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

[Wyvern]

Like when Obama forced gays on the military? Your arguments aren't any better now than they were two months ago.

Non sequiter, gays in the military was a policy decision and rightfully made by the administration as opposed to a criminal case such as this incident. In your zeal to villify the president you are in fact working against the ends which you have declared as being proper in this case.

They can't execute this creep fast enough.

You do understand I hope that if it turned into a political issue as you wish that Hasan will simply be thrown into Guantanamo with all the rest of the titular POW's. While on the other hand if you would allow the Army to proceed with the charges as they stand the punishment under the UCMJ for murder is death. You have to understand the military does not operate under the civilian law codes.

I am also still waiting for you to identify the supposed benefits that you say is being denied to the victims of this shooting.

Sorry, this has already been answered many times. What do you think the vets are upset about?

That's exactly what I'm asking you but the only thing you keep saying is these people are upset about something. From the actual articles you have posted they are not being denied anything other than preferential treatment by the VA. They are not being denied treatment, they are being denied preferrential treatment.

[East of Eden]

Like when Obama forced gays on the military? Your arguments aren't any better now than they were two months ago.

Non sequiter, gays in the military was a policy decision and rightfully made by the administration

Your opinion, millions disagree with you.

You do understand I hope that if it turned into a political issue as you wish that Hasan will simply be thrown into Guantanamo with all the rest of the titular POW's. While on the other hand if you would allow the Army to proceed with the charges as they stand the punishment under the UCMJ for murder is death. You have to understand the military does not operate under the civilian law codes.

No kidding, I just wonder why he is still among us after four years when FDR executed captured German sabatuers in one week. Justice delayed is justice denied.

That's exactly what I'm asking you but the only thing you keep saying is these people are upset about something. From the actual articles you have posted they are not being denied anything other than preferential treatment by the VA. They are not being denied treatment, they are being denied preferrential treatment.

Due them as victims of a terror attack. If you don't believe then believe Maj. Hassan.

[Wyvern]

Like when Obama forced gays on the military? Your arguments aren't any better now than they were two months ago.

Non sequiter, gays in the military was a policy decision and rightfully made by the administration

Your opinion, millions disagree with you.

millions may in fact disagree with the decision but that does not address the fact that allowing gays in the military is one a fait accompli, two a policy decision and three you bringing it up in the first place is a non sequiter.

You do understand I hope that if it turned into a political issue as you wish that Hasan will simply be thrown into Guantanamo with all the rest of the titular POW's. While on the other hand if you would allow the Army to proceed with the charges as they stand the punishment under the UCMJ for murder is death. You have to understand the military does not operate under the civilian law codes.

No kidding, I just wonder why he is still among us after four years when FDR executed captured German sabatuers in one week. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Yet another non sequiter, what connection does the fate of the offender have to do with whether or not the victims are getting the compensation you think they deserve? You may have noticed we are not at war with another nation as was the case in WW2. Do you believe we are in a state of war inside the US? Do you believe the situation currently in the US is the way a nation supposedly at war conducts itself? As far as the justice quote, do you believe only swift justice is true justice even if they get it wrong?

That's exactly what I'm asking you but the only thing you keep saying is these people are upset about something. From the actual articles you have posted they are not being denied anything other than preferential treatment by the VA. They are not being denied treatment, they are being denied preferrential treatment.

Due them as victims of a terror attack. If you don't believe then believe Maj. Hassan.

Did I miss somewhere that Hasan stated that his victims deserve the purple heart and the attendant preferred treatment from the VA that it entails? Do you believe the victims of the Boston marathon attack deserve identical preferred treatment?

[East of Eden]

Like when Obama forced gays on the military? Your arguments aren't any better now than they were two months ago.

Non sequiter, gays in the military was a policy decision and rightfully made by the administration

Your opinion, millions disagree with you.

millions may in fact disagree with the decision but that does not address the fact that allowing gays in the military is one a fait accompli,

So that makes something right? The Dred Scott decision was once a fait accompli.

two a policy decision and three you bringing it up in the first place is a non sequiter.

No it isn't, you claim Obama is somehow powerless to intervene on behalf of the terror victims, yet he forces a major policy change like gays in the military on them. What's wrong with that picture?

You may have noticed we are not at war with another nation as was the case in WW2. Do you believe we are in a state of war inside the US?

Have you not heard radical Islam has declared war on us? 9/11, Ft. Hood, and the Boston bombing were all done by soldiers of radical Islam. That you and Obama won't admit the obvious isn't helpful. You apparently would see those three events as unrelated random criminal acts.

Did I miss somewhere that Hasan stated that his victims deserve the purple heart and the attendant preferred treatment from the VA that it entails?

No, what you missed was Hassan admitting he is one the side of the Taliban, which explains his terror act.

Do you believe the victims of the Boston marathon attack deserve identical preferred treatment?

Non sequitor, do you not know the difference between a soldier and a civilian?

[Wyvern]

So that makes something right? The Dred Scott decision was once a fait accompli.

Does that mean you are of the opinion that all americans should not be given the chance to serve their nation? Do you think there is something inately different with homosexuals that makes them incapable of serving in the military?

two a policy decision and three you bringing it up in the first place is a non sequiter.

No it isn't, you claim Obama is somehow powerless to intervene on behalf of the terror victims, yet he forces a major policy change like gays in the military on them. What's wrong with that picture?

When did I make such a claim, please present this claim you say I made or retract it. Any decision the president makes is a policy decision and as such it would have severe consequences if he would intervene in this case simply to satisfy your desires. The criteria only recently has finally been ironed out enough to limit frivolous purple hearts(such as recieving one due to getting a boil in a combat zone)

You may have noticed we are not at war with another nation as was the case in WW2. Do you believe we are in a state of war inside the US?

Have you not heard radical Islam has declared war on us? 9/11, Ft. Hood, and the Boston bombing were all done by soldiers of radical Islam. That you and Obama won't admit the obvious isn't helpful. You apparently would see those three events as unrelated random criminal acts.

Amazing you mention three different acts carried out by three different groups all of which you simplistically put under the umbrella of radical islam. Please explain how three events carried out by three different groups over the course of a decade are connected.

Did I miss somewhere that Hasan stated that his victims deserve the purple heart and the attendant preferred treatment from the VA that it entails?

No, what you missed was Hassan admitting he is one the side of the Taliban, which explains his terror act.

Look under the criteria of the awarding of a purple heart and point out how they qualify? I have asked this of you before but all you keep coming up with is that the victims claim they are being denied something which you apparantly are incapable of identifying.

Do you believe the victims of the Boston marathon attack deserve identical preferred treatment?

Non sequitor, do you not know the difference between a soldier and a civilian?

So if you recognize this difference why is it you are incapable of recognizing the difference between a warzone and a non warzone? So are you saying if a soldier was injured in the Boston bombing that that person should get better treatment than the civilians injured around them?

[East of Eden]

So that makes something right? The Dred Scott decision was once a fait accompli.

Does that mean you are of the opinion that all americans should not be given the chance to serve their nation? Do you think there is something inately different with homosexuals that makes them incapable of serving in the military?

You're hijacking the thread now. My point was that because something has been done doesn't make it right, and that what was done can be undone.

When did I make such a claim, please present this claim you say I made or retract it.

You have repeatedly said the OP question was somehow too trivial for Obama to be involved in. He got involved on behalf of his gay doners, apparently acting on behalf of terror victims is too much for him.

and as such it would have severe consequences if he would intervene in this case simply to satisfy your desires.

No, the desires of the wounded soldiers. You and Obama don't seem to care about them.

The criteria only recently has finally been ironed out enough to limit frivolous purple hearts(such as recieving one due to getting a boil in a combat zone)

Wow, the Ft. Hood massacre was a frivolous case?

Amazing you mention three different acts carried out by three different groups all of which you simplistically put under the umbrella of radical islam. Please explain how three events carried out by three different groups over the course of a decade are connected.

All done by soldiers of radical Islam, if you can't connect those basis dots, lets just stop the conversation right here please.

Look under the criteria of the awarding of a purple heart and point out how they qualify? I have asked this of you before but all you keep coming up with is that the victims claim they are being denied something which you apparantly are incapable of identifying.

Been answered many times, see the OP.

So if you recognize this difference why is it you are incapable of recognizing the difference between a warzone and a non warzone?

The whole world is a warzone as far as the Jihadist are concerned.

So are you saying if a soldier was injured in the Boston bombing that that person should get better treatment than the civilians injured around them?

I'm saying they should get benefits due their status as soldiers wounded in a terror attack, the Boston victims weren't soldiers. Again, if you can't grasp this simple concept, I'm done here.

[Wyvern]

So that makes something right? The Dred Scott decision was once a fait accompli.

Does that mean you are of the opinion that all americans should not be given the chance to serve their nation? Do you think there is something inately different with homosexuals that makes them incapable of serving in the military?

You're hijacking the thread now. My point was that because something has been done doesn't make it right, and that what was done can be undone.

LOL!! I'm hijacking the thread? You are the one that hijacked the thread by bringing in gays as an issue you think is related to the OP. Since YOU decided to bring this issue to this point how about you answer the question?

When did I make such a claim, please present this claim you say I made or retract it.

You have repeatedly said the OP question was somehow too trivial for Obama to be involved in. He got involved on behalf of his gay doners, apparently acting on behalf of terror victims is too much for him.

Then your choice is simple then, admit I never said

you claim Obama is somehow powerless to intervene on behalf of the terror victims

. Stop misrepresenting what I write.

and as such it would have severe consequences if he would intervene in this case simply to satisfy your desires.

No, the desires of the wounded soldiers. You and Obama don't seem to care about them.

Wow nothing like continually villifying anyone that disagrees with you. Are the victims injuries not being cared for by the Army? What is it you want for these people?

The criteria only recently has finally been ironed out enough to limit frivolous purple hearts(such as recieving one due to getting a boil in a combat zone)

Wow, the Ft. Hood massacre was a frivolous case?

You really need to read what is written instead of inserting whatever you like. You have never once shown how these victims qualify for a purple heart.

Amazing you mention three different acts carried out by three different groups all of which you simplistically put under the umbrella of radical islam. Please explain how three events carried out by three different groups over the course of a decade are connected.

All done by soldiers of radical Islam, if you can't connect those basis dots, lets just stop the conversation right here please.

You are the one that thinks all these groups are some unified whole, please show evidence that your assumption is true. Please provide evidence that al Qaida, the Taliban and the Chechen rebels are one unified group as you claim.

Look under the criteria of the awarding of a purple heart and point out how they qualify? I have asked this of you before but all you keep coming up with is that the victims claim they are being denied something which you apparantly are incapable of identifying.

Been answered many times, see the OP.

The OP makes the claim but you have never actually bothered substantiating your claim.

So if you recognize this difference why is it you are incapable of recognizing the difference between a warzone and a non warzone?

The whole world is a warzone as far as the Jihadist are concerned.

So you allow the titular enemy to define the combat zone? You are aware I hope that the US military has a much different idea of what constitutes the current combat zone?

So are you saying if a soldier was injured in the Boston bombing that that person should get better treatment than the civilians injured around them?

I'm saying they should get benefits due their status as soldiers wounded in a terror attack, the Boston victims weren't soldiers. Again, if you can't grasp this simple concept, I'm done here.

If a soldier is injured for any reason outside of a combat zone they are not due a purple heart, why is this so difficult for you to grasp this simple fact?

[East of Eden]

So that makes something right? The Dred Scott decision was once a fait accompli.

Does that mean you are of the opinion that all americans should not be given the chance to serve their nation? Do you think there is something inately different with homosexuals that makes them incapable of serving in the military?

You're hijacking the thread now. My point was that because something has been done doesn't make it right, and that what was done can be undone.

LOL!! I'm hijacking the thread? You are the one that hijacked the thread by bringing in gays as an issue you think is related to the OP. Since YOU decided to bring this issue to this point how about you answer the question?

When did I make such a claim, please present this claim you say I made or retract it.

You have repeatedly said the OP question was somehow too trivial for Obama to be involved in. He got involved on behalf of his gay doners, apparently acting on behalf of terror victims is too much for him.

Then your choice is simple then, admit I never said

you claim Obama is somehow powerless to intervene on behalf of the terror victims

. Stop misrepresenting what I write.

and as such it would have severe consequences if he would intervene in this case simply to satisfy your desires.

No, the desires of the wounded soldiers. You and Obama don't seem to care about them.

Wow nothing like continually villifying anyone that disagrees with you. Are the victims injuries not being cared for by the Army? What is it you want for these people?

The criteria only recently has finally been ironed out enough to limit frivolous purple hearts(such as recieving one due to getting a boil in a combat zone)

Wow, the Ft. Hood massacre was a frivolous case?

You really need to read what is written instead of inserting whatever you like. You have never once shown how these victims qualify for a purple heart.

Amazing you mention three different acts carried out by three different groups all of which you simplistically put under the umbrella of radical islam. Please explain how three events carried out by three different groups over the course of a decade are connected.

All done by soldiers of radical Islam, if you can't connect those basis dots, lets just stop the conversation right here please.

You are the one that thinks all these groups are some unified whole, please show evidence that your assumption is true. Please provide evidence that al Qaida, the Taliban and the Chechen rebels are one unified group as you claim.

Look under the criteria of the awarding of a purple heart and point out how they qualify? I have asked this of you before but all you keep coming up with is that the victims claim they are being denied something which you apparantly are incapable of identifying.

Been answered many times, see the OP.

The OP makes the claim but you have never actually bothered substantiating your claim.

So if you recognize this difference why is it you are incapable of recognizing the difference between a warzone and a non warzone?

The whole world is a warzone as far as the Jihadist are concerned.

So you allow the titular enemy to define the combat zone? You are aware I hope that the US military has a much different idea of what constitutes the current combat zone?

So are you saying if a soldier was injured in the Boston bombing that that person should get better treatment than the civilians injured around them?

I'm saying they should get benefits due their status as soldiers wounded in a terror attack, the Boston victims weren't soldiers. Again, if you can't grasp this simple concept, I'm done here.

If a soldier is injured for any reason outside of a combat zone they are not due a purple heart, why is this so difficult for you to grasp this simple fact?

I'll ignore the rest of the post as I don't consider it worth answering, but this last statement is just demonstratabley false. From Wikipedia, on the Purple Heart:

"Enemy-related injuries which justify the award of the Purple Heart include injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action; injury caused by enemy placed land mine, naval mine, or trap; injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent; injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire; concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions."

"Enemy-related injuries which justify the award of the Purple Heart include injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action; injury caused by enemy placed land mine, naval mine, or trap; injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent; injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire; concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions."

"The most recent Purple Hearts presented to civilians occurred after the terrorist attacks at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, in 1996—about 40 U.S. civil service employees received the award for their injuries."

[Were the Khobar Towers a combat zone?]

"It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel."


What you and Obama won't admit is that Hassan is a self-declared enemy of the US, and a soldier of jihad on the same side as all the other jihadists groups. If you picked 10 normal Ameriacans as random and asked whether it was terror or workplace violence, what would they say?

[Wyvern]

"Enemy-related injuries which justify the award of the Purple Heart include injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action; injury caused by enemy placed land mine, naval mine, or trap; injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent; injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire; concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions."

"The most recent Purple Hearts presented to civilians occurred after the terrorist attacks at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, in 1996—about 40 U.S. civil service employees received the award for their injuries."

[Were the Khobar Towers a combat zone?]

"It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel."


What you and Obama won't admit is that Hassan is a self-declared enemy of the US, and a soldier of jihad on the same side as all the other jihadists groups. If you picked 10 normal Ameriacans as random and asked whether it was terror or workplace violence, what would they say?

You may have noticed that in every case in the definition it requires the injury to be caused by an enemy. Last I checked Hasan is a member of the US Army and as such this would be considered a case of friendly fire.

[East of Eden]

"Enemy-related injuries which justify the award of the Purple Heart include injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action; injury caused by enemy placed land mine, naval mine, or trap; injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent; injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire; concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions."

"The most recent Purple Hearts presented to civilians occurred after the terrorist attacks at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, in 1996—about 40 U.S. civil service employees received the award for their injuries."

[Were the Khobar Towers a combat zone?]

"It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel."


What you and Obama won't admit is that Hassan is a self-declared enemy of the US, and a soldier of jihad on the same side as all the other jihadists groups. If you picked 10 normal Ameriacans as random and asked whether it was terror or workplace violence, what would they say?

You may have noticed that in every case in the definition it requires the injury to be caused by an enemy. Last I checked Hasan is a member of the US Army and as such this would be considered a case of friendly fire.

Wrong again, this is the definition of friendly fire:

"Friendly fire is an attack by a military force on friendly forces while attempting to attack the enemy, either misidentifying the target as hostile, or due to errors or inaccuracy. Such attacks often cause injury or death. Fire not intended to attack the enemy, such as negligent or malicious discharge, or deliberate firing on one's own troops for disciplinary reasons, is not called friendly fire."

There was nothing accidental about it, Hassan intended to kill as many American soldiers as possible, and he was/in an embedded enemy soldier, just like his brethren in the Afghan Army who shoot our soldiers. Hassan is a self-declared enemy of the US, and the only reason he wasn't given a dishonorabe discharge before this happened was political correctness.

You didn't answer my question, were the Khobar Towers a combat zone?