|
Post by AquaHolic on Nov 13, 2009 10:18:02 GMT -4
The problem I have with the "politically correct" bunch...is that they are trying to apply "normal human being" standards to people that just simply are not "normal human beings"....it's like saying, "If we treat this orange with respect and dignity and consider it's growth history and give it enough money and sympathy and try to reason with it, it will become an apple." No. It won't. Ever. There are bad people of every religion, race, color, creed, political affiliation, sexual preference and stature....WHY can't we call them out on it? If they are lunatics...so be it...I do not find myself feeling sympathetic toward someone who murders people and then blames their "childhood", "family life", "medical condition", "religious views", blah blah blah. If you are a murderer, you...are a murderer. If you are a pedophile, you...are a pedophile. If you are a piece of flotsam that is constructed in the shape of a human....I really don't care what your "reasons" are. It really IS that simple. Two words would clear a lot of that CRAP up....PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Own your own sh!t. I so agree with this...you just put it in words better then I could ever think to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2009 10:38:55 GMT -4
George Bush had eight years to stop this Islamic Terrorist and did nothing! Besides I heard today that Hasan was a Conservative Muslim and may even have been to a few tea parties! This is George Bush's fault? Bush did nothing to stop terrorism? Is this sarcasm or are you smoking crack? I don't agree with everything Bush did, but I don't believe he did nothing to stop terrorism. Overkill maybe, but he kept us safe. Other countries were all victims of terrorism, but not us. Waterboarding, wiretaps, etc may be looked down upon, but he kept us safe. Blame the military for not acting on the signs. Blame the system for not allowing profiling. Blame the guy at the gun shop. I just can't see how you could blame this on George Bush. Easy Frank, that post by DS was sarcasm. He was just messing with people.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Nov 13, 2009 12:41:25 GMT -4
Thank goodness! All I could think, "is everyone going insane!"
|
|
|
Post by kl on Nov 13, 2009 13:15:34 GMT -4
Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. I would love to hear all sides. But again, this is nothing new. The U.S.A. is infamous for doing things just as reported. Since terrorist is a term thrown out by several here.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US ambassador to Afghanistan is warning against sending more troops to fight in the Afghan war. In a last-minute dissent, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent two cables this week casting doubt on a troop escalation until the Afghan government can address corruption and other internal problems.
Well, today we turn to a new report that reveals how the US government is financing the very same insurgent forces in Afghanistan that American and NATO soldiers are fighting. “How the US Funds the Taliban” is the cover story of the latest issue of The Nation magazine.
Investigative journalist Aram Roston traces how the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan end up paying insurgent groups to protect American supply routes from attack. The practice of buying the Taliban’s protection is not a secret. US military officials in Kabul told Roston that a minimum of ten percent of the Pentagon’s logistics contracts consists of payments to the Taliban.
Well, it’s bizarre, but the US has to maintain, obviously, all these bases, these forward operating bases and combat outposts throughout Afghanistan. They have to supply them. The way they supply them is trucking convoys, civilian trucking convoys. They call it “Host Nation Trucking,” and what they mean is that Afghan-owned trucks and Afghan drivers drive everything. They drive all the supplies, the guns, the MRAPs, the ammunition. Just everything needs to get to these—every part of Afghanistan. And they’ve issued these large contracts, but they don’t protect the convoys. By definition, these convoys are driving through some very tough terrain, controlled by warlords, by the Taliban, by insurgents.
And what they’ve ended up doing—and this is apparently unanimous, with some small exceptions—is the security companies reach arrangements with the local Taliban, the local warlords and various insiders to pay them off for protection. It’s very much like an extortion racket and very much like a protection racket, and it amounts to huge amounts of money. Some say ten percent, some say far more than ten percent, of the convoys. Some say that most of the security budgets are going towards these payments to the Taliban and to the tribal leaders and the warlords. The fact is the US often doesn’t even know who they’re paying off. These contractors don’t necessarily know who they’re paying off. They just know they’re bad guys. So they’ve ended up with this bizarre situation, and there’s nothing they can really do about it.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 13, 2009 14:32:44 GMT -4
Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. I would love to hear all sides. But again, this is nothing new. The U.S.A. is infamous for doing things just as reported. Since terrorist is a term thrown out by several here.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US ambassador to Afghanistan is warning against sending more troops to fight in the Afghan war. In a last-minute dissent, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent two cables this week casting doubt on a troop escalation until the Afghan government can address corruption and other internal problems. Well, today we turn to a new report that reveals how the US government is financing the very same insurgent forces in Afghanistan that American and NATO soldiers are fighting. “How the US Funds the Taliban” is the cover story of the latest issue of The Nation magazine. Investigative journalist Aram Roston traces how the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan end up paying insurgent groups to protect American supply routes from attack. The practice of buying the Taliban’s protection is not a secret. US military officials in Kabul told Roston that a minimum of ten percent of the Pentagon’s logistics contracts consists of payments to the Taliban. Well, it’s bizarre, but the US has to maintain, obviously, all these bases, these forward operating bases and combat outposts throughout Afghanistan. They have to supply them. The way they supply them is trucking convoys, civilian trucking convoys. They call it “Host Nation Trucking,” and what they mean is that Afghan-owned trucks and Afghan drivers drive everything. They drive all the supplies, the guns, the MRAPs, the ammunition. Just everything needs to get to these—every part of Afghanistan. And they’ve issued these large contracts, but they don’t protect the convoys. By definition, these convoys are driving through some very tough terrain, controlled by warlords, by the Taliban, by insurgents. And what they’ve ended up doing—and this is apparently unanimous, with some small exceptions—is the security companies reach arrangements with the local Taliban, the local warlords and various insiders to pay them off for protection. It’s very much like an extortion racket and very much like a protection racket, and it amounts to huge amounts of money. Some say ten percent, some say far more than ten percent, of the convoys. Some say that most of the security budgets are going towards these payments to the Taliban and to the tribal leaders and the warlords. The fact is the US often doesn’t even know who they’re paying off. These contractors don’t necessarily know who they’re paying off. They just know they’re bad guys. So they’ve ended up with this bizarre situation, and there’s nothing they can really do about it. There you go hijacking the thread and going off topic. HAHA. I love how you tell everyone to feel free to talk, LMAO. If you want to talk about payments to bad guys, in the middle east is not the only place this is happening. Check out the payments being made in South and Central America, the banana companies alone.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Nov 13, 2009 15:24:59 GMT -4
Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. I would love to hear all sides. But again, this is nothing new. The U.S.A. is infamous for doing things just as reported. Since terrorist is a term thrown out by several here.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US ambassador to Afghanistan is warning against sending more troops to fight in the Afghan war. In a last-minute dissent, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent two cables this week casting doubt on a troop escalation until the Afghan government can address corruption and other internal problems. Well, today we turn to a new report that reveals how the US government is financing the very same insurgent forces in Afghanistan that American and NATO soldiers are fighting. “How the US Funds the Taliban” is the cover story of the latest issue of The Nation magazine. Investigative journalist Aram Roston traces how the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan end up paying insurgent groups to protect American supply routes from attack. The practice of buying the Taliban’s protection is not a secret. US military officials in Kabul told Roston that a minimum of ten percent of the Pentagon’s logistics contracts consists of payments to the Taliban. Well, it’s bizarre, but the US has to maintain, obviously, all these bases, these forward operating bases and combat outposts throughout Afghanistan. They have to supply them. The way they supply them is trucking convoys, civilian trucking convoys. They call it “Host Nation Trucking,” and what they mean is that Afghan-owned trucks and Afghan drivers drive everything. They drive all the supplies, the guns, the MRAPs, the ammunition. Just everything needs to get to these—every part of Afghanistan. And they’ve issued these large contracts, but they don’t protect the convoys. By definition, these convoys are driving through some very tough terrain, controlled by warlords, by the Taliban, by insurgents. And what they’ve ended up doing—and this is apparently unanimous, with some small exceptions—is the security companies reach arrangements with the local Taliban, the local warlords and various insiders to pay them off for protection. It’s very much like an extortion racket and very much like a protection racket, and it amounts to huge amounts of money. Some say ten percent, some say far more than ten percent, of the convoys. Some say that most of the security budgets are going towards these payments to the Taliban and to the tribal leaders and the warlords. The fact is the US often doesn’t even know who they’re paying off. These contractors don’t necessarily know who they’re paying off. They just know they’re bad guys. So they’ve ended up with this bizarre situation, and there’s nothing they can really do about it. There you go hijacking the thread and going off topic. HAHA. I love how you tell everyone to feel free to talk, LMAO. If you want to talk about payments to bad guys, in the middle east is not the only place this is happening. Check out the payments being made in South and Central America, the banana companies alone. Your fixation with me never ceases to amaze me Poodles.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 13, 2009 15:33:18 GMT -4
There you go hijacking the thread and going off topic. HAHA. I love how you tell everyone to feel free to talk, LMAO. If you want to talk about payments to bad guys, in the middle east is not the only place this is happening. Check out the payments being made in South and Central America, the banana companies alone. Your fixation with me never ceases to amaze me Poodles. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are the one that signs on and goes right to my posts and tries to find fault and accuse me of hijacking. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Nov 13, 2009 16:38:41 GMT -4
I say let the victims families shoot Hasan with a Pistol at point blank range. Have doctors ready to save his life after he has been shot by the first family. Let him heal and then have the second family shoot him and have the doctors heal him again. Now repeat this at least 13 times and then kill him!
Or we could just cut off his head like the Islamic Muslims do to our people!
Maybe we could send him to New York to stand trial! No that will never happen not in Obamas America?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2009 16:39:44 GMT -4
So, who's going to the KIO outing tonight? Politics, religion and terrorism discussions, throw in some alcohol.....should be fun!
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Nov 13, 2009 16:44:24 GMT -4
I'll be going!
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Nov 13, 2009 16:50:08 GMT -4
I'll be there!
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Nov 13, 2009 17:29:10 GMT -4
The problem I have with the "politically correct" bunch...is that they are trying to apply "normal human being" standards to people that just simply are not "normal human beings"....it's like saying, "If we treat this orange with respect and dignity and consider it's growth history and give it enough money and sympathy and try to reason with it, it will become an apple." No. It won't. Ever. There are bad people of every religion, race, color, creed, political affiliation, sexual preference and stature....WHY can't we call them out on it? If they are lunatics...so be it...I do not find myself feeling sympathetic toward someone who murders people and then blames their "childhood", "family life", "medical condition", "religious views", blah blah blah. If you are a murderer, you...are a murderer. If you are a pedophile, you...are a pedophile. If you are a piece of flotsam that is constructed in the shape of a human....I really don't care what your "reasons" are. It really IS that simple. Two words would clear a lot of that CRAP up....PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Own your own sh!t. Well said!!!
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Nov 13, 2009 17:30:40 GMT -4
Call Hasan what you want, but if it wasn't for the rude behavior of the Conservative Party Mr Hasan would have never felt the need to lash out and hurt fellow soldiers. He was just heading off to console soldiers in Afghanistan when he suddenly had a feeling that he needed to let off some pent-up feelings about fellow Muslims! Hasan was conflicted, haven't you ever been conflicted? whoa... I almost smited you.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Nov 14, 2009 9:14:59 GMT -4
Couldn't help myself, After watching and listening to the Obama news all day and hearing our fearless leader say that we have to wait for all the facts to come in before we rush to judgment on Hasan being a Islamic terrorist or just some nut with a gun? The man child was quick to call the police in Cambridge, Mass stupid on the day of the altercation with the professor gates!
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 14, 2009 10:52:49 GMT -4
Couldn't help myself, After watching and listening to the Obama news all day and hearing our fearless leader say that we have to wait for all the facts to come in before we rush to judgment on Hasan being a Islamic terrorist or just some nut with a gun? The man child was quick to call the police in Cambridge, Mass stupid on the day of the altercation with the professor gates! He was quick on calling out the cops yet it took him 6 months to pick a puppy for a family pet.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 14, 2009 12:45:04 GMT -4
Again, a reasoned, measured response. He is learning. He should not have to be learning quite so much while in the Oval Office. I like my presidents with more experience, not one that needs to learn as he goes. If it takes him 6 months to pick a breed of puppy, I cannot imagine how long it will take him to make important decisions regarding the American people.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Nov 14, 2009 14:04:34 GMT -4
Again, a reasoned, measured response. He is learning. He should not have to be learning quite so much while in the Oval Office. I like my presidents with more experience, not one that needs to learn as he goes. If it takes him 6 months to pick a breed of puppy, I cannot imagine how long it will take him to make important decisions regarding the American people. Ditto that... dang, did I say that.....?
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 14, 2009 14:06:27 GMT -4
He should not have to be learning quite so much while in the Oval Office. I like my presidents with more experience, not one that needs to learn as he goes. If it takes him 6 months to pick a breed of puppy, I cannot imagine how long it will take him to make important decisions regarding the American people. Ditto that... dang, did I say that.....?
|
|
|
Post by kl on Nov 16, 2009 7:44:17 GMT -4
Your fixation with me never ceases to amaze me Poodles. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are the one that signs on and goes right to my posts and tries to find fault and accuse me of hijacking. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Nov 16, 2009 7:51:44 GMT -4
Again, a reasoned, measured response. He is learning. He should not have to be learning quite so much while in the Oval Office. I like my presidents with more experience, not one that needs to learn as he goes. If it takes him 6 months to pick a breed of puppy, I cannot imagine how long it will take him to make important decisions regarding the American people.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Nov 17, 2009 7:13:53 GMT -4
He should not have to be learning quite so much while in the Oval Office. I like my presidents with more experience, not one that needs to learn as he goes. If it takes him 6 months to pick a breed of puppy, I cannot imagine how long it will take him to make important decisions regarding the American people. Just curious, were those pictures taken when he was telling us how great health care "reform" is going to be for us, or were they meant for people who "foolishly" think Hasan was motivated by his religion?
|
|
|
Post by dej on Nov 18, 2009 12:02:57 GMT -4
Now Sen. Schumer (D. NY) is questioning why Hasan was allowed to by weapons if he was being watched for possible terrorist links. I think the question should be, if he was suspected of any type of terrorist link, why would he be slated for a deployment that could give him an even greater opportunity to link up with terrorists and possibly provide them with operational information on troops in the field?
Strange that Schumer thinks he shouldn't have been allowed to buy weapons based on the investigation, but is totally silent on why Hasan wasn't relieved of duty during the same investigation. If a person is not stable enough, or is considered too much of a security risk to purchase a weapon, they have not business being in the military. Schumer seems to miss that point entirely.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Nov 18, 2009 13:12:41 GMT -4
dej, I think both questions are worth asking. I know gun control's a hot topic on here, but pretty much anyone can buy guns at gun shows. That's a loophole in our regulation system that needs to be fixed. And people suspected of terrorism OR mental instability should be given an at least temporary discharge from the military, whether for an investigation or for the person to seek help.
|
|