Author Topic: New Fort Hood Shooting  (Read 7813 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2014, 08:37:50 pm »
Yeaaaaaah...we basically sent a steamroller to do a scalpel's job.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2014, 08:40:09 pm »
Well, the question is, what alternative did we have?  I mean, I understand where you're coming from about Iraq, but Afghanistan?

Why was not going to war not an alternative?

That's not rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking.
Because that would have shown the world that they could do whatever they wanted to us, and we would just take it.

Who is "they"? The Afghan government didn't attack the United States. Even if violent retaliation against the terrorists was appropriate, why was sending an army to invade the country the way to do so?
The Afghan government had an opportunity to avoid the war.  Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum, and they rejected it.  If they had turned over bin Laden and his cronies, there wouldn't have been a problem.  Essentially, they brought it on themselves.

Yeaaaaaah...we basically sent a steamroller to do a scalpel's job.
Problem is, the Taliban wouldn't let us use the scalpel.

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2014, 08:47:45 pm »
Say what you want about how Obama took out Osama, but that is the kind of shit I'm talking about when I say a "scalpel" should've been used, with perhaps more emphasis on getting him into a court to be properly tried instead of summarily executed.  If a group of terrorists responsible for an act of war on our soil doesn't want to hand over their leadership, then that's tough shit.  Also, I don't think the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan.  They might exert influence upon them, but I don't think they're the de facto leadership of the country.  Could be wrong, though.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2014, 08:52:55 pm »
Say what you want about how Obama took out Osama, but that is the kind of shit I'm talking about when I say a "scalpel" should've been used, with perhaps more emphasis on getting him into a court to be properly tried instead of summarily executed.  If a group of terrorists responsible for an act of war on our soil doesn't want to hand over their leadership, then that's tough shit.  Also, I don't think the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan.  They might exert influence upon them, but I don't think they're the de facto leadership of the country.  Could be wrong, though.
They were the government of Afghanistan at the time.  If we had used the scalpel then, they would have treated it as an act of war.  Besides, the last time something like that was done, we bombed a pharmaceutical factory.

Also, there could have been major problems with putting Osama on trial.  It's not unlikely that Al-Qaeda would have taken children in Yemen or Somalia hostage for their leader's release.  I think the rationale was that it was better to compromise principles than to compromise lives, which I believe is the motive behind a lot of the questionable shit America has done during the War on Terror.  While I would have preferred to have bin Laden put on trial, I understand if the government thought it would have been too risky.  Besides, if anybody deserved a bullet to the brain, he did.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 08:57:46 pm by Ultimate Paragon »

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #34 on: April 04, 2014, 08:56:32 pm »
Aye, its like it is with dangerous criminals, like murderers.  If you can capture them and put them on trial, then do so, but if doing so would endanger innocent lives, then...well, sucks to be you, buddy, but you pretty much sealed your fate when you took innocent lives.  To put it another way, I prefer lawful trials, but I respect that sometimes they just can't be had.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2014, 10:04:45 pm »
Well, the question is, what alternative did we have?  I mean, I understand where you're coming from about Iraq, but Afghanistan?

Why was not going to war not an alternative?

That's not rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking.
Because that would have shown the world that they could do whatever they wanted to us, and we would just take it.

Who is "they"? The Afghan government didn't attack the United States. Even if violent retaliation against the terrorists was appropriate, why was sending an army to invade the country the way to do so?
The Afghan government had an opportunity to avoid the war.  Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum, and they rejected it.  If they had turned over bin Laden and his cronies, there wouldn't have been a problem.  Essentially, they brought it on themselves.

Do you believe America should go to war with every country that refuses to turn over a criminal? If not, why is Afghanistan/bin Laden a special case?
Σא

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2014, 10:09:52 pm »
Well, the question is, what alternative did we have?  I mean, I understand where you're coming from about Iraq, but Afghanistan?

Why was not going to war not an alternative?

That's not rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking.
Because that would have shown the world that they could do whatever they wanted to us, and we would just take it.

Who is "they"? The Afghan government didn't attack the United States. Even if violent retaliation against the terrorists was appropriate, why was sending an army to invade the country the way to do so?
The Afghan government had an opportunity to avoid the war.  Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum, and they rejected it.  If they had turned over bin Laden and his cronies, there wouldn't have been a problem.  Essentially, they brought it on themselves.

Do you believe America should go to war with every country that refuses to turn over a criminal? If not, why is Afghanistan/bin Laden a special case?
No.  The reason is that bin Laden was incredibly dangerous.  The government already wanted him gone for his other attacks.  9/11 was the final straw.  Unfortunately, this "straw" happened to be the largest terrorist attack in history.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2014, 10:34:01 pm »
Also, there could have been major problems with putting Osama on trial.  It's not unlikely that Al-Qaeda would have taken children in Yemen or Somalia hostage for their leader's release.  I think the rationale was that it was better to compromise principles than to compromise lives, which I believe is the motive behind a lot of the questionable shit America has done during the War on Terror.  While I would have preferred to have bin Laden put on trial, I understand if the government thought it would have been too risky.  Besides, if anybody deserved a bullet to the brain, he did.
Not unless they're exceptionally braindead. While the "think of the children" line may work on dimwitted housewives, government's generally don't give a shit about non-citizens. While threatening American children may get the US government's attention, the idea that Osama should be released to save non-American citizens would be downright laughable to anyone in government. Furthermore, places like Yemen and Somalia are at the moment quite friendly to Al Qaeda, yet even the average Islamic fundie tribal would object to their own children being kidnapped and executed for the sake of Bin Laden. So basically, they'd be alienating their supporters in the most spectacular fashion anyone could ever come up with, for absolutely no gain whatsoever.

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #38 on: April 05, 2014, 01:16:57 am »
Also, we continue to maintain a "We do not negotiate with terrorists" policy, and for good reason. The most likely outcome of the Taliban kidnapping foreign children to force the release of one of their own would be the US refusing point blank while they and/or other countries draw up plans for a surgical strike to either save the kids or kill the guys holding them.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline Meshakhad

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Gender: Male
  • The Night Is Dark And Full Of Terrors... Like Me
Re: New Fort Hood Shooting
« Reply #39 on: April 05, 2014, 02:20:38 pm »
Argument Escalated Into Shooting

Quote
KILLEEN, Texas—The deadly shooting rampage at Fort Hood Wednesday was spurred by an escalating argument between the suspected shooter and fellow personnel, officials said.

U.S. Army officials on Friday declined to elaborate on what they believe triggered Spc. Ivan Lopez toward the spree that killed three and wounded 16 of his colleagues before he took his own life. But the father of one man wounded in the shooting said his son, a human-resources worker, witnessed a confrontation between his boss and Spc. Lopez, who was seeking paperwork regarding a leave of absence.

As the investigation into the Fort Hood shooting continues, mental health for enlisted men and women will be in focus. Psychiatrist and retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton joins the News Hub to discuss the types of resources available to members of the armed services. Photo: Getty Images.

Told that he needed to come back for the papers the following day, Spc. Lopez instead returned that same afternoon with a weapon and began firing, said Theodis Westbrook, relaying an account from his son, Sgt. Jonathan Westbrook, a 32-year-old originally from Smithdale, Miss.

tl;dr Guy was dealing with Army bureaucracy and snapped.
G-d's Kingdom Is A Hate-Free Zone

Quote from: Reploid Productions
Pardon the interruption, good sir/lady; there are aspects of your behavior that I find quite unbecoming, and I must insist most strenuously that I be permitted to assist in resolving these behaviors through the repeated high-velocity cranial introduction of particularly firm building materials.

Quote from: Meshakhad
GIVE ME KNOWLEDGE OR I WILL PUT A CAP IN YO ASS!