dodge? How does it matter in any way shape or form what I think in this matter? Do you even care what I think on anything?

What matters is what is the criteria for presenting a service member with a purple heart and according to that at present this does not qualify without changing the definitions of terms used in the criteria.

Complete baloney. Again, do you know more than the victims of this vermin Hasan?

Actually the question should be do you know more than what your article states? According to the information you presented at present this does not qualify for a purple heart simple as that.

Oh well, at least I got my OP question answer as to whether anyone was willing to defend this lunacy.

Oh I get it now you are more interested in getting a point or two in your favor rather than actually listening to what is being said. You and Nero have a lot in common.