CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Ft. Hood Shootings
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ft. Hood Shootings - Page 2

post #51 of 185
11/9/09 at 1:35pm
I object to your extra u. SPEAK AMERICAN.
Reply
post #52 of 185
11/9/09 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
It's not just that...the article I linked to quotes an Imam (I think) at a local Mosque who stated that the shooter had many discussions with him about the morality of sending Muslims to kill Muslims (ignoring the many many wars going on right now where that very thing is happening with a conspicuous lack of reluctance). In fact the Imam said he would have reported these conversations to the Base authorities but assumed they were aware!
Really? I think those that defend these wars, the NoahtheStuds of the world, are the dangerous ones. They have successfully fooled themselves into believing that killing people helps them.

Quote:
It's the combination of 1) His public "anti-American rants" to members of the military 2) his Blog postings 3) the conversations with people around him (I doubt the Imam was the only person he discussed this with)
You've just described every right-wing blogger active during the Bush Administration. They ranted about anti-Americanism, wished death on their political opponents on their blots, and probably discussed equally odious revenge fantasies with people around them. Ann Coulter has expressed more than once her desire to see the New York Times destroyed, for instance.
Reply
post #53 of 185
11/9/09 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
I object to your extra u. SPEAK AMERICAN.
Apologies.

Obbjeckshun wit'dron, yer honer!
Reply
post #54 of 185
11/9/09 at 1:44pm
taht's batter
Reply
post #55 of 185
11/9/09 at 1:47pm
U guys r the greetest! Now I must leave Earth for no raisin!
Reply
post #56 of 185
11/9/09 at 3:27pm
The conspiracy theorist vultures are circling around the Ft. Hood shootings, as expected.

Crazy right-wingers are saying the shooter was a personal adviser to Obama and has been closely connected to terrorist organizations for decades. Also, he did this at Obama's behest as part of a plot to destabalize and demoralize the military.

Meanwhile crazy left-wingers are saying he was part of a top-secret torture program (their proof being he's a psychologist, so there!) and that all the stories about how he seemed a little unstable are deliberate government disinformation attempts to discredit him and the police secretly on-site were responsible for the shootings, or most of them.
Reply
post #57 of 185
11/9/09 at 3:41pm
I think everyone is losing sight of the real enemy, the Jew-Masonic Illuminati that is stoking this Muslim/Christian conflict.
Reply
post #58 of 185
11/9/09 at 3:45pm
Finally, nachos, somebody gets down to brass tacks about the whole thing!

It's easy to say 'hey, look at all these signs' after the fact. Why do you think we love Nostradamus' prophecies? Nobody ever goes 'this will happen then and like this', no, we use them to go 'oh, well, I guess this Hister guy could be Hitler, so OMG! Nostradamus like, totally knew.'
Reply
post #59 of 185
11/9/09 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
I think everyone is losing sight of the real enemy, the Jew-Masonic Illuminati that is stoking this Muslim/Christian conflict.
Shut up, Nachos, DaveB is still active on the boards. I'm not saying he's part of the Illuminati but I'm not saying he's not, knowwhati'msayin.
Reply
post #60 of 185
11/9/09 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
Shut up, Nachos, DaveB is still active on the boards. I'm not saying he's part of the Illuminati but I'm not saying he's not, knowwhati'msayin.
And, when he's in super-secret meetings that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CONTROLLING HOLLYWOOD, his wife reads the boards on his behalf.

Scanning the room for disbelievers.

I'm compensated fairly for my work.

BHWW, I'd like some links to those theories, plz. Not that I doubt you. I've just got to see this for myself.
Reply
post #61 of 185
11/9/09 at 4:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey View Post
And, when he's in super-secret meetings that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CONTROLLING HOLLYWOOD, his wife reads the boards on his behalf.

Scanning the room for disbelievers.

I'm compensated fairly for my work.
eeep
Reply
post #62 of 185
11/9/09 at 10:23pm
OK. If you actually think that people being less "politically correct" could have somehow stopped this attack or predicted its outcome, you are politely invited to suck my balls.
Reply
post #63 of 185
11/9/09 at 10:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Yeah, it says I'm not an asshole.
Brad, having read your posts for years on CHUD, I can assure you that you are, in fact, a major Asshole, probably the biggest asshole on this site.
Reply
post #64 of 185
11/9/09 at 10:54pm
Good to know you're such a big fan!
Reply
post #65 of 185
11/9/09 at 10:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
OK. If you actually think that people being less "politically correct" could have somehow stopped this attack or predicted its outcome, you are politely invited to suck my balls.
How does that work? "Logically," I mean.

eta - not the part about your balls. The political correctness. Just to be clear. This is CHUD, after all.

eta, pt. 2 - AND JAKE PROVES MY POINT. THANK YOU.
Reply
post #66 of 185
11/9/09 at 11:01pm
I'm assuming whoever does the ball-sucking will just reel Jacob's elderly, wrinkled sack in like a fishing lure and then drop it in their mouth.
Reply
post #67 of 185
11/9/09 at 11:11pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post

You've just described every right-wing blogger active during the Bush Administration. They ranted about anti-Americanism, wished death on their political opponents on their blots, and probably discussed equally odious revenge fantasies with people around them. Ann Coulter has expressed more than once her desire to see the New York Times destroyed, for instance.
See, I think that those people need to be watched too. Those people used fear and intimidation to steam roller this country into two disastrous wars and turned the public discourse into a joke.

The crazies have always been out there. What is different now is that they have been mainstreamed. Anne Coulter should not be a best selling author. The GOP should not be welcoming Tea Baggers into the halls of Congress

And that asshole who wore a gun to a Healthcare Town hall last summer? He should have been surrounded by Secret Service men the entire time.

Again, I'm not advocating that these people be put away, I'm saying we need to draw a line a say there are forms of expression that should not be acceptable.

In other words, the people who bring racist signs to these Tea Bag parties should be made to feel ashamed of themselves, held up to ridicule, and laughed at. Instead, we may well see Healthcare reform derailed yet again because Congressmen are actually listening to these freaks. This type of public shaming of offensive language is sometime referred to as (OMG!) Political Correctness, which some posters here have blithely assumed I am against.

Bringing it back to the Ft Hood shootings, I disagree that Maj Malik's actions could not have possibly been foreseen. He clearly made numerous statements against the wars and against the US. Again (again with the again!) I am not saying that he should have been locked up, I'm saying he should not have been at that post, and most certainly should not have been posted in a War Zone.

OH, by the way, it's now come out that Major Malik emailed a radical Imam 10-20 times last year, and had in fact been monitored by US intel. As related in this story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091110/..._hood_shooting
Reply
post #68 of 185
11/9/09 at 11:29pm
The fact that he was monitored by US Intel suggests to me that the problem wasn't that a politically correct sensibility enabled this guy free reign, but rather the fact that he was legally and freely able to buy high-powered sidearms with mercenary-style expanded clips.

I do agree that the extent of the warning signs in this case means that something a little more substantive should have been done. What I think the military was and is afraid of, if they come down on somebody who's serving honorably because he's a muslim, and the guy was just drinking tea, then there's going to be significant back-lash.

The level of 'actionable intelligence' as it's called in the counter-terror world, needed to make an arrest can be extremely high when conducting investigations in the civilian world. The fact that all this took place in the military sphere makes me think that threshold wouldn't be quite as high, and there is a legitimate question to be asked there.
Reply
post #69 of 185
11/9/09 at 11:35pm
Thread Starter 
^I agree. This news development puts a different spin on things. Most Intel agencies keep tabs on suspect people, hoping that they can get to bigger fish. I seem to recall that some of the 911 hijackers were also monitored for a time but the surveillance was dropped.

I do think there is a delicate balancing act between respecting Islam as a religion but not allowing radical elements this kind of leeway.
Reply
post #70 of 185
11/9/09 at 11:42pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Good to know you're such a big fan!
heh
Reply
post #71 of 185
11/9/09 at 11:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
See, I think that those people need to be watched too. Those people used fear and intimidation to steam roller this country into two disastrous wars and turned the public discourse into a joke.
This warrants surveillance?

Quote:
Bringing it back to the Ft Hood shootings, I disagree that Maj Malik's actions could not have possibly been foreseen. He clearly made numerous statements against the wars and against the US. Again (again with the again!) I am not saying that he should have been locked up, I'm saying he should not have been at that post, and most certainly should not have been posted in a War Zone.
There's a big difference between this and suggesting Coulter and Hannity be watched because they spread disinformation and lies. Their existence shouldn't be a mystery to the SS, but any watching should be restricted to the swill they make public. If it turns out that Hannity wrote his Bishop 10 or 20 times last year, telling him how he wanted to kill Michael Moore or something, then yeah, I can see keeping a closer eye on him.
Reply
post #72 of 185
11/10/09 at 12:20am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
This warrants surveillance?



There's a big difference between this and suggesting Coulter and Hannity be watched because they spread disinformation and lies. Their existence shouldn't be a mystery to the SS, but any watching should be restricted to the swill they make public. If it turns out that Hannity wrote his Bishop 10 or 20 times last year, telling him how he wanted to kill Michael Moore or something, then yeah, I can see keeping a closer eye on him.
But Anne Coulter wrote a book called Treason. Arguing that Liberals=Traitors. If that's not actively inciting violence it's damn close. Hannity I know nothing about.

If people are actively promoting the violent overthrow of the government, of course they should be monitored. This is common sense.
Reply
post #73 of 185
11/10/09 at 12:30am
What's sad is that this isn't an isolated incident for military personnel. The severity of the shooting is more rare, yes, but there are several people who come back from these wars who go on crime sprees/beat the crap out of people/kill people. I imagine dealing with the returning walking wounded is almost as stressful as actually being in the war. I'm afraid that in the rush to call this guy a terrorist, the fact that there are too few people helping these guys out when they come home damaged will get drowned out.

I mean yeah, the bigger issue is that both wars need to end. But until that day comes, people really need to look at the sanity/mental health costs and how best to cope with it all.
Reply
post #74 of 185
11/10/09 at 12:33am
This guy wasn't ever deployed in Afghanistan or Iraw. He was, as least I can judge based on what I've read, the guy who was supposed to be helping those guys coming back cope with it.
Reply
post #75 of 185
11/10/09 at 12:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
This guy wasn't ever deployed in Afghanistan or Iraw. He was, as least I can judge based on what I've read, the guy who was supposed to be helping those guys coming back cope with it.
I know, that's why I said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig
I imagine dealing with the returning walking wounded is almost as stressful as actually being in the war.
It's hard to not know he was never in the war, given every lede for this story started with the line "...who was about to be deployed..."
Reply
post #76 of 185
11/10/09 at 2:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
But Anne Coulter wrote a book called Treason. Arguing that Liberals=Traitors. If that's not actively inciting violence it's damn close.
Actually it's arguing (badly) that they're criminals. Treason's a crime. Does she actively encourage violence or say things that might reasonably be expected to be taken as such? Wishing violence on her political adversaries isn't actually encouraging it.

Quote:
Hannity I know nothing about.
Similar shit, different sack.

Quote:
If people are actively promoting the violent overthrow of the government, of course they should be monitored. This is common sense.
The being made aware of Glenn Beck's broadcasts sort of monitoring, or the tapping his phones sort of monitoring?
Reply
post #77 of 185
11/10/09 at 6:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
See, I think that those people need to be watched too. Those people used fear and intimidation to steam roller this country into two disastrous wars and turned the public discourse into a joke.

The crazies have always been out there. What is different now is that they have been mainstreamed. Anne Coulter should not be a best selling author. The GOP should not be welcoming Tea Baggers into the halls of Congress

And that asshole who wore a gun to a Healthcare Town hall last summer? He should have been surrounded by Secret Service men the entire time.
Did you or have you started threads saying the same thing in the past? Coz, y'know, this kind of comes off as hollow as "I'm not a racist, but..." when the incident that FINALLY gets you to take a stand against extremism is the muslim guy going crazy on an army base.
Reply
post #78 of 185
11/10/09 at 12:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
Did you or have you started threads saying the same thing in the past? Coz, y'know, this kind of comes off as hollow as "I'm not a racist, but..." when the incident that FINALLY gets you to take a stand against extremism is the muslim guy going crazy on an army base.
I don't know that I posted on CHUD, but yeah.

I was deeply disturbed by the Right wing nuts being able to label Liberals "Traiters, domestic Terrorists" etc and I've believed consistently that people of any bent who openly incite violence against other people or the government should be considered suspect.


It's only gotten worse with Obama's election. I knew the racist assholes would come out of the woodwork but I didn't believe they'd be welcomed with open arms by the GOP.

Last years election cycle pretty much cemented my move from being a supporter of the Republican party to an Independent leaning towards the Democrats.
Reply
post #79 of 185
11/10/09 at 12:26pm
It annoys the shit out of me when someone shoots a bunch of people, gets caught, and all the while they're waiting for trial, they have to keep sticking the word "alleged" in front of "shooter". There was a guy that escaped from the courthouse here in Atlanta, shot a couple of cops, and went on the run. After they captured him, the TV stations kept using the word "alleged" as you watched video from the courthouse cameras of him hitting cops and shooting at them as he was escaping.
Reply
post #80 of 185
11/10/09 at 12:32pm
The security tapes could have been faked. Haven't you ever seen The Running Man?
Reply
post #81 of 185
11/10/09 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman View Post
It annoys the shit out of me when someone shoots a bunch of people, gets caught, and all the while they're waiting for trial, they have to keep sticking the word "alleged" in front of "shooter". There was a guy that escaped from the courthouse here in Atlanta, shot a couple of cops, and went on the run. After they captured him, the TV stations kept using the word "alleged" as you watched video from the courthouse cameras of him hitting cops and shooting at them as he was escaping.
It's to avoid law suits should the guy be found innoncent in a court of law. It's also, y'know, the basis of your legal system, innocent until proven guilty.
Reply
post #82 of 185
11/10/09 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
This type of public shaming of offensive language is sometime referred to as (OMG!) Political Correctness, which some posters here have blithely assumed I am against.
You started with a very leading question:

Quote:
So here we have a US Army Officer, who attended seminars on Terrorism and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and stated publicly that they were wars against Islam, who posted on his blog that Suicide bombers were justified (in terms of being effective at least), and who complained to everyone around him that the wars are wrong, Islam is being threatened, and who made "Anti-American rants".

So my question is, have we as a nation become too Politically Correct, to the point where a man who has a position treating soldiers at a major US base can go on for years in a way to make one suspect he is gearing up to do something horrible?
Plus, you used the conservative bugaboo phrase of Politically Correct which is usually lobbed at the left as a dismissive. Are you honestly surprised that we assumed what we assumed?
Reply
post #83 of 185
11/10/09 at 1:07pm
I understand all that. I just said it annoys me. It's like in Role Models when that guy keeps looking at the video and says, "It's not me." Then in the video, he says his name and that he's stealing stuff. I didn't say it was right or wrong. I just mean that it annoys me. Of course, I'm in the middle of a court case now that's been rolling on for 18 months, and we won the initial judgment, but the sleazeball on the other side of the case is doing his best to drag out the case as long as possible to avoid paying up what we're owed. So that probably skews my view of the court system a bit as well.
Reply
post #84 of 185
11/10/09 at 1:50pm
I don't have much to say on this issue. Or rather, I do, but I don't want to type that much. So I'll just make the one point that I've not heard brought up anywhere on TV lately



Instead, I'll just say this: All the conservatives who are saying Muslims should be banned from the military should take a good look in the mirror. I've spent the past year reading about radical crusaders and white supremacists and their ongoing infiltration of the armed forces. They're a far greater threat than the lone Muslim nut with a gun, because the atrocities the neo-nazis in uniform get up to are going to cause people in Iraq/Afghanistan to hate us for a long long time (a far greater danger to America's national security than the few muslims that serve in the armed forces* ). If we're going to look at religious extremism and it's place in the military, the conversation should not begin and end with Islam
Reply
post #85 of 185
11/10/09 at 1:52pm
I think its only fair to ban muslims from the military for a few years.

After all we did the same thing for white guys who sympathized with the militia movement after McVeigh from 95-99.
Reply
post #86 of 185
11/10/09 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rourkefan View Post
I think its only fair to ban muslims from the military for a few years.

After all we did the same thing for white guys who sympathized with the militia movement after McVeigh from 95-99.
Are you being serious? Besides the ethical and moral reasons not to, you want to send a message to the middle east shouting "OUR ARMY IS AN ALL CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FORCE! Mooslams need not apply!"?


One muslim goes nuts, ban them all? Years of killings by neo-nazis in Iraq, do nothing?

Got it.
Reply
post #87 of 185
11/10/09 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
Plus, you used the conservative bugaboo phrase of Politically Correct which is usually lobbed at the left as a dismissive. Are you honestly surprised that we assumed what we assumed?
To say nothing of the fact that he's blithely assuming that we've blithely made assumptions. I was the first poster to respond negatively to the concept of political correctness getting tied up in this business, and I wrote:

Quote:
So it's politically correct to tolerate political incorrectness. So does that mean if our culture were appropriately "politically incorrect" that we would have pre-emptively punished this guy for being politically incorrect?

This is ridiculously circular and shows the inherent flaw in making "political correctness" an all-purpose bogeyman.
I was criticizing the idea of bringing PC-ness into it at all. I don't care if Cylon Baby subscribes to the theory - he originated it in the thread and further hinted that he subscribes to the idea in his response to me:

Quote:
Wrong. This case looks like (and yes the facts are still emerging) the Military authorities ignoring real danger signs from a person who was known to have mental stability issues.
Note that he doesn't say anything about PC-ness in that post, but his "wrong" shows he's unequivocally disagreeing with my post, which was solely about the logic of the PC argument. Of course, he does a terrible job of it because military authorities ignoring danger signs has absolutely jack and shit to do with political correctness.

So I'll attempt to clarify this again - does the more politically correct nation condemn someone for saying something politically incorrect (as Malik was clearly doing) or not condemn someone for saying something politically incorrect? It seems to me that a nation overly concerned with politically correct speech might tend toward the latter, not the former, but it's arguable, because the term can be tweaked to mean just about anything.

I wasn't responding to whether there were enough warning signs to pre-empt the shootings (although I encourage people to look at the link kungfumonkeymike posted on the first page); I just don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with the concept of political correctness.
Reply
post #88 of 185
11/10/09 at 2:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Are you being serious?
No I am not.
Reply
post #89 of 185
11/10/09 at 2:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rourkefan View Post
No I am not.
Phew!
Reply
post #90 of 185
11/10/09 at 4:51pm
I still haven't read anything this guy said in the past that would automatically make me make the leap to "potentially dangerous gun-wielding psycho." Thinks our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is a war against Islam? Unpopular, but doesn't indicate he's ready to go shoot people. Asked for military deferments for Muslims so they don't have to go fight other Muslims? Unorthodox, but doesn't indicate he's ready to go shoot people.

The only reason his comments are being looked on as inflammatory is because it's a Muslim saying them.
Reply
post #91 of 185
11/10/09 at 11:02pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
To say nothing of the fact that he's blithely assuming that we've blithely made assumptions. I was the first poster to respond negatively to the concept of political correctness getting tied up in this business, and I wrote:



I was criticizing the idea of bringing PC-ness into it at all. I don't care if Cylon Baby subscribes to the theory - he originated it in the thread and further hinted that he subscribes to the idea in his response to me:



Note that he doesn't say anything about PC-ness in that post, but his "wrong" shows he's unequivocally disagreeing with my post, which was solely about the logic of the PC argument. Of course, he does a terrible job of it because military authorities ignoring danger signs has absolutely jack and shit to do with political correctness.

So I'll attempt to clarify this again - does the more politically correct nation condemn someone for saying something politically incorrect (as Malik was clearly doing) or not condemn someone for saying something politically incorrect? It seems to me that a nation overly concerned with politically correct speech might tend toward the latter, not the former, but it's arguable, because the term can be tweaked to mean just about anything.

I wasn't responding to whether there were enough warning signs to pre-empt the shootings (although I encourage people to look at the link kungfumonkeymike posted on the first page); I just don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with the concept of political correctness.
Well judging by the the reactions of various posters I will concede I did not word my first post as well as I might have.

Also you ignore the fact that I asked two QUESTIONS to start a discussion, which, you know, one does on a discussion board.

I'm not going to use the term "Political Correctness" in every single post.

My issue with the Malik case is the combination of what he said and his position. I also posted the example of the Evangelical Christian who continually makes comments about Pro-Choice people being immoral, evil etc and working in an Abortion clinic.

Political Correctness is " a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

There has been a huge debate going on about where the US and Europe should draw the line with religious tolerance for Muslims as well as other religions. A silly example is the decision in France to not allow women to cover their heads. An extreme and dangerous example is allowing Maj Malik to continue on in a position he should not have been in.

But if all you can contribute to the conversation is attacks against me, feel free.
Reply
post #92 of 185
11/10/09 at 11:10pm
Obama gave a great speech at the memorial. Text and video here.
Reply
post #93 of 185
11/10/09 at 11:56pm
Thread Starter 
That speech was awe inspiring yet depressing at the same time. Seeing the faces of the victims as Obama named them really got to me.
Reply
post #94 of 185
11/11/09 at 12:13am
Then, of course, there's this.

Quote:
Was it George W. Bush’s megaphone-amplified rallying cry on the ruins of the World Trade Center? Bill Clinton’s shared grief and call for restraint after the Oklahoma City bombing? Ronald Reagan’s wrenching tribute to the Challenger crew?

President Barack Obama’s salute to the 13 dead from a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, was largely unemotional. The most personal part of the speech at today’s memorial service at Fort Hood was a series of anecdotes describing the families and aspirations of each of the victims.
Reply
post #95 of 185
11/11/09 at 12:16am
Thread Starter 
My God, did she listen to the speech? And those "anecdotes" where the heart of it!
Reply
post #96 of 185
11/11/09 at 12:17am
He focuses on the personal tragedy, and they complain he didn't address the larger issues. If he hits on the larger issues, they complain he didn't focus on the people.

He. Cannot. Win.
Reply
post #97 of 185
11/11/09 at 12:35am
I haven't seen this myself, so I don't know how true it is, but are there media outlets seriously trying to say that this guy had "Pre-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?" That he was so worried about getting deployed that he got PTSD without any actual trauma?

And is anyone else a little sickened that there seems to be a big rush to paint this guy as some kind of poor misunderstood victim of mental illness and not a murderer of 13 people?
Reply
post #98 of 185
11/11/09 at 2:02am
There are 10 suicides a month at Ft. Hood. This was a guy who treated those people.

There's a big difference between giving someone absolution and trying to comprehend a heinous tragedy.
Reply
post #99 of 185
11/11/09 at 6:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
And is anyone else a little sickened that there seems to be a big rush to paint this guy as some kind of poor misunderstood victim of mental illness and not a murderer of 13 people?
Sure, let's not try and understand the situation. That'll certainly prevent future tragedies!
Reply
post #100 of 185
11/11/09 at 9:01am
If your job consisted of hearing nothing but horror stories about a place you knew you were going, I could see that causing considerable stress.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Ft. Hood Shootings