Ft. Hood shooting victims get Purple Hearts, no benefits

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#1
Fort Hood shooting victims receive long-delayed Purple Hearts, may still have to fight for benefits

WASHINGTON – Victims of the 2009 Fort Hood terror attack finally received their long-delayed honor on Friday at a Purple Heart ceremony in Texas -- though they may have to keep fighting to get military benefits.

Nearly 50 survivors lined up at the ceremony held at Fort Hood on Friday, and all were given either a Purple Heart or Defense of Freedom medal for their injuries. The ceremony was years in the making, as the U.S. government initially described the attack as mere workplace violence, and not terrorism.

But the medal, while long-sought, may be symbolic. At least one survivor told Fox News ahead of the ceremony that the Army has so far denied him any benefits, and his fellow servicemembers are likely in for a similar struggle.
The Army, obviously at the direction of the White House, had steadfastly refused to call the shooting by then-Maj. Nidal Hasan -- an al-Qaeda inspired terrorist -- a terrorist incident. They have downplayed the assault that left 13 dead and over 30 wounded on November 5, 2009, until forced to describe the incident accurately as an act of terrorism just this past February.

Purple Hearts are for heroes wounded in the line of duty, defending their country. These were active-duty soldiers preparing for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, and their civilian support specialists. To deny them recognition for their acts of valor that day and to further refuse to compensate them for their disabilities and trauma following their involvement in trying to bring Hasan down is, in the opinion of this ol' vet, unconscionable.
 

AngelFrog

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2015
648
58
28
#2
Typical. But Obama called this act of terrorism by a Muslim psychopath, workplace violence.

A purple heart. Isn't that lovely. But no benefits. He wants to give illegal criminal trespassers amnesty and then let them apply for our social security when they haven't worked a legal day in their life, he was shut down by a federal judge whom he swore to overcome for that decision, and now he's supporting a decision that these American citizens don't deserve benefits after surviving a Muslim terrorist attack on an American base?

Lovely man! Just peachy.

When it comes time for the traitor in chief to leave office bet he gives amnesty to every single prisoner in Guantanamo Bay Cuba and then signs the base back over to Cuba. He'll smile that demonic little smile in the process of being captured on camera making that official by signature, pleased with himself that he did indeed keep that campaign promise; to close Gitmo while in office.

He'll pardon the deserter Beau Bergdahl too. That's why it's at the 20 month mark we hear that someone is finally bringing charges against the man.
Watch and see.
 
Mar 21, 2015
643
4
0
#3
...... When it comes time for the traitor in chief to leave office bet he gives amnesty to every single prisoner in Guantanamo Bay Cuba and then signs the base back over to Cuba........
One would certainly hope so.
The US has no moral right to be there.
 

AngelFrog

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2015
648
58
28
#4
How silly of you.
America has leased Guantanamo from Cuba, leased! As in, paid Cuba and Cuba accepted the money for the lease, since 1903.
We have every moral right to be there because Cuba permits us to be there because we pay them.
 
Mar 21, 2015
643
4
0
#5
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" Guantanamo Bay Naval Base .... which the United States leased for use as a coaling and naval station in the Cuban–American Treaty of 1903 (for $2,000 until 1934, for $4,085 since 1938 until now)......

Since 1959, the Cuban government has consistently protested against the U.S. presence on Cuban soil and called it illegal under international law, alleging that the military base was imposed on Cuba by force.

At the
United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, Cuba's Foreign Minister demanded the U.S. return the base and the "usurped territory" occupied since the U.S. invasion of Cuba during the Spanish–American War in 1898.

Since 2002, the naval base has contained a military prison.......
Cases of torture of prisoners, and their denial of protection under the Geneva Conventions, has been condemned internationally"

The US has no MORAL right to be there !
 
Last edited:
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#6
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... The US has no MORAL right to be there !


and ... Hyperbole much with the left-wing propaganda?

On a side note, anyone got any extra Troll-B-Gon??


 
Last edited:

AngelFrog

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2015
648
58
28
#7
The editable Wiki-pedia.
The Encyclopedia that says what anyone with a keyboard wants it to say.

Bad source.

Try some real history that has print that stays put.

What follows is a loose chronological timeline of events and activities surrounding the continuing U.S. occupation of Guantánamo;

February 16, 1903. A Lease Agreement signed on this day grants the U.S. “the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water… and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.”

And please don't talk about America's moral rights when Australia's moral history is that of a settled convict colony.




Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" Guantanamo Bay Naval Base .... which the United States leased for use as a coaling and naval station in the Cuban–American Treaty of 1903 (for $2,000 until 1934, for $4,085 since 1938 until now)......

Since 1959, the Cuban government has consistently protested against the U.S. presence on Cuban soil and called it illegal under international law, alleging that the military base was imposed on Cuba by force.

At the
United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, Cuba's Foreign Minister demanded the U.S. return the base and the "usurped territory" occupied since the U.S. invasion of Cuba during the Spanish–American War in 1898.

Since 2002, the naval base has contained a military prison.......
Cases of torture of prisoners, and their denial of protection under the Geneva Conventions, has been condemned internationally"

The US has no MORAL right to be there !
 
Last edited:
Mar 21, 2015
643
4
0
#8
SO, Angel, if YOU leased premises to a person or group for a specific purpose e.g. 'residential' ....
and your tenants used it for a meth lab or prison or torture chamber or military base
you'd be perfectly OK with that ?

And please don't tell me that Gitmo is merely a "coaling and naval station ".

And, if you, as landlord, made it abundantly clear that you wanted those tenants off YOUR premises decade after decade - you reckon they'd have a perfect right to tell you to go jump ?
I see.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#9
Don't you know that when an Islamic terrorist attacks a military installation murdering people it's just a "workplace violence incident?"

We don't want to broach political correctness in any way here. Obama said not to because to do so doesn't progress the cause of Islam and would only enflame the kafirs.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#11
And, if you, as landlord, made it abundantly clear that you wanted those tenants off YOUR premises decade after decade - you reckon they'd have a perfect right to tell you to go jump ?
I see.
The problem with your statement is, it isn't based in reality.

The lease agreement between the U.S. and Cuba is perpetual, and is only cancellable if both parties agree. Cuba under the Castros hasn't been thrilled by the U.S. presense on the east end of their island, but they also haven't "made it abundantly clear" or made any other loud vocalization that they want the U.S. off Guantanamo. Surely they do, but they don't say it loudly, and won't, now that Obamaization of Cuba is about to make the Castros rich.
 
Mar 21, 2015
643
4
0
#12
..... The lease agreement between the U.S. and Cuba is perpetual, and is only cancellable if both parties agree.
YOU ignore the fact that the 'lease' was conditional - that it was for a specific purpose.
The US broke that deal by changing the usage.
Same would apply if it was a house, a shop, a farm - whatever.

The "reality" is that the US is morally and legally wrong .... but we all know "might is right".
 
Last edited:
Mar 21, 2015
643
4
0
#13
Cuba under the Castros hasn't been thrilled by the U.S. presense on the east end of their island,
but they also haven't "made it abundantly clear" or made any other loud vocalization that they want the U.S. off Guantanamo.
eh WHAT ?

"
Since 1959, the Cuban government has consistently protested against the U.S. presence on Cuban soil and called it illegal under international law, alleging that themilitary base was imposed on Cuba by force.

At the
United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, Cuba's Foreign Minister demanded the U.S. return the base and the "usurped territory" occupied since the U.S. invasion of Cuba during the Spanish–American War in 1898.
 
Last edited: