A man in the military says he is opposed to a certain military action and it is known to his upper command. What upper command would send the man to serve duty in the action to which he is opposed?
That is the situation with the Ft. Hood terrorist. How does sending a man to duty in an area to which he is opposed, a "P.C." action?
Some media have been doing stories of the military sending people back into service although the people claim or have documented they are suffering from PTSD. If that history with the military didn't exist, I would more strongly consider the "P.C." angle of this, but since the military has been sending people off to fight who should not fight, the "P.C." angle is discounted, to me.
YMMV.
Please pray for the families of the victims of terrorism.
[ UPDATE ]
Let me give you the relative time line of events on that Thursday.
- I heard about it on the radio, and that it involved 3 people.
- The body count started rising.
- The terrorist was said to be among the dead.
- The terrorist was identified.
- Online, The Washington Post identified the terrorist as a devout Muslim.
- It was reported the terrorist was still alive.
- I'm now at home and the network news is saying he is a devout Muslim who has been outspoken in his views and that he didn't want to go to Afghanistan.
Can you explain how this was an act of 'terra'?
You're throwing around a term so indescriminately that it has become meaningless.
Posted by: Roderick | November 08, 2009 at 01:32 PM
When the man previously made comments supporting jihad, tried to force Islam on patients, and yelled "God is Great" in Arabic before his attack, I think that's terrorism.
Posted by: DarkStar | November 08, 2009 at 08:09 PM
LOL. A lone gun man doesn't make a terrorist act. Of course you're entitled to your definition.
Posted by: Roderick | November 09, 2009 at 10:26 AM
OK, tell that to Israelis.
Posted by: DarkStar | November 09, 2009 at 10:32 AM
You're only telling part of the story.
A guy who was also in the Army keyes his car back in August causing about $1000 in damage.
Furthemore this guy had asked to be released and even had retained a lawyer to help him do so.
My guess is that dude just snapped and it had nothing to do with whatever you're talking about.
BTW how many terrorists have been so outspoken about how they felt? This guy was just nuts.
Posted by: Roderick | November 09, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Are the media reporting people who had confronting him are publishing information from multiple people who lied?
Posted by: DarkStar | November 09, 2009 at 10:41 AM
The guy in Orlando is nuts. The guy in Cleveland who raped and killed all of those women are nuts.
If the man's comments about Islam and now information about him attempting to contact al Qeda were not out there, I'd say he was nuts. But this is terrorism.
Posted by: DarkStar | November 09, 2009 at 10:43 AM