When soldiers are expendable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

It's not treason either, Mike. Treason is clearly defined as aid to the enemy. That's not what happened here. This was murder. It's a violation of the UCMJ, but that doesn't make it treason. Military personnel kill each other periodically, & there's rules in the code to deal with it. Even when some pissed off grunt tosses a frag into an officers tent, in the middle of the war zone, it's not treason. It's murder. The numbers don't change that.

Too many people have tried to read too much into this that just isn't there. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find a lot of difference between this guy & the Columbine kids. I think it was a failed attempt at suicide by cop. He didn't protect himself with a vest or anything. He got shot up. I doubt that he figured on surviving the incident. Oops!

---

I'm certainly not alone in considering Hasan a murderous traitor to his country and his fellow soldiers, and treason is what you charge traitors with:

Main Entry: trai·tor
Pronunciation: \ˈtrā-tər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English traytour, from Anglo-French traitre, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give — more at date
Date: 13th century
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 : one who commits treason

"Assuming Hasan is convicted, and no exculpatory evidence exonerates him, I would prefer to think of him as a traitor, than a terrorist. It's a more accurate description of his (alleged) act. Turning his weapon on his fellow soldiers was an act of profound betrayal. We have terrorists aplenty in this world: to call Hasan one more doesn't really do justice to the heinousness of his act. To call him traitor, a man who declared war on his own country and countrymen, is more apt."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Nino

And may I add, pawns on a grand chessboard being manipulated and moved around by the will of the masters of war.

---

You're such a pathetic cliche.

Are those nasty Bilderberg folks still keeping you up nights, Kaczynski?

Strike a nerve did I? Go cook up some more BS, Chef. It's your SPECIALTY!!

You're not alone, Mike. There's a lot of people who think all kinds of things about this incident. This is America. Everybody's entitled to an opinion. Even Nino. But Hassan won't be charged with either terrorism or treason because the evidence doesn't support such charges. I'm not even sure how much premeditation was involved. We may never know. It's rare that we catch a mass mureder alive to ask why, but this guy is trained in the art of psychological manipulation, so I'm not all that sure that anything he says can be trusted.

I notice this story's fallen by the wayside. The coverage stopped after about a week. I guess Tiger's more interesting, or whatever goosip was happening in between the Tiger thing & the cessation of coverage of the mass murder.

Well, Hippi, you are correct sir... Everybody is entitled to an opinion (even ME, very subtle there wise ass) Unfortunately however, the vast pool of opinions seem to be getting less and less diverse as the years roll by. See the following chart and see for yourself how tightly the information is controlled. Almost starting to reek of fascism a little, eh?

That's a good graph. It shows the effect of supply side monopolistic thinking. Of course you have to remember that the FCC doesn't control print media, & that the hundreds of independents are in single markets.

So what does it have to do with this topic?

The Graph has to do with everything about this topic. The niddy griddy details of the Wars are censored and filtered (so that you will not see the horor that it brings to both sides) through your television sets. If it were allowed, the wars would end in short order. Common citizens would *see* the expendibility factor for their own eyes; if the media wasn't controlled by the same corporations that own defense contractors, that make $ off of war. It seems as tho you like being spoonfed mainstream news drivel, however.

As far as I know, the only war we've ever engaged in, where the media wasn't censored, was VietNam. That fiasco lasted 10 years. If we hadn't lost outright, we'd still be there. We've had a perpetual war going on since 1941. It remains to be seen if there's a change in the mindset, & we start winding it all down & concentrate on humanitarian problems. Regrdless, anything is going to take years. There's no instant fix.

It should be noted that the media is in fact censored. It is controlled and inhibited from circulating the truly graphic photos and videos that tell the tales and greusome nature of warfare. The reasons for this are obvious, but very disingenuous. FTW

Again, already known & understood. You're not imparting any secrets, Nino.