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]

Bad results? You do remember that coming into office he was saddled with the poorest economic conditions since the great depression don't you?[/quote]

I know that't the Democratic Party line, but Reagan inherited an economy at least as bad, and he fixed it. Bush inherited the dotcom meltdown, and he didn't whine about that.[/quote]Lol, Reagan did not have an economy on the brink of total collapse as Obama did, guess how he fixed it? He spent his way out of the slump in addition to greatly lowering the interest rate which is a tool Obama does not have. The dotcom crash was a minor blip on the radar compared to nearly the entire banking and auto industries on the brink of insolvency. How is saying the economy was in a shambles at the start of his presidency a democratic line? Do you think the economy was in good shape at the time?

Since then there has been a steady if slow decline in the unemployment rate and the stock market is at record highs again.

Only due to the fed recklessly spending money we don't have, i.e. quantitative easing. You really think there is any solidity to this economy?

I think the economy is in a state of flux, but yes the base economy is very solid most of the world agrees with that as well.

There are signs that both the housing and auto markets are starting to rebound from the recent low points, so what bad results are you talking about?

Did you miss the Friday jobs report? Even the Washington Post called it a disaster.

What does the jobs report have to do with the upswing in the auto and housing markets?

The only reason unemployment went down is because more people stopped looking for work. The job participation rate is now the lowest since 1979 under Carter. There are now three people looking for work for every available job. Obama is shaping up to be Jimmy Carter II.

I have no idea why so many blacks voted for Obama, even the NAACP says they are worse off under Obama.

It probably had something to do with that alternate insulting them at every turn and not understanding why they made no inroads into that demographic.

Does this mean you admit according to army criteria this incident does not qualify for the purple heart?

No.

Then using the criteria being used please explain how they qualify for a purple heart.

The president doesn't intervene in this because it would set a bad precedent.

Why, so the next time a Muslim soldier comes down with Sudden Jihad Syndrome the victims get a Purple Heart?

Care to point to a medical paper identifying your sudden jihad syndrome. Again how is this addressing my reply?

Please state what these specific combat related benefits are being denied them.

I don't know, do you think the victims made this up?

Your OP stated that combat related benefits are being denied them so you have to identify what these denied benefits actually are in the first place. If you have no idea what is being denied if anything why would you create a thread decrying this supposed action which you have no actual clue about?

[East of Eden]

Lol, Reagan did not have an economy on the brink of total collapse as Obama did,

The actual 'collapse potential' came when Bush was president, so you're factually wrong there. Have you not heard of the misery index Reagan inherited?

guess how he fixed it? He spent his way out of the slump

While he was busy winning the cold war. FDR spent a lot on WWII also.

in addition to greatly lowering the interest rate

Exactly wrong, interest rates were raised. You also forgot to mention Reagan significantly lowered taxes and cut regulation.

which is a tool Obama does not have. The dotcom crash was a minor blip on the radar compared to nearly the entire banking and auto industries on the brink of insolvency. How is saying the economy was in a shambles at the start of his presidency a democratic line? Do you think the economy was in good shape at the time?

Since then there has been a steady if slow decline in the unemployment rate and the stock market is at record highs again.

Only due to the fed recklessly spending money we don't have, i.e. quantitative easing. You really think there is any solidity to this economy?

I think the economy is in a state of flux, but yes the base economy is very solid most of the world agrees with that as well.

Do the unemployed agree with that. This 'recovery' is pathetic.

What does the jobs report have to do with the upswing in the auto and housing markets?

People have put off buying cars for so long, they are now buying. It doesn't mean the jobs report wasn't terrible as the Post noted.

I probably had something to do with that alternate insulting them at every turn

Cite.

and not understanding why they made no inroads into that demographic.

Hard to make inroads in a voting block that often votes on race and wants free stuff. Obama didn't spend much time courting the NRA either.

Your OP stated that combat related benefits are being denied them so you have to identify what these denied benefits actually are in the first place. If you have no idea what is being denied if anything why would you create a thread decrying this supposed action which you have no actual clue about?

You're the one with the silly question, if you think the OP article or the victims lied the burden of proof is on you. Would it matter to you if you knew them?

[Wyvern]

Please stop trying to sidetrack this thread.

Your OP stated that combat related benefits are being denied them so you have to identify what these denied benefits actually are in the first place. If you have no idea what is being denied if anything why would you create a thread decrying this supposed action which you have no actual clue about?

You're the one with the silly question, if you think the OP article or the victims lied the burden of proof is on you. Would it matter to you if you knew them?

Sorry this is your thread so it is up to you to identify these supposed benefits you said is being denied. You can try to shift the burden all you want but it is ultimately yours to bear. Unless this entire thread is yet another attempt by you to smear the president you have to come up with something substantive to back up your argument other than a single article which makes the claim without identifying what is being denied. How can I or anyone else know what the article is talking about but since you decided to bring this subject up it is your job to identify what is being denied and simply telling me to make an argument to the article is silly in the extreme.

You made the OP not the article so it is your duty to identify the benefits being denied. If you can not do so simply withdraw the thread entirely.

[East of Eden]

Please stop trying to sidetrack this thread.

Your OP stated that combat related benefits are being denied them so you have to identify what these denied benefits actually are in the first place. If you have no idea what is being denied if anything why would you create a thread decrying this supposed action which you have no actual clue about?

You're the one with the silly question, if you think the OP article or the victims lied the burden of proof is on you. Would it matter to you if you knew them?

Sorry this is your thread so it is up to you to identify these supposed benefits you said is being denied. You can try to shift the burden all you want but it is ultimately yours to bear. Unless this entire thread is yet another attempt by you to smear the president you have to come up with something substantive to back up your argument other than a single article which makes the claim without identifying what is being denied. How can I or anyone else know what the article is talking about

By reading, and comprehending the OP. Once again I have to do your work for you:

"The Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, the organization that released the video, said in a statement that unless the government labels the attack terrorism, victims and their families will be "denied the recognition and benefits they are rightfully due," in particular eligibility for the Purple Heart Medal, along with which comes veterans' medical benefits and higher priority for veterans' disability compensation."

I guess ABC is in on this 'smear' huh? Most would call it reporting the facts.

but since you decided to bring this subject up it is your job to identify what is being denied and simply telling me to make an argument to the article is silly in the extreme.

You made the OP not the article so it is your duty to identify the benefits being denied. If you can not do so simply withdraw the thread entirely.

[Wyvern]

By reading, and comprehending the OP. Once again I have to do your work for you:

"The Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, the organization that released the video, said in a statement that unless the government labels the attack terrorism, victims and their families will be "denied the recognition and benefits they are rightfully due," in particular eligibility for the Purple Heart Medal, along with which comes veterans' medical benefits and higher priority for veterans' disability compensation."

What medical benefits are being denied them? Are you saying the Army is refusing to take care of their injuries? If their injuries are being looked at by either the VA or Army then what benefits are being denied? Or are you saying they want preferential treatment which a purple heart would entitle them to?

Of course you have yet to explain using the criteria already laid out by the Army how these people qualify for a purple heart.

I guess ABC is in on this 'smear' huh? Most would call it reporting the facts.

No the smear comes on your end when you try to implicate the president in this matter somehow when it is a fully internal Army matter.

[East of Eden]

By reading, and comprehending the OP. Once again I have to do your work for you:

"The Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, the organization that released the video, said in a statement that unless the government labels the attack terrorism, victims and their families will be "denied the recognition and benefits they are rightfully due," in particular eligibility for the Purple Heart Medal, along with which comes veterans' medical benefits and higher priority for veterans' disability compensation."

What medical benefits are being denied them? Are you saying the Army is refusing to take care of their injuries? If their injuries are being looked at by either the VA or Army then what benefits are being denied? Or are you saying they want preferential treatment which a purple heart would entitle them to?

Yes. You might want to try debating rather than asking a blizzard of irrelevant questions that have already been answered.

Of course you have yet to explain using the criteria already laid out by the Army how these people qualify for a purple heart.

You tell me how they don't qualify for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart

The problem is Obama's PC blinders won't allow to recognize that this was done by a hostile enemy, not the ludicrous explanation of workplace violence. Note in 1997 even civlians injured in a Saudi Arabia terror attack were given this award.

Do you think this was terror?

I guess ABC is in on this 'smear' huh? Most would call it reporting the facts.

No the smear comes on your end when you try to implicate the president in this matter somehow when it is a fully internal Army matter.[/quote]

Quit dodging my question, is ABC the instigator of this 'smear'? The information is from them, not me, argue with them.

[Wyvern]

By reading, and comprehending the OP. Once again I have to do your work for you:

"The Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, the organization that released the video, said in a statement that unless the government labels the attack terrorism, victims and their families will be "denied the recognition and benefits they are rightfully due," in particular eligibility for the Purple Heart Medal, along with which comes veterans' medical benefits and higher priority for veterans' disability compensation."

What medical benefits are being denied them? Are you saying the Army is refusing to take care of their injuries? If their injuries are being looked at by either the VA or Army then what benefits are being denied? Or are you saying they want preferential treatment which a purple heart would entitle them to?

Yes. You might want to try debating rather than asking a blizzard of irrelevant questions that have already been answered.

How is asking what benefits are being denied irrelevant when the OP is claiming benefits are being denied? Why is it you are either unwilling or unable to identify the actual benefits being denied that you claimed in the OP? If you can not actually identify any benefits being denied as you claim in the OP then what is the purpose of this thread in the first place?

Of course you have yet to explain using the criteria already laid out by the Army how these people qualify for a purple heart.

You tell me how they don't qualify for it:

You made the claim that they do qualify for it so it is your duty to show that it is so, not mine to prove you wrong before you even have a case

The problem is Obama's PC blinders won't allow to recognize that this was done by a hostile enemy, not the ludicrous explanation of workplace violence. Note in 1997 even civlians injured in a Saudi Arabia terror attack were given this award.

Please explain the part Obama has played in this event to warrant mentioning him in any way. This hostile enemy as you call him is a member of the US Army. Was this 1997 attack perpetrated by US military personnel?

Quit dodging my question, is ABC the instigator of this 'smear'? The information is from them, not me, argue with them.

Did ABC blame the president for this as you are doing? This is twice now you have attempted to disown your part in this thread by telling me to debate anyone but the person that created the OP.

[East of Eden]

By reading, and comprehending the OP. Once again I have to do your work for you:

"The Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, the organization that released the video, said in a statement that unless the government labels the attack terrorism, victims and their families will be "denied the recognition and benefits they are rightfully due," in particular eligibility for the Purple Heart Medal, along with which comes veterans' medical benefits and higher priority for veterans' disability compensation."

What medical benefits are being denied them? Are you saying the Army is refusing to take care of their injuries? If their injuries are being looked at by either the VA or Army then what benefits are being denied? Or are you saying they want preferential treatment which a purple heart would entitle them to?

Yes. You might want to try debating rather than asking a blizzard of irrelevant questions that have already been answered.

How is asking what benefits are being denied irrelevant when the OP is claiming benefits are being denied?

Because the OP already answered that question.

You made the claim that they do qualify for it so it is your duty to show that it is so, not mine to prove you wrong before you even have a case

Already posted the Purple Heart item from Wiki, I see nothing there that would prevent it.

Please explain the part Obama has played in this event to warrant mentioning him in any way.

It is his administration. As I've said before, Gen. Obama stuck his nose in the military to ram through gays serving, but when it comes to our soldiers being massacred by an embeded Jihadist, he isn't interested. Perhaps it would conflict with the narative that Muslims like us now that he is president.

This hostile enemy as you call him is a member of the US Army.

So was Benefict Arnold. When he decided to turn and attack us was that workplace violence? Still waiting for you to answer my question of if Ft. Hood was workplace violence. Here's a hint from the OP:

"As ABC News reported in the weeks following the attack, Hasan exchanged at least 18 e-mail messages with al-Awlaki within a six month period between December 2008 and June 2009, in which he asked al-Awlaki questions including when jihad is appropriate and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack."

Was this 1997 attack perpetrated by US military personnel?

The victims weren't even US military personnel.

Did ABC blame the president for this as you are doing?

The OP said 'Obama Administration', is this not correct?

[Wyvern]

Because the OP already answered that question.

No the OP claimed benefits were being denied without actually identifying what those benefits are, could you please identify specifically what benefits are being denied at this time?

You made the claim that they do qualify for it so it is your duty to show that it is so, not mine to prove you wrong before you even have a case

Already posted the Purple Heart item from Wiki, I see nothing there that would prevent it.

Then please make the argument instead of the mere claim you keep making.

Please explain the part Obama has played in this event to warrant mentioning him in any way.

It is his administration. As I've said before, Gen. Obama stuck his nose in the military to ram through gays serving, but when it comes to our soldiers being massacred by an embeded Jihadist, he isn't interested. Perhaps it would conflict with the narative that Muslims like us now that he is president.

Just because the president is commander in chief that does not mean he holds military rank as you are suggesting. Gays in the military is a policy decision while deciding who gets a medal is a bureaucratic process. Do you really think the president should get personally involved in every bureaucratic decision made by his administration if someone disagrees with the standard bureaucratic decision? What is this narrative you are talking about, the only people that say anything remotely like the radical muslims like us are the far right wing nutjobs that also say he is a muslim himself. Forgive me for assuming you are not one of those people.

This hostile enemy as you call him is a member of the US Army.

So was Benefict Arnold. When he decided to turn and attack us was that workplace violence? Still waiting for you to answer my question of if Ft. Hood was workplace violence. Here's a hint from the OP:

"As ABC News reported in the weeks following the attack, Hasan exchanged at least 18 e-mail messages with al-Awlaki within a six month period between December 2008 and June 2009, in which he asked al-Awlaki questions including when jihad is appropriate and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack."

I am not aware of Arnold personally attacking anyone with a semiautomatic weapon at a base so not sure of the relevance of bringing that up. What does this quote have to do with the OP? It states these emails were made AFTER the attack, is Hasan denying these people benefits?

Was this 1997 attack perpetrated by US military personnel?

The victims weren't even US military personnel.

Good thing that's not what I asked then, was the attack made BY US military personnel?

Did ABC blame the president for this as you are doing?

The OP said 'Obama Administration', is this not correct?

Yes we all know you are trying to smear the president you wrote the OP did you not? I asked did ABC blame the president.

[East of Eden]

Because the OP already answered that question.

No the OP claimed benefits were being denied without actually identifying what those benefits are, could you please identify specifically what benefits are being denied at this time?

Read the OP.

Then please make the argument instead of the mere claim you keep making.

You are the one alleging ABC and the victims are wrong, you demonstrate it.

Just because the president is commander in chief that does not mean he holds military rank as you are suggesting.

The president holds the highest military rank, according to Wikipedia.

Gays in the military is a policy decision while deciding who gets a medal is a bureaucratic process. Do you really think the president should get personally involved in every bureaucratic decision made by his administration if someone disagrees with the standard bureaucratic decision?

Yes. It says a lot that this embedded Jihadists trying to kill soldiers before they were deployed isn't considered worthy of Obama's attention.

What is this narrative you are talking about, the only people that say anything remotely like the radical muslims like us are the far right wing nutjobs that also say he is a muslim himself. Forgive me for assuming you are not one of those people.

Off topic. Is there such a thing as a far left wing nutjob?

I am not aware of Arnold personally attacking anyone with a semiautomatic weapon at a base so not sure of the relevance of bringing that up.

He commanded enemy forces, duh.

What does this quote have to do with the OP? It states these emails were made AFTER the attack, is Hasan denying these people benefits?

You really need to improve your comprehension, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. ABC reported on the emails after the attack, which were exchanged with one of our most wanted terrorists before the attack.

Yes we all know you are trying to smear the president you wrote the OP did you not? I asked did ABC blame the president.

By implication, yes. Please watch this video by the surviving victims, many of whose lives will never be the same:



Are they trying to smear Obama? Apparently to you he can do no wrong, and musn't be questioned.

You're still dodging my question of whether you think this was terror. Maybe you think 9/11 was workplace violence, I don't know.