[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Janet Napolitano was appointed to her job by Obama and she serves at his pleasure. Therefore she speaks for him, as well.

Ergo, Obama thinks returning veterans are a risk for terrorism.

Nice insult, that.

Janet didn't write the report herself either. The pencil-pusher analysts in her department did. Obama and Napolitano did not "spike" the rerport because its a valid analysis. To do so would be nothing but political correcntess.

[Macguyver]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No. Soldiers pissed off at their treatment during and after service are not 'making threats in order to carry out a political agenda.' (terrorist).

Really? What sort of statement do you think that guy who killed 16 civilians (9 children) is trying to make?

And there are only 21.8 million other US veterans. And I'm sure they're all thrilled to come home, after making shit for a wage risking their lives to save your asses from the Taliban and El Qaeda, to minimal job prospects, minimal health care and PTSD keeping them from functioning properly.

The best we can hope for is that they make NO political statements at all and they all go away, because caring for our heros is going to cost quite a bit of money. And that would be tax dollars, and I know you need to update the sheets you have covering the windows of your trailer.

I'd say, that unless something changes and we look after our soldiers better (both in Canada and the US) that there is going to be a good chance that one or more of those guys who put his balls on the line for our sorry asses is going to want to make a statement. And given their training both for killing and perhaps weapons and explosives, and even perhaps access to both, logically I'd say that you'd be a fucling idiot not to hypothesize that one in 21.8 might just have a political agenda that involves a loud "boom".

[DrCaleb]

Macguyver Macguyver:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No. Soldiers pissed off at their treatment during and after service are not 'making threats in order to carry out a political agenda.' (terrorist).

Really? What sort of statement do you think that guy who killed 16 civilians (9 children) is trying to make?

Since he has made no statements, I would not immediately brand him a terrorist. Perhaps he just doesn't like Mondays.

Macguyver Macguyver:

And there are only 21.8 million other US veterans. And I'm sure they're all thrilled to come home, after making shit for a wage risking their lives to save your asses from the Taliban and El Qaeda, to minimal job prospects, minimal health care and PTSD keeping them from functioning properly.

One in twenty eight million. Hmmm. Project much?

Macguyver Macguyver:

The best we can hope for is that they make NO political statements at all and they all go away, because caring for our heros is going to cost quite a bit of money. And that would be tax dollars, and I know you need to update the sheets you have covering the windows of your trailer.

None at all? You mean like John McCain, Romeo DeLaire or Laurie Hawn, they should just serve their country, come home and STFU?

And the best part about logical debate is; if you do it correctly, your argument is never wrong. Which is why yours are always wrong.

Macguyver Macguyver:

I'd say, that unless something changes and we look after our soldiers better (both in Canada and the US) that there is going to be a good chance that one or more of those guys who put his balls on the line for our sorry asses is going to want to make a statement. And given their training both for killing and perhaps weapons and explosives, and even perhaps access to both, logically I'd say that you'd be a fucling idiot not to hypothesize that one in 21.8 might just have a political agenda that involves a loud "boom".

So, do they have to be former soldiers like McVeigh to go *boom*; or would math geniuses, wealthy Vancouver businessmen or a Jamacian guy from Buckinghamshire do as well?