[Aluback]

Looks like political correctness run a muck will continue to put Americans in jeopardy.


From FOX:
Lawmakers Blast Administration For Calling Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence'


Published December 07, 2011 | FoxNews.com


Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam....

[bomondus]

Looks like political correctness run a muck will continue to put Americans in jeopardy.


From FOX:
Lawmakers Blast Administration For Calling Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence'


Published December 07, 2011 | FoxNews.com


Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam....

I want to see the letter she's talking about. But that is a bit ridiculous to call it "workplace violence." There's plenty of evidence to show it was a terrorist attack.

Workplace violence? Wow...

[qp0yfHOf]

I want to see the letter she's talking about. But that is a bit ridiculous to call it "workplace violence." There's plenty of evidence to show it was a terrorist attack.

Workplace violence? Wow...

Wow was exactly my reaction. Followed by WTF is going on with these guys?

[RenyBontes]

Some questions came into my head:

1) If this is a letter from the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, how the hell is it the Obama Administration's fault?

2) The perpetrator was an army soldier. His victims were other army soldiers, on an army fort. Meets all the criteria for "workplace violence".

3) Is the Fort Hood shooting any different than, say, a postal worker going to work and shooting up the place?

It seems the only reason these people want the shooting labeled "terrorism" is so they can whip up more fear mongering about the "Muslim Threat".

[gooseCile]

Some questions came into my head:

1) If this is a letter from the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, how the hell is it the Obama Administration's fault?

2) The perpetrator was an army soldier. His victims were other army soldiers, on an army fort. Meets all the criteria for "workplace violence".

3) Is the Fort Hood shooting any different than, say, a postal worker going to work and shooting up the place?

It seems the only reason these people want the shooting labeled "terrorism" is so they can whip up more fear mongering about the "Muslim Threat".

I had the same questions, I guess you've been listening to Hannity also, fortunately at least the two posters above never mentioned Obama (other than quoting others) so we can't pin it on these two.

There might in fact be terrorist ties, hard to say without having all the hard evidence in front of me rather than anti-islamic propaganda, which seems as common as oxygen these days.

The Department of Defense as being the source could mean many things in my estimation...
A. There is insufficient substantiating evidence to link the event directly to terrorist activities
B. "Workplace Violence" has a substantially more limited psychological effect in the news media, both ours and theirs, and is less-likely to result in copycat performances.
C. The investigation is ongoing and the DoD doesn't want to get egg on its face by over-dramatizing the event itself before the investigation is completed.
D. The media itself has something invested in sensationalizing the story to be much more than it is, people forget about workplace violence rather quickly, but discussions about "acts of terrorism" can continue for months on end.

That's simply off the top of my head, I really am curious what will come of it.

[Rexaviennatutr]

I had the same questions, I guess you've been listening to Hannity also, fortunately at least the two posters above never mentioned Obama (other than quoting others) so we can't pin it on these two.

There might in fact be terrorist ties, hard to say without having all the hard evidence in front of me rather than anti-islamic propaganda, which seems as common as oxygen these days.

The Department of Defense as being the source could mean many things in my estimation...
A. There is insufficient substantiating evidence to link the event directly to terrorist activities
B. "Workplace Violence" has a substantially more limited psychological effect in the news media, both ours and theirs, and is less-likely to result in copycat performances.
C. The investigation is ongoing and the DoD doesn't want to get egg on its face by over-dramatizing the event itself before the investigation is completed.
D. The media itself has something invested in sensationalizing the story to be much more than it is, people forget about workplace violence rather quickly, but discussions about "acts of terrorism" can continue for months on end.

That's simply off the top of my head, I really am curious what will come of it.

Bolded for emphasis. I agree with your reasoning - and take it a step further - all this media hysteria could actually be ENCOURAGING further terrorist activity in the United States. A Muslim extremist who otherwise would have sat on his couch and done nothing watches the hysterical news reports and thinks to himself "Damn, I could do that".

[metropropuskruww]

I don't know who is 'to blame' and don't actually think it matters. I truly believe that labeling the shootings as workplace violence was a PR ploy but I don’t think it had anything to do with the desire to lessen the chance of copycats.

[carlsberg21]

Its all speculation at this point because none of us can know what they were thinking at the time (unless one of them happens to be on this forum, and can enlighten us).

Any incident, violent or otherwise, needs some form of damage control after the fact. Presumably calling it workplace violence was the decision they reached - the logic behind it is up for speculation.

[Buyingtime]

Its all speculation at this point because none of us can know what they were thinking at the time (unless one of them happens to be on this forum, and can enlighten us).

Any incident, violent or otherwise, needs some form of damage control after the fact. Presumably calling it workplace violence was the decision they reached - the logic behind it is up for speculation.

I can agree with that.