David Corn vs. Ed Schultz on Ft. Hood "Terrorism"

Oh, that is such a salient observation and so accurate. Far better than my take on it. I am completely convinced and grateful.
Beautiful observation....

The superficiality of US security is obvious. The number one rule in regards to American security is in my opinion rather rudimentary but the failure to adhere to this number one rule is precisely what defined the Bush administration. Any form of major deficit spending (exceeding 3% of GDP) that result in major devaluations in US currency can only be done if our nation is under direct military threat of destruction—for example during WWII the need to go to war was without question—our opponents were sworn to our destruction and were involved in a world wide military conspiracy to subject the entire world to their will. The fact we were hit on 9/11 demands that one reevaluate security—a nation such as ours is subject to blowback because we are responsible for many bad things in this world of ours but we are also responsible for many good things. Minimizing blowback means to minimize the bad things we do and to concentrate on expanding the good things. Still a dilemma will always exist where one man's good thing is a bad thing for another—one must seek the midpoint

Going to war and declaring a War on Terrorism is not only stupid it obviously fails in providing better security—it has already failed because of the bankrupt state of the union and this cannot be construed as being in the interest of national security. Security demands that one protect certain fundamental principles and thus the primary one for the US is that it maintain a balanced budget, and hold as close to full employment as possible. As long as the US maintains these fundamentals its influence in the affairs of the world cannot be discarded. The consumption of foreign imports and the power of the US dollar as the universal token of exchange buys allegiance and allegiance is an important key to security—the failure to recognize this is a failure to properly see what security builds from. At this moment in time the deterioration of the dollar will continue—we remain at war while our unemployment is at 10% (consumption of foreign goods decreases = allegiance weakens) and our deficit continues to increase (the dollar declines in value = influence weakens) thus we are faced with the fact that we will be thrown out of Okinawa and once we are forced to leave we will soon after be thrown out of all of military locations throughout the Asian Pacific region. (this does not necessarily have to be bad because the savings in military expenditure will make us stronger but it would be best for the sake of appearances to make this move on our own where we willingly remove the forward deployment of the military so as to rebuild the nation and prepare it for the realities of the 21st century...

...That is the real meaning of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. (Anyone claiming that these wars have one iota to do with “national security” are liars or brainwashed drones who are merely spitting out the dogmatic cataclysms of the “Party”) Obama cannot correct the situation in regards to Asia as long as he is involved in wars the nation need not fight and cannot afford to fight. The facts are indisputable the war on terrorism is not a war to protect the nation but rather it is undermining the ability to protect the nation...

Examples of terrorism does not define terrorism. Defining terrorism is not “ACADEMIC” nor is it being liberal to attempt to do so but rather it is step one in defining the enemy. (in this sense it is the so called “conservatives” who are the liberals because they use the term “terrorism” without meaning—they are liberal about who and what they call terrorism thus they themselves become instruments of terrorism—conservatives have failed to curtail terrorism for the simple reason that their concept of winning hearts and minds is simply once you've got their balls their hearts and mind will follow—I think very shortly we will have the conservative's by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow—though for appearances it may well be necessary to hang a few of them—thus we may have to have their necks as well)

In the case of a War on Terrorism, defining what terrorism means and what terrorist means is tantamount to creating a winning strategy. As of yet the US has failed in this endeavor and the consequence is the creation of a “cluster fu€k” bureaucratic policy (most notable is the creation of the superfluous entity called Homeland Security—a true waste of money and another example of where “conservatives” are liberals in regards to wasting tax payer money on a useless bureaucracy) which leads to a incompetent and inconsistent system that results in a high level of false positives (New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina is the real state of American security which failed completely in protecting the victims from a natural disaster. Guantanamo has a number of prisoners whose links to terrorism are 100% non-existent, while others might actually be the real McCoy. Yet because these people have been detained and held indefinitely without charge terrorism and terrorist become the American policy itself—that is our persona in the world and such a persona induces blowback. That is why defining terrorism is not “Academic” but is of primary importance—it supersedes all other aspects in the war on terrorism because without defining the enemy we ourselves becomes the instigators of terrorism due to the injustices committed—this in turn will raise the frequency of blowback (what we are calling terrorist acts). I guess that on the issue of defining terrorism the conservative view means “let's promote ignorance” but truth is simply that until this ignorance is removed we will fail!

When it comes to this particular case at Fort Hood what is obvious is just how poor the control is in regards to the mental health of soldiers and personnel. Terrorism in this case would strike me as the ability to show that this individual acted under orders—he was following direct orders from his terrorist superiors. I do not think that this individual was following orders from some handler directly connected to some terrorist organization like al Qaeda. Otherwise he would have done more than go on a shooting spree—he would have followed the common pattern seen elsewhere and would have had some means to self detonation so as to further maximize the death count but also to offer up excellent propaganda for these terrorist organizations who could claim they can strike a blow even in US military bases within the US itself—since we lack the linguistic skills we must of necessity employ people from a multi-ethnic background and these people are of key importance—to throw suspicion on people simply because they are Muslim is indeed about as stupid as it gets.

The use of the term “liberal” in regards to whether this individual was “a terrorist” is misleading—but it is a common ploy in the US these days—apparently being “conservative” means nothing more than vigilantism or being ignorant—we were led to war by “conservatism” which in turn was built on selling lies as facts and since these lies were not exposed by our “free” press we went to war due to precisely ignorance that surrounded the term “terrorist” and not because there were grounds to go to war.

In my opinion this man's acts were a form of terrorism but they were different from the 9/11 attack. This person was most likely mentally disturbed. Regardless there are a number of military personnel who are mentally disturbed and who sometimes flip out in a most destructive manner—when an American soldier with a non-Muslim background goes nuts and kills a bunch of people we say he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder but if a Muslim guy goes nuts then “he's a terrorist”; This sort of indiscriminate use of the word terrorism represents a direct weakness in the ability to combat real terrorism because it induces mass hysteria and mass hysteria is perhaps what “conservatism” means today.

Had the US really had a strategy in play (recognizing that identifying Muslim terrorists demands the need for Muslims who speak the languages of the terrorists but who also oppose these terrorists because they make a mockery of the religion are a key ingredient to fighting potential terrorist attacks from Muslim terrorists also means that those who help must be protected from fanatical rhetoric made by ignorant bigots—being Muslim has nothing to do with terrorism but it is a common trump card screamed by “conservatives”(It is also an Israeli tactic and given the apartheid conditions that rule over the state of Israel they are hardly a role model for how to combat terrorism—they represent the consequences of a failure to deal with terrorism)...

... this individual responsible for the shootings should have been ushered into the world of incognito and the military ought to have given a press release that the guy was off his rocker—to minimize any and all forms of friction between Muslim Americans and non-Muslim Americans—in other words to put a lid on it for pure diplomatic reasons and then sought out to ascertain whether this guy was in fact a terrorist operative of some kind. Obviously stupidity even rules the military in regards to their own “security”. These are signs of weakness but more importantly they point to incompetence in the military itself. (This scenario at Fort Hood no matter how tragic and regrettable was predictable and procedures ought to have been in place to deal with it smartly)

Unfortunately correct actions do not in general allow for feelings but require a cold heart motivated by clear minded objective investigation to ascertain the facts surrounding the incident—this was what failed to occur in the aftermath of 9/11 and it is why incompetent fanaticism (or what amounts to the same thing “conservatism”) ran the country and not people who were competent. I think that we must be prepared to expect more such tragedies due to the nature of the conflict and because this conflict has been mismanaged from day one.

156 Chinese protesters killed before Obama's arrival

http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/11/china-jails-dissidents-before-oba...