Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Sinn Fein, Dec 7, 2011.
Lawmakers Blast Administration For Calling Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence'
Overseas contingency operation, man-caused disaster, workplace violence...
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.
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.
My point exactly.
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".
Yup. On the other hand, if the guy was white it would be "militant domestic terrorism".
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.
There is already a term for that. Its called going "postal".
How fitting this subject comes up on the 70th anniversary of another workplace violence incident.
I don't get the connotations of this image...other than an excuse to look down Miley's shirt.
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.
Especially since it was the only "successful" plot pulled off during his administration AND he was the Commander in Chief of the terrorist.
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.
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.
Structural Failure. Let's all sue the architects and engineers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't be the first time...