- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
- Reaction score
- 514
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It's one of a hell of a double edged sword. The investigating officer has the option to be accused of harassing a man for his name and singoing him out for his rights of an opinion and risk his career... or take the chance that this guy is one of many who just shoots his mouth off. After all, he's a major...a doctor...nah.
Now people want accountability. Perhaps if the investigating officer didn't have to weigh his career on a maybe.
This is the same dilemma when it comes to homosexual activity. To investigate thoroughly or not to investigate thoroughly. That is the career question. How many people are eager to accuse a high ranking officer of being gay or a terrorist-to-be? This isn't the civilian world. A politician screws up, he still gets re-elected. A military man screws up, it's his career or people die or both.
Excuse me, racial slures? WTF are you talkin about. I think you have the wrong idea of what I am getting at here. I am not talking about using racial slurs. Im talking about not parsing words. Im talking about saying what you mean and meaning what you say regardless of who it may offend. My point is some people are so freakin thin skinned they are offended way to easily. If all the red flag evidence points to Hasan being a jihadist why does the media continue to try and claim otherwise. All I want from the media is the facts. Tell me the facts and let me make up my own mind.
Hold on a second. From what I read, the Muslim whacko that shot up the military base was running his mouth openly about performing terrorist activities. If so, I doubt very seriously that someone red-flagging this guy is gonna face investigation for profiling or being politically incorrect. And if he's "one of the many", as you said, then we have a much bigger problem than being 'politically correct' if you have masses of military personnel openly talking about performing terrorist activities.
However, i'm a pretty open-minded fella. That comes with the 'liberal' title, I reckon, so in fairness, i'd certainly love to read something that shows unequivocally that this whacko that shot up Fort Hood got away with it because of political correctness.
. Not being a military man, I don't understand why accusing a high ranking officer of being gay can be anything like accusing someone of being a terrorist. That's something you'll have to explain to me. But regarding the terrorist, I reitierate that it was a mistake. But blaming it on being 'too PC'? I heard a lot of that in this thread, yet no one - not a soul - has offered up specifics as to what we SHOULD do. You think everyone dropping the whole 'political correctness' stuff is what needs to be done? Fine. Tell me WHAT exactly we can do here. Be specific (ie, you want to strip search every Muslim within 100 miles of a military base? No one with Islamic roots should be allowed into the military? What?).
None of that. Its an over reaction. But when a service members claims that muslims should strap bombs to themselfs and detonate in Times square or when they say muslims should rise up against the country he has taken an oath to protect that is a red flag. that is something people should not fear reporting to there chain of command or the authorties. In this case people were not reporting the red flags Hasan exposed out of fear that they would be labled bigots or Islamophobes. Thats a problem. Thats where political correctness results in people being killed by a JIHADIST
I am quite sure this would not have happened on a marine base, as PC is out, as it should be.
As far as homosexuals go, again, let them serve.....
Regarding the military examples, I, too, have read much of what led up to the 9/11 attack on our country. Clinton Administration failing to act properly on the intel? Sure. Clinton Administration failing to act to save American lives because he wanted to be politically correct? I'd need to see some proof of that. I don't think anyone - even Clinton and his bunch - would sacrifice Americans because they didn't want to offend folks. I think that's pushing it. REALLY pushing it, to be honest.
Being politically correct aint retarded, and we certainly aint sacrificing American lives to be that way.
What do you mean, stare at our enemy and label accordingly? Got an example here?
Not being a military man, I don't understand why accusing a high ranking officer of being gay can be anything like accusing someone of being a terrorist.
He openly preached how our 'war on terror' is a war on Islam.
You can certainly call it whatever you want, but by definition, you are being 'politically correct' when you avoid doing such things. Again, I didn't invent the term, but I wholeheartedly support it. And it's my guess you do too, regardless of what you choose to call being 'politically correct'. And profiling can save your life? Most definitely. I'm sure that searching every Muslim on a daily basis in the military would have prevented this terrible act from occurring. But are you for searching Muslims simply because they're Muslims, and letting all non-Muslims avoid being searched? If so, that's where we disagree. Treat 'em all the same - you search one group, search the other.
You wanna change the term? How about 'not being a jerkface'. So, let's say we do just that - change the term, but the definition remains the same. Next thing you know, we have folks coming to these forums and everywhere else saying 'i'm tired of people not being jerkfaces'. It's the actions - not the term - that gets people.
You weren't being politically incorrect. You said or did nothing offensive whatsoever - stereotype or not.
Political correctness aint a doctrine, homes. It's a definition. If you act a certain way, avoiding offensive language, stereotypes, and seek neutrality in dealing with races, ethnicities, genders, etc., you're being politically correct. If it's a doctrine, i'd love to read it.
You can be as rude as you want to, so long as you're willing to suffer the consequences. And I wouldn't call the dude who wants the Pledge being taken out of school as searching for political correctness. He's just being a whackjob. I mean seriously, who is offended by the Pledge of Allegiance? We can argue about removing the 'under God' line (personally I think it should go), but I certainly aint offended by it remaining in there. I just don't say it when I recite the Pledge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?