Shooting at Fort Hood

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
There are some military bases where there is nothing but a small fence for security. That'll keep a kid out. Even ones with larger fences with barbed wire on top are a small deterence. Then there are the training areas... National Training Center in California etc... that are just miles of nothing... very easy to penetrate and then the posts are filled with civilian contractors... heck some when I was om some bases were not ever closed... anyone can drive right in if they want (without ID).

I am sure you will here the token talks about beefing up security and all... but really... it isn't worth the money. You could spend billions and billions and they still would be vulerable to the willing. So in that respect I agree with Maris61... but the idea that our bases are super protected or something... I think is false.
 
Ronan said:
Wouldn't it technically all be friendly fire seeing as he was a United States officer?
Click to expand...

Why don't you send him a nice letter and tell him your idea. He can use it for his defense.

And after he is found guilty and put in front of a firing squad you might want to point out that he'll be executed by friendly fire too.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Why don't you send him a nice letter and tell him your idea. He can use it for his defense.

And after he is found guilty and put in front of a firing squad you might want to point out that he'll be executed by friendly fire too.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling you got the wrong idea from my post.
 
Wow, Obama's home town local NBC affiliate ripped him a new one over how he handled the situation.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html

Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting
A bad week for Democrats compounded by an awful moment for Barack Obama.

President Obama didn't wait long after Tuesday's devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president.

The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.

Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch at the event.

Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.

It must have been disappointing for many politically aware Democrats, still reeling from the election two days before. The New Jersey gubernatorial vote had already demonstrated that the president and his political team couldn't produce a winning outcome in a state very friendly to Democrats (and where the president won by 15 points one year ago). And now this? Congressional Democrats must wonder if a White House that has burdened them with a too-heavy policy agenda over the last year has a strong enough political operation to help push that agenda through.

If the president's communications apparatus can't inform -- and protect -- their boss during tense moments when the country needs to see a focused commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state, it has disastrous consequences for that president's party and supporters.

All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic.

New York writer Robert A. George blogs at Ragged Thots. Follow him on Twitter.
 
Wow, Obama's home town local NBC affiliate ripped him a new one over how he handled the situation.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/polit...President.html

Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting
A bad week for Democrats compounded by an awful moment for Barack Obama.

President Obama didn't wait long after Tuesday's devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president.

The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.

Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch at the event.

Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.

It must have been disappointing for many politically aware Democrats, still reeling from the election two days before. The New Jersey gubernatorial vote had already demonstrated that the president and his political team couldn't produce a winning outcome in a state very friendly to Democrats (and where the president won by 15 points one year ago). And now this? Congressional Democrats must wonder if a White House that has burdened them with a too-heavy policy agenda over the last year has a strong enough political operation to help push that agenda through.

If the president's communications apparatus can't inform -- and protect -- their boss during tense moments when the country needs to see a focused commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state, it has disastrous consequences for that president's party and supporters.

All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic.

New York writer Robert A. George blogs at Ragged Thots. Follow him on Twitter.
Click to expand...

Jesus... It's amazing how you cons turn this into a partisan thing right away.
 
Last edited:
MrJayremmie said:
Jesus... It's amazing how you cons turn this into a partisan thing right away.
Click to expand...

I didn't see Obama speak on this. I have no opinion about it, but found it interesting that his home town news station would post this.

My comment is about the press, not Obama.
 
Last edited:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125769764441836773.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Lieberman Suggests Army Shooter Was 'Home-Grown Terrorist'

By BRODY MULLINS

A senior U.S. senator on Sunday said the shootings at Fort Hood could have been a terrorist attack, and that he would launch a congressional investigation into whether the U.S. military could have prevented it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist" who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress.

Mr. Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, had opened fire Thursday at a soldier processing center at Fort Hood, Tex., killing 13 and wounding 29 in the worst mass shooting on a military facility in the U.S.

Mr. Lieberman, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," cautioned that it remained too early to draw any definitive conclusions. He said his comments were based on "reports that we are receiving" about Mr. Hasan's actions and comments.

The Army's top officer, Gen. George Casey, wouldn't rule out that the shooting was an act of terrorism, but cautioned against speculation at this point. "We all want to know what happened and what motivated the suspect, but we need to … let the investigation take its course," he told ABC News's "This Week."

Mr. Lieberman said that if news reports were true that Mr. Hasan had turned to Islamic extremism, "the murder of these 13 people was a terrorist act and, in fact, it was the most-destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11."

"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," Mr. Lieberman added.

The lawmaker said he would begin a Senate investigation aimed at uncovering Mr. Hasan's motives and asking "whether the Army missed warning signs." He also called on the Pentagon to begin an independent investigation to determine whether "warning signs were missed."

Mr. Lieberman said preliminary evidence suggested that Mr. Hasan had denounced the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "In the U.S. Army, this is not a matter of constitutional freedom of speech," the senator said. "If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone."

Gen. Casey said the Army was conducting an investigation to try to determine the motivation behind the shootings. "We in the Army will take a very hard look at ourselves and ask ourselves some very hard questions," he said.

He expressed concern that speculation about the shooting could result in a "backlash" against Muslim soldiers. "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even-greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," he said. "We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society. And that gives us all strength."

Gen. Casey said the Army has taken steps to help identify and help soldiers with mental health issues in an effort to prevent repeats of the shooting at Fort Hood. He said the Army encouraged members of the military to seek treatment for post-traumatic stress.

The Army has also partnered with the National Institute for Health on a $50 million study of suicide, and has a $125 million program aimed at giving soldiers and their family members the "resilient skills they need to make it through these tough times," the general said.

Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com
 
Question: Can it be considered "terrorism" if the act was self-generated? I think so. We call Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols terrorists, so why don't we call this maggot a terrorist? Simple. Political correctness.

If his name were Bob Smith and he attended a Pentocostal Church and talked about the Rapture, we'd have no problem labeling a terrorist.

I'm all for not hurting other people's feelings when possible, but the truth is more important.
 
A friend of mine just e-mailed me this article: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...r_by_its_name_islamist_HT78Wt6NkWoCGq5HIOwlII

Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, "Allahu akbar!" ("God is great!") committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it's an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit -- well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won't. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there's no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won't. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won't. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops -- despite their crocodile tears.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn't killed on the spot.

Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There'll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn't dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.

Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he'll have the last laugh.

But Hasan isn't the sole guilty party. The US Army's unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Fort Hood.

Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Fort Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would've been gone with the simoom. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.

Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. At least 38 people were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

There's another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist wacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who've been assigned to his care? And he's not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?

For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I'm ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.

Get ready for the apologias. We've already heard from the terrorist's family that "he's a good American." In their world, maybe he is.

But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?

A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she's becoming too Westernized.

Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we're assured that "Islam's a religion of peace."

I guarantee you that the Obama administration's nonresponse to the Fort Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.
Click to expand...
 
He is a terrorist. He is Islamic.

But I'm not sure if this is the Islamic Terrorist type of Al-Qaeda and such. It may very well be, but i'll reserve judgement for now.

I guarantee you that the Obama administration's nonresponse to the Fort Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.
Click to expand...

What non-response? Obama did exactly what he should have done.

Yes, Bush may have invaded another country here, but thank God those days are over.
 
The correct response is to say that this is not representative of all or much of Islam or Muslims. If a person, no matter what religion, commits a crime, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. If that person is part of some overseas organization, go after it. If a country is harboring such organization and diplomacy fails, there's no other choice but combat.
 
I'm surprised some jackass that glorifies shooting is his internet username hasn't tried something like this.
 
And they get offended when they are stereotyped.

It's 'jihad' and a 'religious duty' to fight for Islam. A holy war, religion rears it's ugly head yet again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top