Fort Hood Shooting

[GS78]

Didn't he already answer the "why" question when he screamed Alla Akbar while shooting unarmed American soldiers?

shsssssh..

[GS78]

You know what I would REALLY like? I want to get into the NAVY, get through Basic Training, get into BUD/s and be handed a single shot rifle and 5 rounds of ammo. That's all I should need, right? Forget 30 rounds in a magazine, I just need 1, right?

If, you were to make it through BUDS, you wouldn't need five rounds.Thats a lot of "ifs" though.

[WRW]

You know what I would REALLY like? I want to get into the NAVY, get through Basic Training, get into BUD/s and be handed a single shot rifle and 5 rounds of ammo. That's all I should need, right? Forget 30 rounds in a magazine, I just need 1, right?

If, you were to make it through BUDS, you wouldn't need five rounds.Thats a lot of "ifs" though.

How many targets?

[OakRidgeStars]

There are the so-called cop killer bullets...but cop killer gun???? What's that???

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11 ... iller-gun/

[Jericho01]

My comment is not intended to minimize the heroic act of Police Sgt. Munley and her partner. In fact I commend them for their excellent and courageous act in stopping Nidal Malik Hasan from further causing death and injury to the people in the Readiness Center.

What I'm wondering though is: why did it take a civilian first responder to take down the BG? I assume that they came from outside Ft. Hood (three minutes response from an external first responder is highly unlikely unless the Readiness Center is next to the gate or the responder is already inside the base). Where were the MPs who are supposedly the first responders inside a military base? Were they in the crime scene but were too helpless to stop the carnage (due to inadequate crime fighting training..no FA...no ammo)? What kind of policy do military bases have as far as FAs inside the base? Does anyone--active duty and former MPs/Provost Marshal--have an answer?

[HostileApostle]

My comment is not intended to minimize the heroic act of Police Sgt. Munley and her partner. In fact I commend them for their excellent and courageous act in stopping Nidal Malik Hasan from further causing death and injury to the people in the Readiness Center.

What I'm wondering though is: why did it take a civilian first responder to take down the BG? I assume that they came from outside Ft. Hood (three minutes response from an external first responder is highly unlikely unless the Readiness Center is next to the gate or the responder is already inside the base). Where were the MPs who are supposedly the first responders inside a military base? Were they in the crime scene but were too helpless to stop the carnage (due to inadequate crime fighting training..no FA...no ammo)? What kind of policy do military bases have as far as FAs inside the base? Does anyone--active duty and former MPs/Provost Marshal--have an answer?

I will not divulge or go into detail about the large amount of training military police go through, but I WILL tell you that it is NOT inadequate. I also won't tell you that I know exactly what happened more than any other person that wasn't there. What I can tell you is that MP on stateside stations work with their area's local LEO's regularly, and the fact that a local LEO was the one to take him out should not lead you to believe that the MP just sat idly by as the situation unfolded, or had no hand in it's end.

[moss20]

FT. HOOD ATTACK WAS TERRORISM

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on November 8, 2009

In his nationally televised remarks following the horrendous killings at Ft. Hood, President Obama never mentioned the T word. The attack was an act "of violence." No mention of terrorism.

In fact, the Ft. Hood shooting is the first terror attack on American soil since 9-11. But Obama, reluctant to take the rap for inadequate protections against such attacks, is doing everything he can to make it look like an adult version of the Columbine school shootings. We are treated to stories about the killer's dread of being sent back to Afghanistan and his deformed personality.

But, the fact is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan jumped on a table, yelled "Alah Hu Akhbar" and began the shooting rampage that killed 13 people and wounded 30 more.

Ilana Freedman, CEO and Senior Analyst for the Gerard Group International, which provides intelligence analysis for business and homeland security, describes Hasan as a "lone wolf terrorist" who acts without apparent coordination with any other person or organization. But that does not make him any less of a terrorist.

The dividing line, of course, between a terrorist and a psychopathic killer is political motivation. His statements right before opening fire would indicate that Hasan was motivated by fanaticism and a commitment to Islamic fascism, even though President Obama bends over backwards to avoid saying so.

Obama's refusal to call the attack terrorism, and to heed the warning signs about the porous nature of our security system that allowed it to happen on a military base, recalls President Clinton's deliberate decision to downplay the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He did not visit the site of the attack and treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them.

There may be no groups behind Major Hasan's attack, but the fact that he was an officer in the Army, with full access to a military base and its arsenal of weapons, while holding the views he did, is the first indication of a laxity in security under President Obama. This attack did not take place in a shopping mall or a school, where security procedures are, understandably, relaxed. It happened on the highest security place of all - a military base! That the military failed to spot the possibility of an attack and had no measures in place to prevent it must be laid at the feet of the commander-in-chief of that military: President Barack Obama.

Many commentators have warned that the diminution of security and the weakening of our anti-terrorist protections would leave us vulnerable to be hit again. Now it has happened. And the president is doing everything he can to blur the distinction between murder and terrorism.

It was his failure to understand the difference between an act of war and a crime that undermined President Clinton's administration's anti-terror efforts and led directly to 9-11. It would appear that President Obama is going down the same road of denial and minimization of political harm. There may be casualties at Ft. Hood, but Obama is determined that his popularity will not be among them.

[zephyp]

My comment is not intended to minimize the heroic act of Police Sgt. Munley and her partner. In fact I commend them for their excellent and courageous act in stopping Nidal Malik Hasan from further causing death and injury to the people in the Readiness Center.

What I'm wondering though is: why did it take a civilian first responder to take down the BG? I assume that they came from outside Ft. Hood (three minutes response from an external first responder is highly unlikely unless the Readiness Center is next to the gate or the responder is already inside the base). Where were the MPs who are supposedly the first responders inside a military base? Were they in the crime scene but were too helpless to stop the carnage (due to inadequate crime fighting training..no FA...no ammo)? What kind of policy do military bases have as far as FAs inside the base? Does anyone--active duty and former MPs/Provost Marshal--have an answer?

I will not divulge or go into detail about the large amount of training military police go through, but I WILL tell you that it is NOT inadequate. I also won't tell you that I know exactly what happened more than any other person that wasn't there. What I can tell you is that MP on stateside stations work with their area's local LEO's regularly, and the fact that a local LEO was the one to take him out should not lead you to believe that the MP just sat idly by as the situation unfolded, or had no hand in it's end.

MPs are indeed highly trained and armed. This was simply a matter of the civilian LEO being closer. Blind luck IMO. Fort Hood is a big big place and these folks are just plain lucky.

[Palladin]

This is the way I see it… There is good and there is evil – if we as a people can’t discern the difference, then we will be annihilated or enslaved by the evil.
History confirms this, and the days to come will prove it too. Not hate speech, or profiling, just the way things are.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 ... 24114.html

[zephyp]

For those of you that do not follow Oreilly's talking points here's an interesting one. Btw, I sent a note to obama asking why he hasnt declared this an act of terrorism. I asked for a response. I'll post it if I get one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574987,00.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the Media Has Not Covered the Fort Hood Massacre Accurately

Friday, November 13, 2009
By Bill O'Reilly

A new study by the Culture and Media Institute, a conservative group, says the following: 85 percent of network evening news stories on Fort Hood did not mention the word "terror." In fact, in 48 reports, ABC, CBS and NBC referenced terrorism just seven times. Only 29 percent of the evening news reports even mentioned Major Hasan was a Muslim. Of those mentions, 50 percent defended Islam. And before the president's speech at Fort Hood, 93 percent of the network evening news stories ignored any discussion about a terror connection. But after the president said that extremist views were involved, all three networks began to report a possible connection to terrorism.

So you can see that apparently the American media is still under the sway of the White House and not accurately portraying things as they really are.

In TIME magazine this week, editor at large Nancy Gibbs leads the coverage with an article entitled: The Fort Hood Killer: Terrified or Terrorist?

With all due respect, I don't care if Hasan was terrified and I know he is a terrorist. The TIME article discusses the pressure of Iraq and Afghanistan, but you can't be blaming American foreign policy for the actions of a terrorist killer like Hasan. It simply doesn't add up.

NPR, a usually liberal outlet, has been a sane voice in evaluating Hasan, who was charged in a military court Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder. National Public Radio reports that Hasan's supervisors at the Walter Reed hospital in Washington had reprimanded him for telling a patient, "Islam can save your soul."

Also, The Dallas Morning News is reporting that Hasan may have wired money to Pakistan, but that is still not confirmed.

What is confirmed is that Hasan was involved with Islamic terror elements. But the media still — still — does not want to acknowledge the truth. That's downright dangerous because people are dying all over the world, the victims of terrorism generated by fanatical Muslims.

It is time the American media wised up, got honest and told the folks exactly the danger we all face.

And that's "The Memo."

[Vahunter]

This is why the shooter was able to carry out his plan.

[zephyp]

This is why the shooter was able to carry out his plan.

[GS78]

that can't be an authentic "extremist" picture , I didn't see a gun?....saw the Bible, the radio.... (maybe the gun is burried in the backyard??

[frac]

I doubt very much if anyone in the Obama administration could figure why the floor was wet with an empty bucket overturned on it when told that there was a full bucket of water on the previously dry floor. This same mentality led to OJ Simpson being let loose. They cannot reconcile cause and effect. They have their religion that proclaims that Al Gore knows more than all the scientists in the world, and a speech is more effective than an atom bomb. So what do you expect out of them? They are not going to learn that 'I'm Sorry' is not a foreign policy and 'Blame Bush' is not a domestic policy. Obama is their god and Nancy Pelosi is their pope. As for Fort Hood, I'm full of sorrow and rage over the whole incident. We wanted a leader, what we got was a politician who isn't even good at that.

[zephyp]

I doubt very much if anyone in the Obama administration could figure why the floor was wet with an empty bucket overturned on it when told that there was a full bucket of water on the previously dry floor. This same mentality led to OJ Simpson being let loose. They cannot reconcile cause and effect. They have their religion that proclaims that Al Gore knows more than all the scientists in the world, and a speech is more effective than an atom bomb. So what do you expect out of them? They are not going to learn that 'I'm Sorry' is not a foreign policy and 'Blame Bush' is not a domestic policy. Obama is their god and Nancy Pelosi is their pope. As for Fort Hood, I'm full of sorrow and rage over the whole incident. We wanted a leader, what we got was a politician who isn't even good at that.

Put simply, they could not navigate a marble down a new drain pipe.