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
Obama Adm. Refuses Benefits to Victims of Hasan
Moderator: Moderators
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Obama Adm. Refuses Benefits to Victims of Hasan
Post #1"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
Post #141
It would be helpful if you would stick to one source for your definitions.They certainly do, you must be reading a different definition from the one I posted.You can bring up anything else you want but until you can explain why this attack is not a malicious discharge according to the definitions you provided the victims do not qualify for a purple heart.
No sorry that is a term YOU introduced so please stop trying to villify our president.What's a 'malicious discharge'? Some new category invented by the Obama administration?
It should also be noted that the definition you lifted from wiki is from 1917 and not the modern qualification for a purple heart which without even looking at wiki I bet if you had wanted to you would have noticed the modern qualification a little further down in the article. Strange how you have no problem linking articles from every other source you use but did not do so here.
The point still remains which you have been avoiding is that Hasan at the time of the attack was an officer in good standing in the US army and as such this was not an attack by a hostile foreign force.
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Post #142
From Post 141:
Was this man an "insider" to the military? "Hang him!" (*upon reasonable jury rules)
(The above presented as based on the data I have available. It is my contention that you shouldn't be excused for killing folks based solely on they needed them some of it.)
In the matter of those affected by this individual, I propose their service is their passport. I propose it should not matter the wheres, the whys, or even the whos, but that there you sit, by your service, you've been damaged.
Was this man an "outsider" to the military? "Hang him!" (*upon reasonable jury rules)Wyvern wrote: ...Hasan at the time of the attack was an officer in good standing in the US army and as such this was not an attack by a hostile foreign force.
Was this man an "insider" to the military? "Hang him!" (*upon reasonable jury rules)
(The above presented as based on the data I have available. It is my contention that you shouldn't be excused for killing folks based solely on they needed them some of it.)
In the matter of those affected by this individual, I propose their service is their passport. I propose it should not matter the wheres, the whys, or even the whos, but that there you sit, by your service, you've been damaged.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
