Monday, October 22, 2012

Politics Aside?

The Benghazi debacle has placed the November 5, 2009 shootings back in the spotlight. This might be the only positive that comes from the death of our Ambassador and Seals overseas.

What should be the classification of those Ft Hood shootings? Should survivors get Purple Hearts? The heroes given other combat commendations? Victims/Survivors given full combat benefits.



Why would be this classified as "workplace violence?" What political gain would come to the Administration by not calling this an act of terror three years before a reelection campaign? Is there an honorable explanation?

8 comments:

free0352 said...

Yes they should get purple hearts! They got shot by an Al'Queda infiltrator. Its no different than when Afghan Al'Queda infiltrators shoot them in Afghanistan.

As for heros... I would think the police officer that shot his ass should be decorated- and probably was by her department. Also, I think the military should consider any acts possibly worthy of recognition connected to the event just as they would had they happened in Afghanistan or Iraq. The war came to Ft. Hood that day, no question.

CrabbyOldMan said...

To answer your question ALa: NO.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

The instant story out on NPR was that we had did not have reliable information about what he said. This in spite of report after report that he did indeed yell what he did. I used to think that the absolute knee jerk reaction of the left to deny the patently obvious was based on denial and fear of the Muslims. I have come to see that the reason is more based in hatred for the right who point out the totally obvious adn who want to take action on the facts. The left are not really very action oriented. They talk a good game, "support" this and that, but leave action to the "activists" and union thugs.

Bram said...

Well, the Libyan Ambassador worked in Libya, right? Sounds like another case of violence in the workplace. Would anyone even be surprised if Obama said as much tonight?

Ray said...

Death sentencing in military courts must have final approval of the Commander in Chief.

Guess who that is?

Freemom said...

This was terrorism...and there is no honorable explanation for not calling it what it is.

newrebeluniv said...

Not terrorism. He would have had to be a member of a terrorist organization. Simply being Moslem is not enough even if motivated by Jihadist sentiments. He was an officer in the US Army. To give his victims a medal for wounds at the hands of the enemy would be to declare our own officers enemies. While that may be a popular sentiment in the ranks, it isn't true.

Also, this wasn't the first mass shooting at an Army base. Those guys didn't get purple hearts either.

Zelda said...

No, no, no. You don't have to be a member of an organization to be a terrorist. Terrorism isn't a philosophy. It's a tactic. Now in this case, I wouldn't call it an act of terrorism because the targets were military, not unarmed civilians. In this case, it's an act of war because he committed the murders on behalf of our declared enemies. Therefore, the victims deserve purple hearts.