FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Zygarde on April 02, 2014, 08:04:32 pm
-
So today there was another shooting at Fort Hood, so far only one person has been confirmed dead that being the gunman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/fort-hood-shooting_n_5079690.html#comments
A shooting at Fort Hood on Wednesday left at least one person dead and injured multiple people.
The gunman at the Army post in Texas reportedly died of a self-inflicted wound.
Fourteen people were injured, according to a senior defense official who spoke anonymously to the Associated Press.
-
I hope no innocents are dead this time. :'(
-
News agencies are stating that the shooter is dead. Here is one report. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/us/fort-hood-shooting/) Pardon my cynicism; I'm glad the shooter is dead. We don't have to waste money on him.
Edit: New reports state the shooter was male.
-
They've updated it. Four people dead, not sure if that's including the gunman. At first I thought it was a copycat, but then I saw reports that he was being treated for PTSD.
-
They've updated it. Four people dead, not sure if that's including the gunman. At first I thought it was a copycat, but then I saw reports that he was being treated for PTSD.
I'm not sure I've heard of PTSD alone causing a killing spree, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
To be honest I'm not even phased anymore, like it's basically just another day another horrific violent mass shooting.
-
They've updated it. Four people dead, not sure if that's including the gunman. At first I thought it was a copycat, but then I saw reports that he was being treated for PTSD.
I'm not sure I've heard of PTSD alone causing a killing spree, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
To be honest I'm not even phased anymore, like it's basically just another day another horrific violent mass shooting.
PTSD in addition to depression and anxiety.
-
They've updated it. Four people dead, not sure if that's including the gunman. At first I thought it was a copycat, but then I saw reports that he was being treated for PTSD.
I'm not sure I've heard of PTSD alone causing a killing spree, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
To be honest I'm not even phased anymore, like it's basically just another day another horrific,violent, easily preventable mass shooting.
PTSD in addition to depression and anxiety.
Ahh.
-
They've updated it. Four people dead, not sure if that's including the gunman. At first I thought it was a copycat, but then I saw reports that he was being treated for PTSD.
I'm not sure I've heard of PTSD alone causing a killing spree, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
To be honest I'm not even phased anymore, like it's basically just another day another horrific violent mass shooting.
PTSD can manifest in many ways. In extremely severe cases it can cause hallucinatory flashbacks where the person suffering from the trauma actively thinks they are reliving it leading to extreme violence. It can also really screw with ones perceptions regarding paranoia and pattern recognition. PTSD is a seriously messed up condition.
That said, in many ways this is just another one of those another day, another mass shooting. Last I checked they happen at least once a month in America, but most are small scale enough to not really be newsworthy. This one probably only made it because of the previous mass shooting that happened there.
To me, the saddest thing here is how America has this huge Soldier hero worship mentality. Constantly going on about "supporting the troops" and "the fight for your freedom so you dont have to", but really they dont. Young men are sent to pointless wars to kill and die for no reason. These wars dont affect any Americans freedom in the slightest, least of all protecting it. Then these broken traumatized people are brought back where they are paraded around and worshiped like hero's, but denied the help they really need.
You want to know what would really "support the troops" and "protect America's freedom"? Not sending soldiers to die in pointless wars, and keeping them at home. Sorry for getting off topic like this, but the military culture of America gets to me sometimes.
-
They've updated it. Four people dead, not sure if that's including the gunman. At first I thought it was a copycat, but then I saw reports that he was being treated for PTSD.
I'm not sure I've heard of PTSD alone causing a killing spree, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
To be honest I'm not even phased anymore, like it's basically just another day another horrific violent mass shooting.
PTSD can manifest in many ways. In extremely severe cases it can cause hallucinatory flashbacks where the person suffering from the trauma actively thinks they are reliving it leading to extreme violence. It can also really screw with ones perceptions regarding paranoia and pattern recognition. PTSD is a seriously messed up condition.
That said, in many ways this is just another one of those another day, another mass shooting. Last I checked they happen at least once a month in America, but most are small scale enough to not really be newsworthy. This one probably only made it because of the previous mass shooting that happened there.
To me, the saddest thing here is how America has this huge Soldier hero worship mentality. Constantly going on about "supporting the troops" and "the fight for your freedom so you dont have to", but really they dont. Young men are sent to pointless wars to kill and die for no reason. These wars dont affect any Americans freedom in the slightest, least of all protecting it. Then these broken traumatized people are brought back where they are paraded around and worshiped like hero's, but denied the help they really need.
You want to know what would really "support the troops" and "protect America's freedom"? Not sending soldiers to die in pointless wars, and keeping them at home. Sorry for getting off topic like this, but the military culture of America gets to me sometimes.
Patriotic jargon and cliches are cheaper than adequate medical care, and pointless wars are quiet profitable if you're a military contractor.
-
He suffered from mental health issues...d**n, now I feel bad about the previous post I made. That's what I get for making presumptuous statements.
As a service member myself, I see and hear a lot of lip service about "Support the Troops" from both sides of the political spectrum. However, I don't see a lot of political commentators, politicians, or lay people actually asking troops what they would like unless, of course, it aligns with their political beliefs. Otherwise we get ignored. Sure, you can't always get everything you ask for, but at least asking, listening, and responding to the request, whether yay or nay, helps.
-
At least there's no chance of another gun control debate popping out of the woodwork from this.
-
At least there's no chance of another gun control debate popping out of the woodwork from this.
Dude. Priorities.
-
Sylvana, the support the troops thing came from Veitnam actually. I have nothing published to point to, just what people have told me. In America at the time returning service members, draftees mostly, were treated as responsible for, not responsible for the war per se, but for prolonging an unpopular war.
Support the troops was meant to be support the troops even if the war is unpopular. It was meant to try and shift blame closet to shift blame not on the poor bastard (like me and countless others) in the sand or scruffy mountains but to the jackasses who sent them (us) there.
Veterans are given preference in hiring for federal jobs along with I'm sure some state and local federal positions. And I know for a fact I did get one job mostly because I'm a veteran. Again nothing written written down, but the guy who hired me told me resume got me an interview but my service got me the job. I remember when I first came home the first time I was bought a drink from someone I didn't know, I went to him and thanked him but told him I had my own money and he didn't have to do that. The man told me he wanted to, he was a hippie once upon a time a has been making amends for quite a while for his past behavior.
I agree 110% that we as a nation need to do more than just words, more than a few drinks at a bar now and then. Free or reduced priced QUALITY health care, real transition programs for service members and their families, and even a little more thought into where they get sent would go a lot further. But from an average person, the Thanks For Your Service I'll take. Especially after talking to Vietnam vets in my VFW post.
I'm not saying you're wrong or anything like that. I just wanted to give you some background on the phrase.
-
At least there's no chance of another gun control debate popping out of the woodwork from this.
Dude. Priorities.
Yeaaaaaah, I gotta echo this one. Kind of a dick move, dude.
-
At least there's no chance of another gun control debate popping out of the woodwork from this.
Dude. Priorities.
Yeaaaaaah, I gotta echo this one. Kind of a dick move, dude.
For being glad that nobody on either side is going to be able to use the death of innocent people as a springboard for their political agenda?
Sure. Dick move.
-
At least there's no chance of another gun control debate popping out of the woodwork from this.
Dude. Priorities.
Yeaaaaaah, I gotta echo this one. Kind of a dick move, dude.
For being glad that nobody on either side is going to be able to use the death of innocent people as a springboard for their political agenda?
Sure. Dick move.
Wording is important, ya know, as is timing. It'd have probably been better put as "I'm thankful nobody seems to be politicizing this, we need to tend to the people first." As it stands, it sounded like the potential for this to be politicized was the only thing about which you cared. I and UP may have been wrong, but alas, text doesn't carry tone very well.
-
Why do you care, the gun grabbin' libetard commits pretty Much givin up.
-
They've updated it. Four people dead, not sure if that's including the gunman. At first I thought it was a copycat, but then I saw reports that he was being treated for PTSD.
I'm not sure I've heard of PTSD alone causing a killing spree, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
To be honest I'm not even phased anymore, like it's basically just another day another horrific violent mass shooting.
PTSD can manifest in many ways. In extremely severe cases it can cause hallucinatory flashbacks where the person suffering from the trauma actively thinks they are reliving it leading to extreme violence. It can also really screw with ones perceptions regarding paranoia and pattern recognition. PTSD is a seriously messed up condition.
That said, in many ways this is just another one of those another day, another mass shooting. Last I checked they happen at least once a month in America, but most are small scale enough to not really be newsworthy. This one probably only made it because of the previous mass shooting that happened there.
To me, the saddest thing here is how America has this huge Soldier hero worship mentality. Constantly going on about "supporting the troops" and "the fight for your freedom so you dont have to", but really they dont. Young men are sent to pointless wars to kill and die for no reason. These wars dont affect any Americans freedom in the slightest, least of all protecting it. Then these broken traumatized people are brought back where they are paraded around and worshiped like hero's, but denied the help they really need.
You want to know what would really "support the troops" and "protect America's freedom"? Not sending soldiers to die in pointless wars, and keeping them at home. Sorry for getting off topic like this, but the military culture of America gets to me sometimes.
PTSD can manifest in many ways. In extremely severe cases it can cause hallucinatory flashbacks where the person suffering from the trauma actively thinks they are reliving it leading to extreme violence. It can also really screw with ones perceptions regarding paranoia and pattern recognition. PTSD is a seriously messed up condition.
That said, in many ways this is just another one of those another day, another mass shooting. Last I checked they happen at least once a month in America, but most are small scale enough to not really be newsworthy. This one probably only made it because of the previous mass shooting that happened there.
To me, the saddest thing here is how America has this huge Soldier hero worship mentality. Constantly going on about "supporting the troops" and "the fight for your freedom so you dont have to", but really they dont. Young men are sent to pointless wars to kill and die for no reason. These wars dont affect any Americans freedom in the slightest, least of all protecting it. Then these broken traumatized people are brought back where they are paraded around and worshiped like hero's, but denied the help they really need.
You want to know what would really "support the troops" and "protect America's freedom"? Not sending soldiers to die in pointless wars, and keeping them at home. Sorry for getting off topic like this, but the military culture of America gets to me sometimes.
Sylvana, If I had a magic wand, I would grant you US citizenship (dual US/SA citizenship, technically), then clone you 10 million times over, and beg your clones to vote in every election at every level, township to national, and thank you all for helping to finally civilize this country to its true potential.
-
At least there's no chance of another gun control debate popping out of the woodwork from this.
Dude. Priorities.
Yeaaaaaah, I gotta echo this one. Kind of a dick move, dude.
For being glad that nobody on either side is going to be able to use the death of innocent people as a springboard for their political agenda?
Sure. Dick move.
Wording is important, ya know, as is timing. It'd have probably been better put as "I'm thankful nobody seems to be politicizing this, we need to tend to the people first." As it stands, it sounded like the potential for this to be politicized was the only thing about which you cared. I and UP may have been wrong, but alas, text doesn't carry tone very well.
Or maybe if you'd talked about how tragic the event was, then added "on the bright side...", nobody would have a problem.
-
They've updated it. Four people dead, not sure if that's including the gunman. At first I thought it was a copycat, but then I saw reports that he was being treated for PTSD.
I'm not sure I've heard of PTSD alone causing a killing spree, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
To be honest I'm not even phased anymore, like it's basically just another day another horrific violent mass shooting.
PTSD can manifest in many ways. In extremely severe cases it can cause hallucinatory flashbacks where the person suffering from the trauma actively thinks they are reliving it leading to extreme violence. It can also really screw with ones perceptions regarding paranoia and pattern recognition. PTSD is a seriously messed up condition.
That said, in many ways this is just another one of those another day, another mass shooting. Last I checked they happen at least once a month in America, but most are small scale enough to not really be newsworthy. This one probably only made it because of the previous mass shooting that happened there.
To me, the saddest thing here is how America has this huge Soldier hero worship mentality. Constantly going on about "supporting the troops" and "the fight for your freedom so you dont have to", but really they dont. Young men are sent to pointless wars to kill and die for no reason. These wars dont affect any Americans freedom in the slightest, least of all protecting it. Then these broken traumatized people are brought back where they are paraded around and worshiped like hero's, but denied the help they really need.
You want to know what would really "support the troops" and "protect America's freedom"? Not sending soldiers to die in pointless wars, and keeping them at home. Sorry for getting off topic like this, but the military culture of America gets to me sometimes.
I feel the same. Maybe there should be a boycott of the military. Convince folks not to join. Improbable, yes but *sigh*, it's a thought.
We need a Peace culture not a war culture. If Norway, once a land of "Proud Warrior Race Guys" can become a "Liberal Peacenik" Land. Why can't we?
Hopefully, if the Dems take the majority this fall, it MIGHT be a start, or at least get a foot in the door.
-
Alas, demilitarization of the US would take a very, VERY long time; our defense budget isn't just R&D, we have a massive standing army. Plus, just because we demilitarize doesn't mean other potentially hostile nations would follow suit, and it would leave us almost totally defenseless. In short, it'd paint a huge target on our backs. We may not have as many enemies as people like Bill-O the Clown would have you believe, but we do have people that are none too friendly towards us and would enjoy being able to actually hit us.
-
They've updated it. Four people dead, not sure if that's including the gunman. At first I thought it was a copycat, but then I saw reports that he was being treated for PTSD.
I'm not sure I've heard of PTSD alone causing a killing spree, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
To be honest I'm not even phased anymore, like it's basically just another day another horrific violent mass shooting.
PTSD can manifest in many ways. In extremely severe cases it can cause hallucinatory flashbacks where the person suffering from the trauma actively thinks they are reliving it leading to extreme violence. It can also really screw with ones perceptions regarding paranoia and pattern recognition. PTSD is a seriously messed up condition.
That said, in many ways this is just another one of those another day, another mass shooting. Last I checked they happen at least once a month in America, but most are small scale enough to not really be newsworthy. This one probably only made it because of the previous mass shooting that happened there.
To me, the saddest thing here is how America has this huge Soldier hero worship mentality. Constantly going on about "supporting the troops" and "the fight for your freedom so you dont have to", but really they dont. Young men are sent to pointless wars to kill and die for no reason. These wars dont affect any Americans freedom in the slightest, least of all protecting it. Then these broken traumatized people are brought back where they are paraded around and worshiped like hero's, but denied the help they really need.
You want to know what would really "support the troops" and "protect America's freedom"? Not sending soldiers to die in pointless wars, and keeping them at home. Sorry for getting off topic like this, but the military culture of America gets to me sometimes.
I feel the same. Maybe there should be a boycott of the military. Convince folks not to join. Improbable, yes but *sigh*, it's a thought.
We need a Peace culture not a war culture. If Norway, once a land of "Proud Warrior Race Guys" can become a "Liberal Peacenik" Land. Why can't we?
Hopefully, if the Dems take the majority this fall, it MIGHT be a start, or at least get a foot in the door.
The problem is that this is the price of being a superpower. I don't like war, but I believe we should be willing to prosecute it whenever necessary. The reason Norway has gone peaceful is simple: it can afford to be. They have powerful friends willing to come to their defense. I appreciate your idealism. I really do. Unfortunately, it just doesn't mesh with reality.
Alas, demilitarization of the US would take a very, VERY long time; our defense budget isn't just R&D, we have a massive standing army. Plus, just because we demilitarize doesn't mean other potentially hostile nations would follow suit, and it would leave us almost totally defenseless. In short, it'd paint a huge target on our backs. We may not have as many enemies as people like Bill-O the Clown would have you believe, but we do have people that are none too friendly towards us and would enjoy being able to actually hit us.
And that's the other reason.
-
Aye, it kinda hits Lord British Postulate territory, if something that seems unkillable suddenly becomes weakened, you can bet someone is gonna try to have a go at striking at 'em.
-
Well, I kind of said the wrong stuff again. Boycotting/not joining the military would be dumb. I was mainly talking about culture, as in the "Gung-Ho Action Guy Blam Blam Bang Boom Shoot-Em-Up YEEEEHAH!" culture of the USA....one that fetishizes violence & war rather than just see it as a last-resort necessary evil. While I am mostly a flower-power person, I am nonetheless a realist. The problem isn't so much war in general, it's that we wage war constantly for every reason. I believe in the concept of "Just War". One should seek out peaceful & diplomatic means at all costs and try to address the root causes of unrest first. But if nothing works, there's no choice but to fight.
-
Well, I kind of said the wrong stuff again. Boycotting/not joining the military would be dumb. I was mainly talking about culture, as in the "Gung-Ho Action Guy Blam Blam Bang Boom Shoot-Em-Up YEEEEHAH!" culture of the USA....one that fetishizes violence & war rather than just see it as a last-resort necessary evil. While I am mostly a flower-power person, I am nonetheless a realist. The problem isn't so much war in general, it's that we wage war constantly for every reason. I believe in the concept of "Just War". One should seek out peaceful & diplomatic means at all costs and try to address the root causes of unrest first. But if nothing works, there's no choice but to fight.
Also, we need to stop seeing war as "go in, take things over". The reason I think the two invasions were so bad was because we never stopped and tried to map out an effective way to stabilize the region.
You'd think we would have learned from before that the Middle East wasn't a hive mind and that there were actually tons of different groups and ideologies all with radically different motives, but naw, Ac130s and m1 Abrams are awesome.
FREEEEEDOM!!!!
-
Well, I kind of said the wrong stuff again. Boycotting/not joining the military would be dumb. I was mainly talking about culture, as in the "Gung-Ho Action Guy Blam Blam Bang Boom Shoot-Em-Up YEEEEHAH!" culture of the USA....one that fetishizes violence & war rather than just see it as a last-resort necessary evil. While I am mostly a flower-power person, I am nonetheless a realist. The problem isn't so much war in general, it's that we wage war constantly for every reason. I believe in the concept of "Just War". One should seek out peaceful & diplomatic means at all costs and try to address the root causes of unrest first. But if nothing works, there's no choice but to fight.
Also, we need to stop seeing war as "go in, take things over". The reason I think the two invasions were so bad was because we never stopped and tried to map out an effective way to stabilize the region.
You'd think we would have learned from before that the Middle East wasn't a hive mind and that there were actually tons of different groups and ideologies all with radically different motives, but naw, Ac130s and m1 Abrams are awesome.
FREEEEEDOM!!!!
The other problem is how unnecessary and damaging the wars were in the first place. In response to a terrorist attack, we invaded two countries (one of which had rather questionable connection to it at best) and actually toppled the government of one. Both of these things are rarely good for the nation, no matter how much you plan it out. For all our successful killings of terrorist leaders and disbanding of cells, we've encouraged the view of America that led to people becoming radical terrorists trying to blow up innocent American civilians in the first place.
It was basically the equivalent of getting slapped in the back of the head by a bully at school and reacting by screaming in rage and attacking a bunch of random people with a baseball bat.
-
Well, I kind of said the wrong stuff again. Boycotting/not joining the military would be dumb. I was mainly talking about culture, as in the "Gung-Ho Action Guy Blam Blam Bang Boom Shoot-Em-Up YEEEEHAH!" culture of the USA....one that fetishizes violence & war rather than just see it as a last-resort necessary evil. While I am mostly a flower-power person, I am nonetheless a realist. The problem isn't so much war in general, it's that we wage war constantly for every reason. I believe in the concept of "Just War". One should seek out peaceful & diplomatic means at all costs and try to address the root causes of unrest first. But if nothing works, there's no choice but to fight.
Also, we need to stop seeing war as "go in, take things over". The reason I think the two invasions were so bad was because we never stopped and tried to map out an effective way to stabilize the region.
You'd think we would have learned from before that the Middle East wasn't a hive mind and that there were actually tons of different groups and ideologies all with radically different motives, but naw, Ac130s and m1 Abrams are awesome.
FREEEEEDOM!!!!
The other problem is how unnecessary and damaging the wars were in the first place. In response to a terrorist attack, we invaded two countries (one of which had rather questionable connection to it at best) and actually toppled the government of one. Both of these things are rarely good for the nation, no matter how much you plan it out. For all our successful killings of terrorist leaders and disbanding of cells, we've encouraged the view of America that led to people becoming radical terrorists trying to blow up innocent American civilians in the first place.
It was basically the equivalent of getting slapped in the back of the head by a bully at school and reacting by screaming in rage and attacking a bunch of random people with a baseball bat.
Well, the question is, what alternative did we have? I mean, I understand where you're coming from about Iraq, but Afghanistan?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Yeaaaaaah...we basically sent a steamroller to do a scalpel's job.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Argument Escalated Into Shooting (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303847804579481952056698732?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303847804579481952056698732.html)
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.