Comments on: Tragedy at Ft. Hood

By: meanjoegreen59

meanjoegreen59 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:06:15 +0000

Lets get the record straight. The first reports were wrong. There was only one shooter, as far as we know now.
I HAVE A QUESTION TO ASK THE MILITARY, WITH ALL THESE SIGNALS THIS MAJOR GAVE OUT, WHY WASN'T SOMETHING DONE BEFORE NOW? I guess when you are from the middle east and a member of Islam you get a special pass.
This was an act of terrorism and this person is a terrorist!!!!!!

By: abdullah69

abdullah69 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:26:04 +0000

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

By: Sean DeCoursey forgot his password

Sean DeCoursey forgot his password — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:06:26 +0000

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.

By: cdservais

cdservais — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:48:47 +0000

Can we put to rest the idea that allowing guns on school campuses would stop mass killings? If this can happen on an Army base full of armed military personnel, then obviously a few teachers with concealed weapons would not be a deterrent at a school campus.

By: Sean DeCoursey forgot his password

Sean DeCoursey forgot his password — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:22:48 +0000

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.

By: Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:12:42 +0000

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.

By: nflfoghorn

nflfoghorn — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:55:10 +0000

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??

By: spob

spob — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:49:02 +0000

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: spob

spob — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:31:58 +0000

"And we were worried about the Afghan army turning on us."
.
That's snark.

By: Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:23:00 +0000

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?