Tragedy at Ft. Hood

It doesn't have anything to do with terrorism spob. This kind of nonsense happens every once in a while in iraq/afghanistan because the morons are right next to our bases.

The guys that Al-Quaeda etc. whoever actually go through all the trouble of getting into places overseas generally want to accomplish something a bit more useful than just killing a couple (or a dozen) joes. They can accomplish that just as easily on their home turf.

The fact that this started at a medical and administrative center makes it highly likely this was simply another case of horribly overworked, overstressed soldiers snapping when they were pushed too far with too little down time between deployments or had benefits denied, or maybe were just a bit crazy.

At this point everything is speculation, but thanks for going ahead and deciding that someone who's served for enough years to make Major must be a terrorist because of his name. I'm sure his grieving family thanks you.

SPOB!
~
It's not terrorism when you kill trained soldiers whose job-description is, coincidentally, to kill! Those who we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are insurgents, rebels, guerrillas, etc. Not necessarily terrorists (although those who carry out suicide bombing and the like in packed market-places certainly are).

Now, in this case, "Go get some!" might have had an irrevocable effect on these 3 soldiers. No?

First of all SeanD, there were three. So terrorism is a possibility. Second of all, I didnt "decide" anything. I said that it's a possibility.
.
And attacks on soldiers, outside of a combat zone, with perfidious means can be terrorism. Get that right, Exiled.

By whose definition? The expansion of the term, which has traditionally implied violence against civilians to achieve political goals, has been made by the US and its European allies to serve political purposes. It's much easier to sway public opinion in your favor when you are fighting against "terrorists," rather than farmers and militias protecting their homelands from indefensible American invasions and maltreatment of the populace. Do IEDs constitute terrorism? Was the USS Cole attack terrorism? Are embassy bombings even terrorism? I don't really think so. Military and government personnel are responsible for the policies that their nation enacts. If the US engages in illegal invasions, its soldiers and diplomats are legitimate targets. Ft. Hood is a military base, so the soldiers present there were engaged in the conduct of a military.This is much different than a Marine gunned down in his home, off-base, eating dinner with his family. With all of this said, it's irrelevant, because this almost certainly had nothing to do with politics, invasions, etc. This seems to be a simple case of soldiers exceeding their breaking points. You first mentioned terrorism.

If there were three separate shooters and not just three separate incidents then yes, it is really weird. But it's still not indicative of terrorism or of the collusion of a terrorist network/cell in the attacks.
-
Why? Because killing a couple (or a dozen) soldiers is something you can do with guys who are in Iraq/Afghanistan just as easily as with guys in the U.S.
-
Agents inside the U.S., especially if they happen to be members of the U.S. military, much less officers, could be used to hit sensitive, hard to reach targets of significant value. Random guys at Ft. Hood are not sensitive hard to reach targets of significant value. If they're not on deployment right now, you can just wait a year and have a shot at them when they are.
-
IT WASN'T TERRORISM.

You missed the point and the boat to boot so I'll have to break it down: The five British soldiers that were gunned down by Afghan trainees this week is to be expected, sadly, due to the nature of the situation over there. Now we have at least one soldier doing the same thing in Texas. You don't think, as fellow bloggers and I have tried to point out, the US Army would have scoured this guy's backgound by now? Lord knows I'm not trying to score political points. Why should anybody??

It's probably a gay thing, Spob. You know.

You've obviously never been on a military base in the U.S.
-
When you're deployed, you carry a weapon and ammo literally everywhere you go. When you're stateside, if you're not at the range or cleaning your weapon, you never see it. Ever.
-
The only people on base who are armed are a couple of MP's and guys who are actually at the range. There are arguments to be made for and against arming teachers. This isn't one of them.