The Army needs to get its priorities straight

2009-11-11 13:58:43

#1

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5988|College Park, MD

A guy serves two combat tours and comes out about being gay, and is quickly discharged (albeit under honorable conditions)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/10/vif2.d … index.html

A guy shows warning signs of mental disturbances, belligerence, maybe even being psychotic as well as being tracked by the FBI for maintaining email correspondence with a suspected terrorist. People describe him as being a guy "you would not want in your foxhole." Basically if you weren't constrained by the levels of political correctness pervading our society today, you would have called him out for being either crazy, fanatical or both.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … &cc=fp

So why did the Army do nothing about Major Hasan?

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-11-11 14:01:18

#2

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6936

Surely kicking out a gay guy isn't very PC, before this thread turns into some anti-PC rant?

2009-11-11 14:03:05

#3

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5988|College Park, MD

ghettoperson wrote:
Surely kicking out a gay guy isn't very PC, before this thread turns into some anti-PC rant?

It isn't. There needs to be a balance. It's one thing to kick a guy out because he's gay (and frankly that's not the Army's problem, it's Congress' problem. The Army is just enforcing the law it has to follow). It's another to not investigate a guy who shows lots of signs of mental instability and/or religious fanaticism because it might "offend" him and end up with the Army being sued for discrimination.

2009-11-11 14:03:13

#4

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6075|Catherine Black

Lmao "Get its priorities straight"

2009-11-11 14:03:33

#5

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|6932

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
A guy serves two combat tours and comes out about being gay, and is quickly discharged (albeit under honorable conditions)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/10/vif2.d … index.html

A guy shows warning signs of mental disturbances, belligerence, maybe even being psychotic as well as being tracked by the FBI for maintaining email correspondence with a suspected terrorist. People describe him as being a guy "you would not want in your foxhole." Basically if you weren't constrained by the levels of political correctness pervading our society today, you would have called him out for being either crazy, fanatical or both.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … &cc=fp

So why did the Army do nothing about Major Hasan?

because he was an American citizen and he was born here... they are mostly looking at people outside the country, they think everyone in U.S. likes U.S....

2009-11-11 14:30:08

#6

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5988|College Park, MD

lol, "lowing junior" is it? I'm not saying this because the guy was muslim, I'm saying it because he was showing signs of EXTREME muslim behavior. It'd be no different if someone was spouting out the crap that the Branch Davidians said.

edit: Even if he was an atheist, he was still showing signs of mental unbalance. You know, the kind of stuff that if you have it before joining you can't join because you're too much of a risk?

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-11-11 14:31:13)

2009-11-11 14:50:09

#7

VspyVspy: Sniper; +183|6959|A sunburnt country

Is it possible that he's straight as an arrow and only claiming he is gay to get out of the Army?

2009-11-11 15:16:26

#8

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

Hasan wanted out, the question is why they didn't let him go especially in light of all the other factors.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-11 15:17:25)

Fuck Israel

2009-11-11 15:22:03

#9

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5988|College Park, MD

Dilbert_X wrote:
Hasan wanted out, the question is why they didn't let him go especially in light of all the other factors.

This as well. Normally you don't get let out of the military just because you suddenly don't like it, but coupled with all these other warning signs they should have just counted their losses and let him go.

2009-11-11 15:22:25

#10

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6938|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
Hasan wanted out, the question is why they didn't let him go especially in light of all the other factors.

I understand why they didn't release him, he was under surveillance, they were probably gathering intel from him.

even if they did, do you really have any doubt that he would have been involved in something else later?

2009-11-11 15:29:12

#11

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Hasan wanted out, the question is why they didn't let him go especially in light of all the other factors.
I understand why they didn't release him, he was under surveillance, they were probably gathering intel from him.

even if they did, do you really have any doubt that he would have been involved in something else later?

Thats just dumb, they could have maintained the surveillance.
Removing the main source of antagonism would have been logical, the army didn't want him anyway.

Fuck Israel

2009-11-11 15:37:31

#12

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7023|Salt Lake City

It will be interesting to see if they hold him under the Patriot Act as a terrorist.

2009-11-11 15:43:13

#13

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|6982|NJ

My question is why did the guy come out as being gay?

The Army is a work place and as such shouldn't have any Sexual Preference..

Was the other stuff known about the guy or did it come out after he went crazy?

2009-11-11 15:50:15

#14

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6938|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
lowing wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Hasan wanted out, the question is why they didn't let him go especially in light of all the other factors.
I understand why they didn't release him, he was under surveillance, they were probably gathering intel from him.

even if they did, do you really have any doubt that he would have been involved in something else later?
Thats just dumb, they could have maintained the surveillance.
Removing the main source of antagonism would have been logical, the army didn't want him anyway.

Yes because we all know the key to pacifying an Islamic terrorist is to release them from military service.

2009-11-11 15:58:58

#15

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5988|College Park, MD

cpt.fass1 wrote:
My question is why did the guy come out as being gay?

The Army is a work place and as such shouldn't have any Sexual Preference..

Was the other stuff known about the guy or did it come out after he went crazy?

Well according to the article, he started seeing a man after his first tour of duty. He ultimately told his NCO that he was conflicted by it, and his NCO basically said it was fine. He was deployed a second time and supposedly the people in his platoon knew he was gay but didn't care. It wasn't until after his deployment that he was contacted by a production crew that was making a documentary about gay servicemen that he really went public. I think the guy accepts responsibility for it, the article's more of a debate on DADT.

As for Hasan, people he worked and studied with thought something was 'off' about him. And the FBI had been investigating him before the shooting.

@Lowing the best thing would have been to release him but still keep tabs on him. Sure it wouldn't stop him from being a fanatic but he wouldn't pose such an imminent threat to people.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-11-11 15:59:49)

2009-11-11 17:43:15

#16

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6938|USA

Screw don't ask don't tell, no gays should be allowed to serve, not because they can not physically do it, but because it is a distraction from the mission of the military.

2009-11-11 18:01:03

#17

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5830|Toronto

lowing wrote:
Screw don't ask don't tell, no gays should be allowed to serve, not because they can not physically do it, but because it is a distraction from the mission of the military.

I understand the basic goal of any military unit, but I am having difficulty pinning down how an institution is effected by homosexuality. We have already learned that his fellow service men had no issue with his orientation, which would be the only reason I could see this being a problem. Even then the military tells you what to believe in boot camp for the most part, so if they tell you homosexuality is not a problem, then it's not a problem anymore. I would imagine that they would take all of the bodies they could get who pass training seeing as they essentially provide you with a new outlook, making homogeneity a non-issue.

Maybe I am over-estimating the influence of the military on it's soldiers.

What is your definition of "the mission of the military" and how does sexual orientation adversely affect it?

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2009-11-11 18:07:15

#18

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6755

lowing wrote:
Screw don't ask don't tell, no gays should be allowed to serve, not because they can not physically do it, but because it is a distraction from the mission of the military.

I think we shouldn't let straight people into the military.

Also no non-Muslims.

Yup, we should only let gay Muslims into the military.

2009-11-11 18:07:21

#19

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

lowing wrote:
Screw don't ask don't tell, no gays should be allowed to serve, not because they can not physically do it, but because it is a distraction from the mission of the military.

The mission of the military is affected by gays, how?

I suppose the Mission of the military isn't affected by females who also serve?

You just come off as homophobic.

2009-11-11 18:07:39

#20

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6938|USA

Pochsy wrote:
lowing wrote:
Screw don't ask don't tell, no gays should be allowed to serve, not because they can not physically do it, but because it is a distraction from the mission of the military.
I understand the basic goal of any military unit, but I am having difficulty pinning down how an institution is effected by homosexuality. We have already learned that his fellow service men had no issue with his orientation, which would be the only reason I could see this being a problem. Even then the military tells you what to believe in boot camp for the most part, so if they tell you homosexuality is not a problem, then it's not a problem anymore. I would imagine that they would take all of the bodies they could get who pass training seeing as they essentially provide you with a new outlook, making homogeneity a non-issue.

Maybe I am over-estimating the influence of the military on it's soldiers.

What is your definition of "the mission of the military" and how does sexual orientation adversely affect it?

The problem is not so much with them, but with us. Straight men are uncomfortable around gays, especially as roomates or in the shower.

There is no amount of mlitary training that is going to convince a straight guy that showering with a gay guy is perfectly acceptable.

War time especially is not the time to add yet further destractions from their jobs.

2009-11-11 18:08:44

#21

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

lowing wrote:
War time especially is not the time to add yet further destractions from their jobs.

Afraid that if he drops the soap the gay guy will start fucking him? wtf

2009-11-11 18:09:52

#22

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6938|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Screw don't ask don't tell, no gays should be allowed to serve, not because they can not physically do it, but because it is a distraction from the mission of the military.
The mission of the military is affected by gays, how?

I suppose the Mission of the military isn't affected by females who also serve?

You just come off as homophobic.

females shower separate, bunk separate are not fighting on the front lines either in the same fox holes. Sorry if you do not see the difference.

2009-11-11 18:12:31

#23

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6938|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
War time especially is not the time to add yet further destractions from their jobs.
Afraid that if he drops the soap the gay guy will start fucking him? wtf

for some perhaps. Apparently you have no problem being checked out by a gay guy, others might feel differently.

2009-11-11 18:12:48

#24

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

lowing wrote:
females shower separate, bunk separate are not fighting on the front lines either in the same fox holes. Sorry if you do not see the difference.

So because there's a gay guy in the foxholes that's going to completely turn the squad gay and they'll be too busy making out to concentrate on the situation at hand. That's your basic argument?

2009-11-11 18:13:49

#25

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

lowing wrote:
for some perhaps. Apparently you have no problem being checked out by a gay guy, others might feel differently.

So what if they do? Doesn't change my sexuality if a gay person looks at me.

BF2S Forums The Army needs to get its priorities straight

ghettoperson wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Board footer