Being to PC contributed to FT. Hood Massacre

[Gunner3456]

If you are going to republish Fox opinion pieces like a zombie without an original idea of your own, at least do us the favor of spell checking the TITLE to your post.

I wouldn't want anyone to get the false impression that people around here arguing for gun rights are ignorant or stupid.

I'm sure you'd prefer to hear the same exact thing from CBS News since you're under their ether... CBS gets it and you can google the rest.

 

[Gunner3456]

This message is hidden because CEF1959 is on your ignore list.

......

 

[CEF1959]

Great to see that we can always count on you, Gunner, for your brilliant gun-related insights. Heckuva job, Gunny. Got any more anti-Muslim ("but that's not racism") takes for us today?

But seriously, folks. Don't you see my point? People are predisposed to see us pro-gun people as stupid rednecks. It doesn't help our gun rights when we provide them evidence. Like entitling a post "to PC" when we mean "too PC." It's just basic English skills I'm asking for here. The sort some people (ahem) insist that all immigrants should have. Is that too much to ask? (or even "to much")?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Great to see that we can always count on you, Gunner, for your brilliant gun-related insights. Heckuva job, Gunny. Got any more anti-Muslim ("but that's not racism") takes for us today?

Actually he is right that it is not racism...it is bigotry. There is a difference. We might not all be racists, but to a degree we are all bigots.

 

[Gunner3456]

Screen shot:

 

[CEF1959]

Actually he is right that it is not racism...it is bigotry. There is a difference. We might not all be racists, but to a degree we are all bigots.

I understand the technical symantic distinction, but is it really different? If one person hates Jews, and another person hates blacks, aren't they really guilty of the same thing? If someone hates Jews, I think I'll call them racist. If you want to say, "Oh, but no. They're not racists, because technically Jews come from several different races," well, ok..... So hating Jews is somehow different from hating blacks. I get the symantics, but I'm not down with the word games as offering anything meaningful. It's just an excuse for people to be anti-Muslim and go to sleep thinking it's OK, because at least they aren't racists.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I understand the technical symantic distinction, but is it really different? If one person hates Jews, and another person hates blacks, aren't they really guilty of the same thing? If someone hates Jews, I think I'll call them racist. If you want to say, "Oh, but no. They're not racists, because technically Jews come from several different races," well, ok..... So hating Jews is somehow different from hating blacks. I get the symantics, but I'm not down with the word games.

One of the biggest difference is being Jewish is a choice and being black is not. I find it slightly less offensive to prejudge people on choices they make than it is to prejudge them on things about themselves that they cannot change. I do not find it nearly as offense to prejudge someone because they are a white supremacist, but I do if you prejudge them for being hispanic.

I freely admit to being a bigot and I try to overcome it. I try not to be a racist.

 

[CEF1959]

Gunny, did you have a gun related point you wanted to make? In fact, as far as I can tell, I'm the only person making gun related points in this thread anymore.

 

[Gunner3456]

Actually he is right that it is not racism...it is bigotry. There is a difference. We might not all be racists, but to a degree we are all bigots.

Got it. Jews and Palestinians are neighbors who hate each other but they aren't racist because they are mostly all Caucasian (White.)

Equating a dislike of a religious sect or any other ethnic difference with racism goes about as far into the uneducated as you can get.

However, there are some people who will never admit they are wrong about anything. I give you "Exhibit A."

 

[Gunner3456]

One of the biggest difference is being Jewish is a choice and being black is not. I find it slightly less offensive to prejudge people on choices they make than it is to prejudge them on things about themselves that they cannot change. I do not find it nearly as offense to prejudge someone because they are a white supremacist, but I do if you prejudge them for being hispanic.

I freely admit to being a bigot and I try to overcome it. I try not to be a racist.

Well said.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The people that were too PC were his fellow Doctors that listened to his 40 minute anti war rant that he did at a conference awhile back. It wasn't even related to the topic he was supposed to be addressing. They discussed it among themselves after Hasan's "speech" (rant).
They had the power to have his sanity/mental/emotional state scrutinized and did nothing. (adequate)
They were the ones guilty of PC-itis if you will. But they had their reasons too, as they didn't want to cast aspersions, have them be found unwarranted and then be chastised themselves.
This is where the liberal PC acceptance dogma needs to stop. When people (Doctors) aren't able to make assessments that fall under their expertise for fear of reprisal, there is something wrong.
Maybe if there's a next time, one of them will have the stones to pursue a review of the individual's competency.

 

[CEF1959]

One of the biggest difference is being Jewish is a choice and being black is not. I find it slightly less offensive to prejudge people on choices they make than it is to prejudge them on things about themselves that they cannot change. I do not find it nearly as offense to prejudge someone because they are a white supremacist, but I do if you prejudge them for being hispanic.

I freely admit to being a bigot and I try to overcome it. I try not to be a racist.

Hating white supremacists is not the same thing as hating blacks or Jews or Muslims. And drawing a moral parallel between white supremacists and Muslims (or white supremacists and Jews) would be offensive, wouldn't it?

BTW, the six year old Jews who were gassed by the Nazis didn't choose to be Jews. But they were hated for it. Indeed, what percentage of Jews who were hated and killed by Nazis chose to be Jewish? Nearly all were born that way. It's like saying it's OK for the Turks to murder millions of Armenians for being Armenian, because being Armenian is a choice, not a race. To me, it's all the same thing. And if people who hate Muslims think they can sleep comfortably thinking that they aren't racists, I disagree.

 

[56kninja]

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`

This thread seems to have turned into pointless squabbling. Unless I missed a deeper meaning in the last two pages.

 

[CEF1959]

So Gunny thinks it's OK to hate Jews, Muslims, and Palestinian Arabs, because that's not racism. Thanks again, Gunny for another of your valuable insights.

And will someone PLEASE correct the title to this thread so people don't get the misimpression that there are ignorant rednecks running amuck on this site? It hurts our gun rights for people to have that impression of us. Just like it hurts our cause when people think it's OK to spew anti-Muslim hatred on this site. That, 56kninja, is the gun-related point I am trying to make here. It may not be deep, but at least it's gun-related.

Thanks.

 

[Gunner3456]

Fort Hood suspect warned of threats within the ranks
Cited stress facing Muslims Hasan spoke at Walter Reed in 2007​

Link to Washington Post article.


Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was supposed to discuss a medical topic during gave a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007. Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid "adverse events," the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims.

As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program.

Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," he said in the presentation.

"It was really strange," said one staff member who attended the presentation and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the investigation of Hasan. "The senior doctors looked really upset" at the end. These medical presentations occurred each Wednesday afternoon, and other students had lectured on new medications and treatment of specific mental illnesses.

An Army spokesman said Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined to comment. It is unclear whether anyone in attendance reported the briefing to counterintelligence or law enforcement authorities whose job it is to identify threats from within the military ranks.

Hasan spent six years at Walter Reed as an intern, resident and fellow beginning in 2003. He was transferred to Fort Hood as a practicing psychiatrist in July and was set to leave soon for Afghanistan. According to a relative, he had asked not to be deployed. It is not known whether he ever sought conscientious-objector status.

Maj. Gen. Gina S. Farrisee, the Army's personnel chief, said in an interview Monday that because of the investigation, she and other Army officials could not discuss whether Hasan had officially asked to quit the service or not to be deployed. However, she and another Army official said it would be highly unusual for officers with Hasan's rank and medical training to be allowed to resign, given their service obligation.

Investigators are examining Hasan's religious beliefs, whether he harbored extremist views, and whether he was in contact with others who may have encouraged violence against U.S. troops.

The title of Hasan's PowerPoint presentation was "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." It consisted of 50 slides.

In one slide, Hasan described the presentation's objectives as identifying "what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military."

He also sought to "describe the nature of the religious conflicts that Muslims" who serve in the U.S. military may have and to persuade the Army to identify these individuals.

Other slides delved into the history of Islam, its tenets, statistics about the number of Muslims in the military, and explanations of "offensive jihad," or holy war.

Another slide suggested ways to draw out Muslim troops: "It must be hard for you to balance Islamic beliefs that might be conflicting with current war; feelings of guilt; Is it what you expected."

Hasan's presentation lasted about an hour. It is unclear whether he read out loud every point on each slide. If typical procedures were followed, his adviser would have supervised the development of his project, said people familiar with the practice.

The final three slides indicate that Hasan referred to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, suicide bombers and Iran.

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"

 

[Jamie6.5]

Hating white supremacists is not the same thing as hating blacks or Jews or Muslims. And drawing a moral parallel between white supremacists and Muslims (or white supremacists and Jews) would be offensive, wouldn't it?

Why? White Supremacists are Christian extremists that hate Catholics, Jews, blacks, Hispanics etc.
Muslim extremists hate all people of "infidel" religions like Catholics, Baptists, Jews (orthodox and otherwise), Mormons etc.
Now the vast majority of Hispanics are Catholics, so are Muslim-hated by default.
I believe there is a pretty clear parallel there. Albeit in this case it is more religion than race centered.

The notion that anyone of another religion (any religion other than Muslim) be "put to the sword" in the prophet Mohammad's day is offensive/repulsive.
This is akin to Muslim supremacy, and as such, the word white or Muslim can be used interchangeably.
This is the definition of religious oppression, and countries lead by Muslim clerics (imams) are exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they stipulated "no state sponsored religion."

 

[Chee-to]

And will someone PLEASE correct the title to this thread so people don't get the misimpression that there are ignorant rednecks running amuck on this site? It hurts our gun rights for people to have that impression of us. Just like it hurts our cause when people think it's OK to spew anti-Muslim hatred on this site.

 

[Gunner3456]

And will someone PLEASE correct the title to this thread so people don't get the misimpression that there are ignorant rednecks running amuck on this site? It hurts our gun rights for people to have that impression of us. Just like it hurts our cause when people think it's OK to spew anti-Muslim hatred on this site.

Dang, I can't see his posts any longer unless someone quotes him.

What's to correct in the title? I think we've very well documented the truth of the title.

 

[cobra150]

If you look up the "Dunning-Kruger Effect", I think it can be applied hearabouts.

 

[Gunner3456]

If you look up the "Dunning-Kruger Effect", I think it can be applied hearabouts.

Isn't that the study which proved that someone with the inability to comprehend the meaning of "racist" would therefore see himself as a genius?