Malik Nadal Hasan.

[metman]

Although the bungling of Osama Bin Laden is due to both parties and their own ****-ups, this is why I hate the idea of "Do the right thing" and subscribe, and have for eons, to the idea of "Get it done, **** the world, **** the happy people and their feelings"

**

"MOYERS: The field officer insists, "Hit him tonight. We may not get another chance."

But the pending impeachment trial has cut Clinton's room for error. If there is "collateral damage" — if civilians are killed — he will be branded as reckless. With its weapons locked and loaded, the U.S. military is ordered to stand down.

Clinton did sign covert guidelines directing the CIA to go after the al Qaeda leader. But the agents could kill bin Laden only in self-defense, as they tried to capture him.

MIKE: It was always easier to have killed him. It was never permissible by the people who made the policy decisions.

MOYERS: The administration is gun shy. CIA officers fume.

**

Source:

Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS

The point is that if we struck, liberals (and the world) would have been outraged and cried if civilians attacked. If Bush did the same he'd be a war monger. Neither are true and, like Bush, I would have supported Clinton.

To me, it's not the BEST example of why ultra liberal ways piss me off, but it shows you that we, as a nation, were GUN shy by trying to 'do the right thing'. This also happened with Hani Hanjour, the refusal to just knock down the door and get him in any means necessary because they were afraid of backlash. Bolton testified to this eons ago.

The point is, liberals support the method of 'let's do the moral thing/worry about feelings/worry about the world' more than "Just get it ****ing done"

This doesn't mean the other side is perfect; far from it. It's just that being p.c or too conscious of trivial matters CAN lead to good people being killed. Welcome to the real ****ing world. The liberals do not seem to live there or want to live there. They want their safe utopia protected but don't want to dirty their hands in the process.

And, for those that do, they get blown away by a radical muslim without so much as a President saluting them with hand over heart. Great. We're really in for a great future here.

[metman]

It's a fruitless argument that liberals do not want to hear nor accept. Just live in la la land. All criminals are equal and nobody is too scared to be an islamaphobe. It's impossible to get more people killed, by these individuals, by pussy footing. Not possible at all.

Kumbaya...the world is now our best buddy. And that is the most important thing.

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by metman

Although the bungling of Osama Bin Laden is due to both parties and their own ****-ups, this is why I hate the idea of "Do the right thing" and subscribe, and have for eons, to the idea of "Get it done, **** the world, **** the happy people and their feelings"

**

"MOYERS: The field officer insists, "Hit him tonight. We may not get another chance."

But the pending impeachment trial has cut Clinton's room for error. If there is "collateral damage" — if civilians are killed — he will be branded as reckless. With its weapons locked and loaded, the U.S. military is ordered to stand down.

Clinton did sign covert guidelines directing the CIA to go after the al Qaeda leader. But the agents could kill bin Laden only in self-defense, as they tried to capture him.

MIKE: It was always easier to have killed him. It was never permissible by the people who made the policy decisions.

MOYERS: The administration is gun shy. CIA officers fume.

By the same "cons" who were out to destroy him at any cost. Lets say he had tried and missed.YOU "CONS" would have crucified him. You "cons" are just the biggest bunch of political expediency seeking, hypocritical dirtbags on the face of the earth.

Source:

Originally Posted by metman

Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS

The point is that if we struck, liberals (and the world) would have been outraged and cried if civilians attacked. If Bush did the same he'd be a war monger. Neither are true and, like Bush, I would have supported Clinton.

To me, it's not the BEST example of why ultra liberal ways piss me off, but it shows you that we, as a nation, were GUN shy by trying to 'do the right thing'. This also happened with Hani Hanjour, the refusal to just knock down the door and get him in any means necessary because they were afraid of backlash. Bolton testified to this eons ago.

The point is, liberals support the method of 'let's do the moral thing/worry about feelings/worry about the world' more than "Just get it ****ing done"

This doesn't mean the other side is perfect; far from it. It's just that being p.c or too conscious of trivial matters CAN lead to good people being killed. Welcome to the real ****ing world. The liberals do not seem to live there or want to live there. They want their safe utopia protected but don't want to dirty their hands in the process.

And, for those that do, they get blown away by a radical muslim without so much as a President saluting them with hand over heart. Great. We're really in for a great future here.

If we struck you "cons" would have been the ones to feign outrgae "he broke the law".."its wag the dog".."he attcked just to throw us off the impeachment trail"........You "cons" are just nothing more than disingenuous pieces of crap.

[James D.]

Originally Posted by metman

What leads to men like him slipping through the cracks?
How is it not a problem if certain people commit a crime and it's a full out assault on his character (right wing wacko kills abortion doctor) but when he does it "Let's hold on and see what happens AND cry racism when people assume the worst)

Let me ask you this; if sleeper cells exist, what increases our chances of getting more people killed; caring if Cair or other people get upset if we investigate radical muslims, or not giving 2 shits and handling any data that comes to you objectively in an effort to prevent an attack?

It's as if liberals refuse to either accept the reality that being too pc can cause problems or they just don't care. I am not sure which it is.

And before you say "Oh, that's rediculous" just imagine what the media reaction would be if Mohammad Atta was arrested and accused of a terror plot pre 9/11.

Tell me the media wouldn't be too scared to turn him into a monster the same way they would with a white wacko right winger. Tell me there wouldn't be law enforcement officials scared to death of being wrong and being persecuted or even fired if they handled it incorrectly, let alone the lawsuits from the ACLU or Cair as they investigate him "This is another example of a hateful country invading a poor muslim man's feelings" or some bullshit would be the liberal mantra. Not one liberal would say "**** this guy, let's see what he did" like they would towards a right wing nut-job

Liberals can deny it all they want but if this was a white man, he would have caught probably eons ago and deservedly so.

That's the god damn problem. You all care more about kissing ass and not being racist instead of getting your hands dirty and getting **** done.

Is there anything, other than the kneejerk conservative caterwauling, to suggest that political correctness is preventing the military from effectively rooting out the bad apples? Are militant jihadists suddenly running amok in our armed services? I don't think so.

I agree, this incident has to be taken as a warning sign that increased vigilance is needed. However, acting like it's a sign of pervasive, liberal sentiments negatively affecting the military...that's a stretch.

[NeilAllen]

Originally Posted by James D.

Is there anything, other than the kneejerk conservative caterwauling, to suggest that political correctness is preventing the military from effectively rooting out the bad apples?

Oh you mean other than the fact that this guy went aorund trying to convert people to Islam, made presentations on how "we love death more than you love life" - was prone to going off in official capacities, how infidels should be burned alive and forced to drink oil, like to send comminuques to Al Qaeda members and had um. Solder of Allah printed on hius business cards?

Nope. Nothing.

An Army investigator claimed he would have been "crucified" if he blew the whistle on Fort Hood killer Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's correspondence with a Yemeni jihadist.

"Had we launched an investigation of Hasan, we'd have been crucified," one government investigator told Fox News.

[metman]

James, it's been addressed. Either pay attention or move to another topic. You'd think the death of Soldiers would make it worth a liberals' time to research everything that went wrong instead of quickly dismissing one 'unmentioned' possibility.

I guess there are more important things to worry about, such as tea baggers. Btw, I wonder how many of the family members of these soldiers were the type of people liberals and the administration were shitting on half a year ago. Hrm...

[metman]

James, it's not about affecting the military. It's about a concept of human nature, from white guilt, (PC) that just so happens to be a big part of liberal ideals. It's not a conservative who says "But what, what about their feelings?"

This isn't to say conservatives are better at all times. This isn't to say ' blame liberals'. It is to say, one key part of liberalism, the need to please others who are minorities or 'in need of defense/tushy kissing' , is dangerous if used at the wrong time.

This is not a knee jerk analysis, it is reality. The proof is in the fact that the media, mostly liberal, were too scared to go after his past and make a logical leap. That pattern of behavior would not exist if it was a radical white right wing abortion killer.

See the problem? Well, sadly, that's only half of the problem we have with this story.

One other thing to strongly consider:

During the leading up to 9/11, many hints existed both from intelligence gathering, to witness accounts, that showed radical islamists were planning something serious. While it is true that intelligence agencies, and both administrations at different times, failed to handle the situations correctly it is fair to say that the fear of over-stepping boundries for wire tapping/gathering data as well as political ramifications/civilian casualties have failed to:

A.) Capture Hani Hanjour Eons Before 9/11

B.) Kill Bin Laden And Other Key Al Queda Figures

When we spend more time worrying about image, through political or personal moral reasons, we increase our mathmatical chances of being attacked. This is because our enemy knows how to use our weakness against us. This is why Hamas attacks in highly populated areas and buildings. It's how they create propaganda and raise big money. You can't sell an investor on the idea of no blown up children and cities, can you?

With an enemy like Al Queda, which depends on CELLS/Individuals, they know that we are too quick to protect image/face and aren't like the days of Saddam or China where it's "**** you, you go to jail you ****ing dol-fin!"

They know how to use us and steal time as we **** around trying to either not offend them, go over the lines and violate their rights (ugh) or kill their poor babies as they surround themselves, while planning attacks overseas, in either hard to find regions or populated regions.

Our compassion is a good thing. 2 years ago, however, I discussed with liberal family members of my girlfriend, that I whole heartedly disagree that our morals, as a nation, take precedence over security.

They all unanimously disagreed and said they would rather die than see our country go too far in order to protect its citizens. I don't speak out of knee jerk reactions, I speak from experience.

In a sense, they got what they 'wanted' - I use this loosely, I know it's not what they want. But...you do get what you wish for sometimes. Was it worth waiting too long to approach him. Was it worth not judging him? Or the same for the 9/11 hijackers?

Was it? Was morality, when it came time to lean on it, worth it?

[James D.]

Originally Posted by NeilAllen

Oh you mean other than the fact that this guy went aorund trying to convert people to Islam, made presentations on how "we love death more than you love life" - was prone to going off in official capacities, how infidels should be burned alive and forced to drink oil, like to send comminuques to Al Qaeda members and had um. Solder of Allah printed on hius business cards?

Nope. Nothing.

You have examples beyond this one instance to suggest this is a widespread, systemic problem?

It's reasonable and prudent to investigate the guy's past and try to determine how the military can better address problems of this kind. It's not reasonable to just assume that we're dealing with a widespread, systemic problem, propogated by liberals, that threatens the military's ability to weed out the bad apples.

[James D.]

Originally Posted by metman

James, it's been addressed. Either pay attention or move to another topic. You'd think the death of Soldiers would make it worth a liberals' time to research everything that went wrong instead of quickly dismissing one 'unmentioned' possibility.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm simply waiting for all the facts to come to light before I make any conclusions.

I guess there are more important things to worry about, such as tea baggers.

I don't worry about that stuff. It's trivial. Nothing more than a distraction from substantive discussion.

[lgm6986]

Originally Posted by James D.

You have examples beyond this one instance to suggest this is a widespread, systemic problem?

It's reasonable and prudent to investigate the guy's past and try to determine how the military can better address problems of this kind. It's not reasonable to just assume that we're dealing with a widespread, systemic problem, propogated by liberals, that threatens the military's ability to weed out the bad apples.

Are you serious? This one example isn't enough? You've got an army major running around like his soul has been possessed by Osama bin Laden, and other relevant army officers admitting they were afraid to so much as say anything for fear of being branded and Islamophobe. It led to the brazen murder of 13 US soldiers. If that isn't a problem with the system, then maybe we'll just wait until one of these pieces of sh*t turns our own nukes on Los Angeles before we get really worked up about it. Jesus Christ.

[lgm6986]

Originally Posted by James D.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm simply waiting for all the facts to come to light before I make any conclusions.

Fact:
A major in the United States army showed every imaginable, overt sign of being a terrorist

Fact:
Many people knew this, yet were fearful of taking any action because of the murderously dangerous political-correctness-above-all-else culture which has pervaded our society, and which we have allowed

Fact:
The guy jumped on a table, screamed "Allah is great," and proceeded to wantonly slaughter his fellow soldiers

Are you really having trouble drawing a conclusion here?