Lawmakers Blast Administration For Calling Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence'

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Aug 29, 2002
31,685
2,304
898
Florida's Nature Coast
#1
Lawmakers Blast Administration For Calling Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence'

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home.
During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.
The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a "direct target of violent Islamist extremism" within the United States.
"The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists' scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting," Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday's hearing.
In June, two men allegedly plotted to attack a Seattle, Wash., military installation using guns and grenades. In July, Army Pvt. Naser Abdo was accused of planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And in November, New York police arrested Jose Pimentel, who alleged sought to kill service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both Pimentel and Abdo also allegedly drew inspiration from al-Awlaki and the online jihadist magazine Inspire, which includes a spread on how to "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom."
Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said military service members are "symbols of America's power, symbols of America's might."
"And if they (military personnel) can be killed, then that is a great propaganda victory for al Qaeda," King told Fox News.
King said there is also evidence that extremists have joined the services.
"There is a serious threat within the military from people who have enlisted who are radical jihadists," King said. "The Defense Department is very concerned about them. They feel they're a threat to the military both for what they can do within the military itself and also because of the weapons skills they acquire while they're in the military."
The witnesses testifying before the joint session include Paul N. Stockton, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense; Jim Stuteville, U.S. Army senior adviser for counterintelligence operations and liaison to the FBI; Lt. Col. Reid L. Sawyer, director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and Darius Long, whose son, Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, was shot and killed at an Arkansas military recruitment center in 2009.
A second private was also injured in the Arkansas attack. Both victims had just finished basic training and had not been deployed. They were outside the Arkansas recruitment center when the shooter opened fire from a passing truck. The shooter, Carlos Bledsoe, pleaded guilty to the crime earlier this year.
In a letter to the court, Bledsoe said he carried out the attack on behalf of al Qaeda in Yemen -- the group that was behind the last two major plots targeting the U.S. airline industry.
"My faith in government is diminished. It invents euphemisms ... Little Rock is a drive by and Fort Hood is just workplace violence. The truth is denied," Long testified.
King said the web is the driver of the new digital jihad.
"It enables people -- rather than having to travel to Afghanistan to learn about jihad or to be trained, they can do it right over the Internet," he said. "And this is a growing role."
And while Awlaki and his colleague Samir Khan, who was behind the magazine Inspire, were killed in a CIA-led operation in September, King warned against overconfidence that al Qaeda in Yemen was done.
"This is a definite short-term victory for us. There's no doubt they are going to regroup, that there will be others who will be providing Internet data, inspiration to jihadists in this country, instructions on how to make bombs," he said.
While King was heavily criticized, in some quarters, for launching his hearings 10 months ago on homegrown terrorism, the congressman said the joint session shows the threat is legitimate, and recognized as such by other members of Congress.
"To me it's a validation of what I've been trying to do all year," King emphasized. "There's a definite threat from Islamic radicalization in various parts of our society, including within the military, and we can't allow political correctness to keep us from exposing this threat for what it is."
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#2
Overseas contingency operation, man-caused disaster, workplace violence...
 

ShooterMcGavin

Go back to your shanties.
May 25, 2005
18,029
1,380
643
#3
So if a guy goes into work one day, shouts "Allah Ackbar" and kills a bunch of people, that's just a disgruntled employee. Gotcha.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#4
Did that classification recategorize the Fort Hood incident to change some sort of security readiness?

The reason I ask is the military is famous for assigning a title to things that mean something completely different than it would mean in the real world. Fort Hood was a workplace, and violence happened there, so it could be that simple. If it's a reclassification to avoid some sort of black eye to some General's security record or something, then it's reprehensible.

More than likely it's just a group of government civilians who don't understand the military and are taking offense to something that doesn't exist.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#5
Overseas contingency operation, man-caused disaster, workplace violence...
My point exactly. :haha7:

We were taught that some times all a machine needs to work is a whack with a hammer. Some tech manuals referred to this as "mechanical agitation".
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#6
Did that classification recategorize the Fort Hood incident to change some sort of security readiness?

The reason I ask is the military is famous for assigning a title to things that mean something completely different than it would mean in the real world. Fort Hood was a workplace, and violence happened there, so it could be that simple. If it's a reclassification to avoid some sort of black eye to some General's security record or something, then it's reprehensible.

More than likely it's just a group of government civilians who don't understand the military and are taking offense to something that doesn't exist.
Shhhhh....

 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,557
22,222
398
Northern California
#7
So if a guy goes into work one day, shouts "Allah Ackbar" and kills a bunch of people, that's just a disgruntled employee. Gotcha.
Yup. On the other hand, if the guy was white it would be "militant domestic terrorism".
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,644
37,808
628
In a porn tree
#8
Why stop at "workplace violence"? Let's be honest and call this what it is... a case of a victim of bullying and religious persecution lashing out in self-defense in order to protect himself from the hate crimes being committed against him.
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,541
13,853
608
Idaho
#10
How fitting this subject comes up on the 70th anniversary of another workplace violence incident.

 

DJ Evel Ed

MayYourCumCrustedCocksBeConstantlyCoveredInCunt
Nov 30, 2003
2,602
76
613
Up your ass!
#12
Maybe it has to do with stats.

The murder victims from 9/11/2001 are actually not considered murder victims so NYC can keep their stats consistant and not have a huge spike. Someone's spinning it this way for a reason, I just cant figure out why.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
It's My Birthday!
Aug 22, 2005
15,794
1,347
693
#13
Maybe it has to do with stats.

The murder victims from 9/11/2001 are actually not considered murder victims so NYC can keep their stats consistant and not have a huge spike. Someone's spinning it this way for a reason, I just cant figure out why.
So they can try to claim that it wasn't a Islamic terrorist attack on US soil.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#15
So they can try to claim that it wasn't a Islamic terrorist attack on US soil.
Especially since it was the only "successful" plot pulled off during his administration AND he was the Commander in Chief of the terrorist.
 

bb1mobile

wackbag's special mod
Wackbag Staff
Jul 10, 2007
4,088
4
111
Just wandering around
#16
I don't get the connotations of this image...other than an excuse to look down Miley's shirt.
He's just trying to be clever and dismissive of other people's opinions.

It's easier then confronting the fact that some people really are
tired of the bullshit being fed them by our government.
 

Stig

Making America So Great You Won't Believe It.
Jul 26, 2005
80,881
4,522
623
NH
#17
How fitting this subject comes up on the 70th anniversary of another workplace violence incident.

Holy hostile work environment!

I'm sure this is all a big misunderstanding based on the fact that government forms always have a limited number of check boxes, and none of them are ever quite adequate.

Or the Big Cheese is afraid to address Islamic Fuckery.
 

Stig

Making America So Great You Won't Believe It.
Jul 26, 2005
80,881
4,522
623
NH
#18
Maybe it has to do with stats.

The murder victims from 9/11/2001 are actually not considered murder victims so NYC can keep their stats consistant and not have a huge spike. Someone's spinning it this way for a reason, I just cant figure out why.
Structural Failure. Let's all sue the architects and engineers.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#19
I don't get the connotations of this image...other than an excuse to look down Miley's shirt.
I think it means you are not a badass if you are smashing a fake guitar. e.g. you are not cool for getting outraged over a non-story.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,824
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#20
Did that classification recategorize the Fort Hood incident to change some sort of security readiness?

The reason I ask is the military is famous for assigning a title to things that mean something completely different than it would mean in the real world. Fort Hood was a workplace, and violence happened there, so it could be that simple. If it's a reclassification to avoid some sort of black eye to some General's security record or something, then it's reprehensible.

More than likely it's just a group of government civilians who don't understand the military and are taking offense to something that doesn't exist.
Looking at the report itself, here's what bothers me - it's supposed to be a report that helps prevent another Ft. Hood, but focuses on things that would only prevent a disgruntled employee/mentally unstable person type thing. Stuff like focusing on mental health programs, and what to actually do if such an incident is underway. Not once do they talk about sleeper cell terrorists, spotting problematic ideology (which we know now that people noticed with Hassan beforehand) or any of that stuff. So, in essence, by misclassifying it as a workplace violence incident, they neatly avoid anything that could be perceived as not PC, and the report itself is therefore completely useless in trying to prevent another Ft. Hood incident.

Which mean that saying "they classified it as workplace violence" is actually correct, because they use Ft. Hood as a case study to prevent workplace violence incidents, not domestic terror ones.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,644
37,808
628
In a porn tree
#21
Mods... can we change the thread title to something less frightening? Like perhaps "the Fort Hood Unpleasantness"? Massacre just sounds so sinister.

Think of the children.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#22
Looking at the report itself, here's what bothers me - it's supposed to be a report that helps prevent another Ft. Hood, but focuses on things that would only prevent a disgruntled employee/mentally unstable person type thing. Stuff like focusing on mental health programs, and what to actually do if such an incident is underway. Not once do they talk about sleeper cell terrorists, spotting problematic ideology (which we know now that people noticed with Hassan beforehand) or any of that stuff. So, in essence, by misclassifying it as a workplace violence incident, they neatly avoid anything that could be perceived as not PC, and the report itself is therefore completely useless in trying to prevent another Ft. Hood incident.

Which mean that saying "they classified it as workplace violence" is actually correct, because they use Ft. Hood as a case study to prevent workplace violence incidents, not domestic terror ones.
Remember this?
Three days after the murders, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told a CNN interviewer, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” So the leader of our army believes that diversity is more important than protecting the lives of our troops?
When you remember that the Chief of Staff of the Army said a loss of diversity is worse than the loss of the 13 soldiers' lives, reclassifying this as workplace violence instead of Muslim extremism is not that hard to believe.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,824
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#23
Remember this?

When you remember that the Chief of Staff of the Army said a loss of diversity is worse than the loss of the 13 soldiers' lives, reclassifying this as workplace violence instead of Muslim extremism is not that hard to believe.
Yup. I was just responding to the Fauxrage brigade. It seems that nowadays it's more important to show that everything that Fox or republicans say is actually not true, even if it means fighting over semantics. So because they didn't actually put Ft. Hood under their master DoD category of "workplace violence" then the point is invalid. Forget that the report actually shows that they are pretty much doing exactly that. If it doesn't say: "The Defense Department hence forth and in perpetuity shall refer to the Fort Hood shooting as a workplace violence incident" then it's all just feigned Fauxrage, right?

The funny thing is that I only saw the actual report because a person like that sent it to me to show me I was wrong, when in fact it showed me I was right.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,824
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#24
Just for shits and giggles, here are some quotes from the first couple of pages of the report:

"The tragic shooting of U.S. military personnel at Fort Hood in November 2009...."

"The Department will make every effort to safeguard civil liberties as it develops these policies and programs."

"In Particular the Department will strengthen its policies, programs, and procedures in the following areas:

* Addressing workplace violence;

* Ensuring commander and supervisor access to appropriate information in personnel records;

* Improving information sharing with partner agencies and among installations;

* Expanding installations' emergency response capabilities;

* Integrating force protection policy, and clarifying force protection roles and responsibilities; and

* Ensuring that we provide top quality health care to both our service members and our healthcare providers."



Now, assuming that you never heard of the Fort Hood incident - reading those quotes, would you know that it was a domestic terrorist attack? NO. Everything about this screams "unhinged individual" or "disgruntled employee" as opposed to "calculated terrorist."

"Access to appropriate information in personnel records" sounds to me like "mental health history" for example. This all just smacks of ambiguity and it ignores a key factor to Fort Hood, which is spotting potentially dangerous ideology.