Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

"Workplace violence" versus terrorism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Workplace violence" versus terrorism

    When Nidal Hasan murdered 13 people at Fort Hood, most Americans recognized this for what it was - an act of terrorism by a radical muslim. The President, alas, refused to call it what it clearly was. Perhaps this was done to avoid offending muslims, or out of some overdeveloped sense of political correctness.

    But the jig is up. Nadal himself has said he carried out this act of cowardice to "protect the Taliban". Fort Hood suspect sought to protect Taliban – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

    I don't think any reasonable person can argue that this was not an act of terrorism. Now, some will argue that it is irrelevant. But it is very relevant to the victims and their families, because they do not receive the same benefits and care so long as the administration denies that this was an act of terrorism. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...ed-terror-act/

    One wonders - now that there is no reasonable doubt about the attack, will President Obama find the courage to call it what it was?
    Last edited by MattInFla; 06-05-2013, 02:26 AM.

  • #2
    Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

    For those who agree with me, there is a petition out there to change the designation so that the families can receive full benefits: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ttack/lVkgvKCS

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

      I don't like that we make any distinction between crime and terrorism, and make special laws to treat terrorism differently (usually by granting extra powers to the executive). Signing this petition feels like im condoning this.

      If people aren't getting the compensation you think they should get then I think you should focus on that. I don't think it matters how you died, unless there is negligence on the side of the employer. But then it's also to disincentivise the employer.

      I'm sure you can make a point that when people die under custody of the military they should compensate the family a little extra. How does the compensation given now relate to workplace accidents in the military?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

        If it is "workplace violence", then it is considered non-combat, so the victims and families receive fewer benefits.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

          Yes but, you don't have to be in the military to die from terrorism. It's not like being sent to Iraq. Did the employees in the world trade center get extra compensation from their employers or the governement? (I don't know, just asking)

          And again I ask, how does this relate to workplace death in the military like plane crashes? I don't see a justification that these families should get more than what is common in that situation.

          I find it sort of curious you are taking the big governement pro-entitlement position. Do you have a personal stake in this?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

            Yes, there was a large fund set up to handle the 9/11 victims and families.

            I have no personal stake, it just galls me that these families are being denied benefits because the administration doesn't want to call it what it was.

            Clearly, this was a terrorist attack.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

              Originally posted by erikvv View Post
              Yes but, you don't have to be in the military to die from terrorism. It's not like being sent to Iraq. Did the employees in the world trade center get extra compensation from their employers or the governement? (I don't know, just asking)

              And again I ask, how does this relate to workplace death in the military like plane crashes? I don't see a justification that these families should get more than what is common in that situation.

              I find it sort of curious you are taking the big governement pro-entitlement position. Do you have a personal stake in this?
              What a fucking strawman....

              BTW this is a huge distinction within the military.. the benefits are night and day and since this administration has done to unfuck the VA even though they give nice speeches this is just another example of fucking the soldiers.

              Face it the left bashed bush for Walter Reed... and the IED distinction which changed what type of prosthetic and or benefits you got .. it was changed

              Now once againg people like you carry water for the cool guy!

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

                Originally posted by Rakkasan View Post
                What a fucking strawman....

                BTW this is a huge distinction within the military.. the benefits are night and day and since this administration has done to unfuck the VA even though they give nice speeches this is just another example of fucking the soldiers.

                Face it the left bashed bush for Walter Reed... and the IED distinction which changed what type of prosthetic and or benefits you got .. it was changed

                Now once againg people like you carry water for the cool guy!
                (I don't unstand your first 2 sentences. Which of my points is the strawman and who is fucking the soldiers?)

                I stood up for Bradley Manning on this forum today, who is targeted by this administration. I do not see this topic as a partisan battle. I am here because this thread questions my beliefs.

                I genuinly do wonder the relation between family compensation and cause of death, and if we should distinguish between causes of death. I lean towards no: you and the topic starter obviously believe differently. If a military person who is shot on a military base by a muslim gets different compensation than someone who died in an accident (which is a much more regular occurence) that feels unjust to me.

                I hope you understand my viewpoints and come with arguments against it. Because I haven't seen any in this thread yet.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

                  Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                  (I don't unstand your first 2 sentences. Which of my points is the strawman and who is fucking the soldiers?)

                  I stood up for Bradley Manning on this forum today, who is targeted by this administration. I do not see this topic as a partisan battle. I am here because this thread questions my beliefs.

                  I genuinly do wonder the relation between family compensation and cause of death, and if we should distinguish between causes of death. I lean towards no: you and the topic starter obviously believe differently. If a military person who is shot on a military base by a muslim gets different compensation than someone who died in an accident (which is a much more regular occurence) that feels unjust to me.

                  I hope you understand my viewpoints and come with arguments against it. Because I haven't seen any in this thread yet.
                  let me break it down

                  In the military getting hurt in war or a terrorist attack... gives different financial compensation than if you crashed your car into a tree...

                  additionally by calling a dude yelling God is great then going cyclic in a building work place violence the media and obama duped the american people and could keep up the lie that obama has made america safer.

                  The democrats for all of bush's years said he fucked the soldiers with poor conditions at walter reed and classifying IED injuries as NON COMBAT thus reducing compensation to soldiers ( to even include types of prosthetic)

                  Right now the left is supporting obamas stupid classification of this incident thus fucking soldiers and making the process to get benefits take up to 2 years with a backlog of over 600 K ( i am one of them have held off my application for it would get lost in the maze) another incident of fucking soldiers....

                  TO the strawman... asking Matt if he had a stake in this is a strawman it has dick to do with the travesty which is people got hurt in a terrorist attack and obama played wordsmith to get re elected instead of taking care of the victims who BTW some are civilians ....

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

                    Originally posted by Rakkasan View Post
                    let me break it down

                    In the military getting hurt in war or a terrorist attack... gives different financial compensation than if you crashed your car into a tree...
                    Ok I think I sorta get that. In the case of war the soldiers were deliberately put in a dangerous situation, so you need more compensation to keep the same risk/reward ratio.

                    I guess you can also argue that *the country being at war* increases risk for those at domestic bases, but that's a tougher argument, which is nonetheless being made by the op (I guess?).

                    OTOH, it doesn't matter one dime to the families how their loved ones died, so I also don't get it. If you want to reward risk, then the most important thing is to pay those taking the risk, not those dying from it. Which AFAIK already happens. So this is not a criticism, just an observation.


                    additionally by calling a dude yelling God is great then going cyclic in a building work place violence the media and obama duped the american people and could keep up the lie that obama has made america safer.
                    The media is free to call it whatever they want, and this incident was mentioned as terrorism on MSNBC plenty of times. People don't get their news from whitehouse.gov


                    The democrats for all of bush's years said he fucked the soldiers with poor conditions at walter reed and classifying IED injuries as NON COMBAT thus reducing compensation to soldiers ( to even include types of prosthetic)
                    I think most of use will sorta feel like that's an unfair distinction.

                    Doesn't mean we should make more unfair distinctions, like this petition advocates.

                    What about those who died in that car crash but weren't driving it? They deserve less compensation than the guy who got shot? How can you even justify that? Only pussies die in cars?


                    Right now the left is supporting obamas stupid classification of this incident thus fucking soldiers and making the process to get benefits take up to 2 years with a backlog of over 600 K ( i am one of them have held off my application for it would get lost in the maze) another incident of fucking soldiers....
                    Which left? Congressment Chaka Fattah who co-wrote the letter to the DoD?


                    TO the strawman... asking Matt if he had a stake in this is a strawman it has dick to do with the travesty which is people got hurt in a terrorist attack and obama played wordsmith to get re elected instead of taking care of the victims who BTW some are civilians ....
                    I think you are overpoliticizing this.
                    Last edited by erikvv; 06-05-2013, 06:06 PM.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

                      Erikvv, do you really believe this guy

                      On September 29, 2006, Monsoor's platoon engaged four insurgents in a firefight, killing one and injuring another. Anticipating further attacks, Monsoor, three SEAL snipers and three Iraqi Army soldiers took up a rooftop position. Civilians aiding the insurgents blocked off the streets, and a nearby mosque broadcast a message for people to fight against the Americans and the Iraqi soldiers. Monsoor was protecting other SEALs, two of whom were 15 feet away from him. Monsoor's position made him the only SEAL on the rooftop with quick access to an escape route.

                      A grenade was thrown onto the rooftop by an insurgent on the street below. The grenade hit Monsoor in the chest and fell onto the floor. Immediately, Monsoor yelled "Grenade!" and jumped onto the grenade, covering it with his body. The grenade exploded seconds later and Monsoor's body absorbed most of the force of the blast. Monsoor was severely wounded and although evacuated immediately, he died 30 minutes later. Two other SEALs next to him at the time were injured by the explosion but survived.
                      Michael A. Monsoor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                      did the same job, and deserves no more compensation, than this guy???

                      A graduate of Londonderry High School, Lance Cpl. Peter "P.J." Sora died Tuesday when the Humvee he was on top of as a machine gunner rolled over during a training exercise.
                      In Memoriam - 2004

                      Don’t get me wrong, they both deserve (and received) recognition, of differing amounts of course. (I found it a bit … ironic that among other things Lance Cpl. Sora was honored with a Rolling Thunder Ride for the Fallen.) But do you really believe they did the same job? I’m sure the two SEALs that were with MA Monsoor would disagree.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

                        I'm not saying they did the same job. I'm saying they're equally dead, and both of their families (if they had any) lost a breadwinner.

                        I see the financial compensation as something for the family to help while they transition to a more modest lifestyle. I don't think it has any relation to how they died or what they accomplished in their work. There's medals for that.

                        And a SEAL or a private have a pretty much equal chance of survival when an armored vehicle falls on top of them. What if the SEAL was able to avoid the grenade but got overrun by a Humvee a month later? Should that effect any payouts to his family, according to you?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

                          Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                          I'm not saying they did the same job. I'm saying they're equally dead, and both of their families (if they had any) lost a breadwinner.

                          I see the financial compensation as something for the family to help while they transition to a more modest lifestyle. I don't think it has any relation to how they died or what they accomplished in their work. There's medals for that.

                          And a SEAL or a private have a pretty much equal chance of survival when an armored vehicle falls on top of them. What if the SEAL was able to avoid the grenade but got overrun by a Humvee a month later? Should that effect any payouts to his family, according to you?
                          It would depend, is the SEAL still in a combat zone, or has he been rotated back to the States? Medals are great, I got a bunch of them in the 4 years I was in, but I never did anything as selfless as MA Monsoor, and neither did Lance Cpl. Sora. That’s why he deserves special compensation.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

                            It would depend, is the SEAL still in a combat zone, or has he been rotated back to the States?
                            How in your mind does that matter? He's dead. I'm really curious what sort of psychology is going on here. Do they drill this into you in the military?

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: &quot;Workplace violence&quot; versus terrorism

                              Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                              How in your mind does that matter? He's dead. I'm really curious what sort of psychology is going on here. Do they drill this into you in the military?

                              Nope, it's just common sense. He died, but he certainly didn't die in the same manner as MA Monsoor.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X