BF2S Forums Yeah, the Ft Hood shooter was just a guy who went insane

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You should read more then.

Can't be bothered, if you can't be bothered to back up your argument I'm not doing it for you.

lowing wrote:

Did you read why the FBI did nothing about the FT. Hood shooter, basically because they were afraid of the PC backlash.

Nope haven't read that. Link Plz.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/12 … 0806.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11 … component/

plenty more do some googling

You obviously have no experience with intelligence lowing ... do you have any clue as to how much information about this or that character they have to go through each and every day, and with millions of Americans being afraid of "those dirty mooslims" the task is imense to diffrenciate between "signs" or if it's only "noise" ...

My guess is the Ft Hood shooter was in the noise category and turned from a white into a black swan ...

The Impact of the Highly Improbable

Dilbert_X wrote:

As I suspected, both of those are opinion pieces, niether say the FBI say PC was involved, the opposite in fact.

One investigator said Monday that "I don't have any evidence" Hasan was given light treatment because of his religion or fear of a discrimination suit.

Both of them, one a blog and one Fox News which is just one big Rupert Murdoch blog, just project the opinions of journalist as fact.

Please find an article in which the FBI say PC was a factor.

Gimme a break Dilbert, there are no articles claiming this was or done or that was done for any story because of PC. I suppose now you are going to tell me PC does not exist. Walks like a duck looks like a duck.

Varegg wrote:

You obviously have no experience with intelligence lowing ... do you have any clue as to how much information about this or that character they have to go through each and every day, and with millions of Americans being afraid of "those dirty mooslims" the task is imense to diffrenciate between "signs" or if it's only "noise" ...

My guess is the Ft Hood shooter was in the noise category and turned from a white into a black swan ...

The Impact of the Highly Improbable

As a major in the US Army, those "signs" were an act of treason.

Americans are not afraid of Muslms, American hate fuckin' Islam, and are quite sick of Islamic bullshit, just like they are in Europe. Please learn the difference between fear and disgust. Also learn the difference between a religion/culture and an individual.

Varegg wrote:

So if the "signs" were clearly visible he should have been picked up infront of the incident ...

That's the whole point.

He wasn't. The argument being made here is that he wasn't because of political correctness and fear of offending Muslims.

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So if the "signs" were clearly visible he should have been picked up infront of the incident ...

That's the whole point.

He wasn't. The argument being made here is that he wasn't because of political correctness and fear of offending Muslims.

Is nothing politically correct about him not being picked up sooner ... that's pure idiocy ...

Now you're catching on to the growing outrage as this onion gets peeled.

Varegg wrote:

You guys can invade countries on a hunch but when clear evidence is presented you all of sudden get the "chills" ... that onion certainly makes me cry ...

Not sure what you're getting at here, Varegg.

Afghanistan was not a "hunch".

Iraq was a "hunch" shared by several countries that surprised them all when it came to light that Saddam was running a WMD deception campaign against Iran the whole time. It was those indications that were picked up by multiple countries' intel services--just as was intended.

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

You guys can invade countries on a hunch but when clear evidence is presented you all of sudden get the "chills" ... that onion certainly makes me cry ...

Not sure what you're getting at here, Varegg.

Afghanistan was not a "hunch".

Iraq was a "hunch" shared by several countries that surprised them all when it came to light that Saddam was running a WMD deception campaign against Iran the whole time. It was those indications that were picked up by multiple countries' intel services--just as was intended.

C wat I did thar?

I made a lowing exaggeration ...

DonFck wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Iraq was a "hunch" shared by several countries that surprised them all

Tell that to Hans Blix.

Tell that to France, Germany, Britain, and Russia.

That's the thing about the whole deception op. When Hans showed up, he was expecting to find WMD, based on the intel he was provided from multiple countries' intel services. He didn't find the stuff. So it was assumed that Saddam was doing a really good job of cleaning the stuff up ahead of the UN inspectors--even to the point of him possibly having advance knowledge of where and when the inspectors would be because results on the ground did not synch with what indicators were showing.

A highly successful deception operation that should be put into textbooks for teaching future deception planners, IMO.

But we're getting off topic.

FEOS wrote:

The revelation captured in 9:5 came (chronologically) after the revelation captured in 9:6.

Where do you have this from?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Iraq was a "hunch" shared by several countries that surprised them all when it came to light that Saddam was running a WMD deception campaign against Iran the whole time. It was those indications that were picked up by multiple countries' intel services--just as was intended.

Not really.

No really.

Dilbert_X wrote:

A highly successful deception operation that should be put into textbooks for teaching future deception planners, IMO.

Thats easier than admitting the CIA don't have a clue eh?

It wasn't just the CIA. It wasn't just the US. Get. That. Through. Your. Skull.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bush needed some made up intel to allow an invasion, the cart was before the horse.
I can find that interview again if you like.

Reading Scott Ritter ATM, pretty obvious there was no intel but there was an agenda.
The guys actually on the ground didn't believe there were WMDs at all.

That's OK. Don't bother to actually read what was written and then put some thought into it. Especially when it conflicts with your preconceived notions of reality. Too bothersome.

As said before: I can explain things to you, but I can't understand them for you.

Dilbert_X wrote:

As for the PC stuff, its all opinion and speculation until someone actually goes on the record.

People have gone on the record, Dilbert. That's the whole point. The problem is that the only people reporting it are not what people here consider "reliable sources".

Dilbert_X wrote:

As Varegg pointed out, it seems strange to go rampaging around the ME offending every moslem on earth, but not be prepared to have a chat with or move one little Army Major.

Does it really seem that odd? Look internal to how the UK handles Muslim issues. The UK is "rampaging around the ME offending every moslem (sic) on earth" but they don't seem prepared to chat with or move "problem" people in the UK for the same reasons. Look at just about every other Western country...you'll see the same bullshit PC pattern.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Really its just another effort to shift the blame onto all moslems for the shortcomings of the US intel services.

Nobody is blaming the Muslim community for the bullshit PC overreaction that may have led to this. They aren't the ones who instituted the rules and self-flagellation associated with PC.

FEOS wrote:

Beduin wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The revelation captured in 9:5 came (chronologically) after the revelation captured in 9:6.

Where do you have this from?

The fact that 9:5 is generally considered to be either the last or next-to-last revelation to Muhammed, depending on which school of thought you ascribe to.

No.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You need to provide some backup to show the school of though you ascribe to exists anywhere outside your own head.
Google searches which prove you're wrong aren't helpful.

He can't. I don't know where he gets his knowledge from.

Lets say he could name one school- doubt it, we muslims have plenty of disagreement, but not on this one - the concept he is describing will only be valid within that schools teaching, and not for, what... 80-95% of muslims.

Notice that I have already rejected his theory. I also wrote why it is invalid and pointed out practical examples that prove his theory wrong.