Terrorism and Liberal Political Correctness

[Vuk]

What can I say?
More bull from politically correct liberal trash. Why exactly are they trying to hide the fact that he was a radical islamist? Are they pro-radical islamist? What possible reason would they have then to classify such an act in such terms that completely disconnect it from its cause and obscure the religious fanaticism behind it? You can be your sweet pale booty that if it was a Christian of a radical military sect they would definitely report it that way.

[Hax]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Vladimir]

Vuk,

There was a day when we could take you out back and beat you with rubber hoses. Now you have your damn unions.

[Lemur]

So an essayist is outraged by something he heard on Fox news. About how the Ft. Hood shootings were referred to in a DOD document as an example of "workplace violence." No evidence that I can see that anyone was trying to say it was not also an example of homegrown jihad (which it was), just that in one doc they were citing it as workplace violence (which it was). If this is an example of out-of-control political correctness, I'd like a bit more evidence before jumping on the outrage train. (E.G., if a jihadi murders my dog, am I being a PC namby-pamby by citing it as cruelty to animals? Am I contractually obliged to insert the phrase MUZLIM TERRISTS every time I talk about my dog's murder?)

The only place this story is appearing is in rightwing blogs, which are frothing and furious and desperately attempting to demonstrate greater outrage than the blog that came before. I would be extremely cautious about jumping onto a bandwagon like that. Smells like death panels.

-edit-

Curious about the source, since none of the blogs (or the originating Fox New article) link it, I did a bit of Googling. This appears to be the offending document (PDF warning), which came to light in the Muslim Terrorism hearings. Take a look.

[Viking]

About how the Ft. Hood shootings were referred to in a DOD document as an example of "workplace violence." No evidence that I can see that anyone was trying to say it was not also an example of homegrown jihad (which it was), just that in one doc they were citing it as workplace violence (which it was).

It should clearly be labelled as 'workplace jihadism'.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But then there would've been an angry rant how the USA army is a hotbed of radical Islam which is all the fault of them godless liberals! You can't win.

[Subotan]

We must demand the very military Fort Hood victims served call this what it was — a terrorist attack and act of war.

In that case, Hasan is a prisoner of war (presumably some ill-defined War against Islam), and as such is protected by various international treaties the United States has ratified. Executing him would be a war crime.

[Beskar]

Smells like death panels

That used to make me rage. Especially from Foxnews Americans, I mean, seriously?

[Lemur]

Going back to the OP:

More bullcrap from politically correct liberal trash.

For those who were unaware, that "liberal trash" would be former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark and Secretary of Veteran Affairs Togo West, not to mention the servicemen and servicewomen who were involved in the "Protecting the Force" review. Damn libruls, they've taken over the Department of Defense!

-edit-

Okay, at least I think the document everyone's frothing about is the "Protecting the Force" report. Impossible to say; every single blog I've clicked leads back to the originating Fox News report, which does not have a link or source. Maddening. So much anguish and outrage, so little sourcing or reporting.

[Vladimir]

In that case, Hasan is a prisoner of war (presumably some ill-defined War against Islam), and as such is protected by various international treaties the United States has ratified. Executing him would be a war crime.

Check your sources. This makes no sense.

[Subotan]

Check your sources. This makes no sense.

I'm not sure I follow. Which sources?

[Centurion1]

im a conservative and i dont see the problem...... it was in a workplace he was a worker and he committed an act of violence. It was a report published by the US military not exactly a hotbed of liberal thought by the way.

If anything it should have been termed as an act of cowardice and that of a *****. He didn't give a crap about Jihadist thought he did it because he was terrified of being shipped over. Pathetic seeing as he was a freaking psychologist not a combat soldier. ******** yellow piece of ****.

(this particular story raises my ire)

[Papewaio]

Best way to react to terrorism is to put it into everyday risk matrices.

Even if this was an act of terrorism by couching it in everyday terms you both deny it it's propaganda impact and you can correctly respond to it. This means looking at the real chances of terrorist attack and the best options in dealing with it.

Too much chicken little, too little rational risk analysis.

=][=
Hippos kill more people then lions
Bees are more deadly then sharks
Coconuts are too.

Our fear is based not on the likely outcome but the less likely but more spectacular events.

To improve safety and life expectancy you have to deal with the mundane risks too.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't like the title change to this thread.

[Kralizec]

Going back to the OP:


For those who were unaware, that "liberal trash" would be former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark and Secretary of Veteran Affairs Togo West, not to mention the servicemen and servicewomen who were involved in the "Protecting the Force" review. Damn libruls, they've taken over the Department of Defense!

Damn libruls indeed! None of this politically correct nonsense would happen if the entire armed forces would just adopt Marine Corps standards.

[Subotan]

Damn libruls indeed! None of this politically correct nonsense would happen if the entire armed forces would just adopt Marine Corps standards.

As well as the government, civil society etc. etc.

[Vuk]

Vuk, did it ever occur to you that this anti-Islam sentiment might be unhealthy for the perfectly non-violent Muslims here in America? Did it ever occur to you that just because your example might, in fact, be homegrown Jihadism (but is also pure bonafied whacko), but that it might not be healthy to start an anti-Islamic craze?

It's like your eager for a race or religious war.

First of all, when was race ever mentioned?
Second of all, who said anything about anti-islam sentiment? Being anti-jihadist and anti-terrorist is not being anti-islam (unless you are trying to tell me that they are the same thing). All I am saying is call it what it is and don't try to white-wash it.
You don't have to dislike islam to dislike terrorism. (in fact, there are lots of muslims who dislike terrorism)
Either you have liberals in the military trying to cover up his motivations, or you have liberals elsewhere pressuring those in the military to do so. That is just not right. In order to fix a problem, you need to know its source. The problem here was not a shooting, that was just the symptom. The problem is Jihadism which could have manifested itself in any number of ways.

[Nowake]

Damn libruls indeed! None of this politically correct nonsense would happen if the entire armed forces would just adopt Marine Corps standards.

Quoting only this post because it seems to me the one to resume the rest most perfectly, yet I must exclaim Eureka! - the one Backroom thread where absolutely every response correctly calls a silly thread on its . Make it a sticky?

Sorry Vuk

[Lemur]

The problem here was not a shooting, that was just the symptom. The problem is Jihadism which could have manifested itself in any number of ways.

I'm not intimately familiar with the details of the shooter from Ft. Hood, but I gather there is some question about whether he was motivated by jihadism or good old-fashioned crazytime.

As I said earlier, the originating Fox News story does not link to any documents, but I believe the "Protecting the Force" report is the source of hysteria. If the goal of the report was to set policies to protect our servicemen and servicewomen, is it really so outrageous to focus on base violence without emphasizing jihadism? There are multiple threat vectors on-base, such as domestic violence and white supremacists (who have explicitly attempted to infiltrate the armed forces). Violent jihadis are one of many threats.

If the DOD goal is to find policies that better protect our precious soldiers, sailors and marines, a broad approach makes sense.

Think about it. You have allowed yourself to get wound up by people with an agenda that has nothing to do with fighting militant Islamists. It is extremely easy to be manipulated by people with whom you agree.

[Fragony]

Don't panic so fast Vukkie

[a completely inoffensive name]

Quoting only this post because it seems to me the one to resume the rest most perfectly, yet I must exclaim Eureka! - the one Backroom thread where absolutely every response correctly calls a silly thread on its . Make it a sticky?

Sorry Vuk

That's not very academic of you.

[Fragony]

With all due respect Vuk, everything you've said in this thread is one shining example of why we should tread carefully, lest the line between Islam and Jihadist Terrorism get even more mixed.

But call a spade a spade, fort Hood shooting was not a mere workfloor dispute. PC bull like that makes me sick and will get you killed

[Nowake]

That's not very academic of you.

REMOVED

[Fragony]

The Fort Hood shootings were the result of a very deranged man who looked to what appeared to him to be an obvious outlet for his angst.

There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, as long as you make sure it's actually the spade you're trying to hurt. In America, we have a long history of getting too excited and not looking at important issues long enough or hard enough before jumping to a social conclusion. There is no reason in the world to continue supporting that behaviour.

Reason is not to be wasted on islam imho, but whatever you want. But know that it are the moderates that are holding your feet while the extremists cut of your head. Islam is not peace, they don't even pretend it's peace, it's we who do that

[Lemur]

As per usual, Fragony, your MUSLINS BAD rants are long on rhetoric, low on substance. Take your picturesque image of moderates holding your feet while radicals chop off your head. What does that even mean? By that same illogic, I suppose my local Episcopalians are really a front for the Wetboro Baptist Church. And all moderate conservatives are really fronting for Timothy McVeigh, just as any nationalist is a closet Nazi, and so on and so forth.

You don't make arguments so much as gestures.

[Strike For The South]

REMOVED

[Fragony]

Fragony, me and you are both the kinds of people who are more prone to listen to a passionate debate than a logical one, but I think I can stand as kind of an expert when I say that not all Muslims are bad, and that Muslim people in general are worth just as much of your attention as any other people.

I know, and I feel no need to point out that most muslims are great people. Thing is, these great people aren't very good muslims.

[CountArach]

Alright this thread has descended to the point of personal attacks so it is time for it to take a nap.

If you wish to continue discussing the topic please open a new thread.