This is not good - firefight at Fort Hood - 7 dead


Selene

Recommended Posts

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times

Thu, November 05, 2009 -- 3:58 PM ET

-----

Seven Dead and 20 Injured in Shooting at Fort Hood

The U.S. Army has closed its massive Army base at Fort Hood,

Texas, amid reports that several people have been shot and

killed at the post.

Read More:

http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking News alert

The New York Times

Thu, November 05, 2009 -- 3:58 PM ET

-----

Seven Dead and 20 Injured in Shooting at Fort Hood

The U.S. Army has closed its massive Army base at Fort Hood,

Texas, amid reports that several people have been shot and

killed at the post.

Read More:

http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na

Let me make a small bet. It was done by a Muslim. We shall see.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al:

Early report is three US military were the shooters.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=q_N1MMll4Xk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXdMM <<<<this one might be better

Can you tell me how this man starts out this national appearance to the country and you here the word "shout out" and two minutes of pap before addressing the issue!

It must be me, but I perceive that he is an angry man who has serious issues with the father concept, including a sense of unreality because every "accomplishment" in his life has been

aided and abetted by marxists.

His father.

His teacher's in Indonesia.

His mentor in Hawaii.

His professors that had impact on him.

His political icon.

His pastor.

His wife.

His friends.

Hmmm you think all of that means something?

sad_shakefist.gif

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update: 12 dead, 31 wounded

The shooter was an American-born Muslim from Virginia. His family had told him not to join the service but he ignored their wishes, and insisted that it was right to serve his country.

A psychiatrist by trade, he was transferred from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Fort Hood, and had been treating PTSD among vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. He had thus become quite aware of the dangers of combat, second hand, from his patients. When he was told he was going to be deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, he freaked (about 130 this afternoon local time). Pulled out two weapons and started shooting. The police were called in; they shot him and he was presumed dead. Turns out he was just wounded, and is currently in custody with non-life-threatening wounds.

At the time of his arrest there were reports of other shooters. Two other people were taken into custody, questioned, and released. A fourth person was taken into custody later, but details are sketchy right now.

more details:

New York Times Online, not fully accurate

More NY Times

NY Times Blog -- updated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve:

Yep. Pretty much as you have it.

Appears that it was not a "terrorist" action.

The others in custody is a mystery.

Good job.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.breitbart.tv/co-worker-ft-hood-gunman-made-outlandish-comments-condemning-us-foreign-policy/

"He said, precisely, that maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.breitbart.tv/co-worker-ft-hood-gunman-made-outlandish-comments-condemning-us-foreign-policy/

"He said, precisely, that maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor."

An awful situation. I doubt that it will be possible to speak frankly about it without being called names (racist, Islamophobe, etc...).

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want any of those in military uniforms to die this way. Nor under the foreign conditions that their families "had accepted," as a maudlin commentator said in a piece run on "Nightline" last night — and as ludicrous as that divide sounds.

Nonetheless, neither is this any good — reported the same day, though without being given nearly the same attention (to say the least):

Afghan Villagers: NATO Killed Nine Civilians in Attack

Afghans from a tiny village in Helmand Province’s Lashkar Gah district report that at least nine civilians, three of them children, were killed last night when NATO launched rockets at a wheat field. [...]

Is this worth any less attention? If so, why? It involves a potential war crime, under the much-abused canons of international law. They didn't consent to taking part in the conflict, as did these murdered soldiers. They have families, just as much as those who were killed at Fort Hood.

But they're over on the other side of the planet, and they're not "our people," so in the eyes of the media who shill for "our troops" — actually, for the war criminals who send them into harm's way — these murdered civilians apparently don't count.

'Twas ever thus, o'course. Still, the special pleading gets quite tiring. No, they didn't deserve to die in Texas. Neither did they deserve to be slaughtered in Helmand Province, and certainly not by "our" weaponry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they're over on the other side of the planet, and they're not "our people," so in the eyes of the media who shill for "our troops" — actually, for the war criminals who send them into harm's way — these murdered civilians apparently don't count.

'Twas ever thus, o'course. Still, the special pleading gets quite tiring. No, they didn't deserve to die in Texas. Neither did they deserve to be slaughtered in Helmand Province, and certainly not by "our" weaponry.

Collateral damage during war operations in which an armed enemy is the target is one of the infelicities of modern warfare. Think about WW2, the "good war". Nearly a million civilian non-combatants were killed in air attacks. Are we supposed to feel guilty that we killed a million civilians in the process of defeating fascism? Who put them in harms way in the first place? The fascist bastards who started the war.

The civilians killed in Afghanistan were not the primary targets of the raids. They were the incidental victims. If the Taliban did not mix with the civilians, the civilians would not have been killed. In a war, shit happens in generous portions.

Robert E. Lee once said that it is well that war is so terrible else we should come to enjoy it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An awful situation. I doubt that it will be possible to speak frankly about it without being called names (racist, Islamophobe, etc...).

Bill P

An excellent job of self-censorship! You have put the tape over your own mouth.

Malik Hasan has acted out his beliefs. I have said on more than one occasion that Mohamed (pus and blisters upon him) has put together the nastiest set of memes anywhere and for all time. The Devil Himself could not have done worse mischief. The memes are converted into operative ideas and actions, and you have seen yet another example of the "Islamic Mind in action". And this won't be the last time we shall see the likes of this.

You will notice that I guessed this whole thing had an Islamic motive from the git go, even before the identity of the shooter was provided by the news networks. If just one soldier had been shot dead at Fort Hood, I might have assumed a personal motive such as jealousy or some such. But 12 dead and 31 wounded is a massacre and they screamed out Islam! to me. We shall see if Malik had bound his genitals in white linen. This is often done as part of the shaheed (martyrdom) rites by Muslims on their way to claiming their virgins in Paradise.

I speak plainly and I will not censor myself. This is Islam in Action. Get used to it. Things like this will happen again and again. There goes your Muslim: different God, different mountain.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the GOP Eagle

Ft. Hood Attack Was Terrorism

By Dick Morris

November 9, 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.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dick Morris should learn to count.

The DC Sniper. The Fort Dix Six. The Buffalo group. The Florida crowd. The Recruiting Station Shooting in Arkansas. Some others that I cannot recall right now,

The actual issue is that:

1. The FBI investigated and confirmed 6 e-mails to the "renegade" Imam from Falls Church, Virginia, one of which asked the key procurement leader al-Qa'eda, "How can I help the jihad?";

2. Two of the 911 hijackers attended the same Mosque, with the same Imam, who has since has fled/relocated to Yemen, at same time that he and his family attended. The Fort Hood Terrorist Traitor still attends this Saudi funded Mosque;

3. The "Doc" gave a presentation to his fellow officers at a conference wherein he switched from the health topic to an explanation of the war against Islam, with slides, explaining that his loyalty was to Islam above the US Constitution and much much more;

4. At least five fellow officers made formal reports about him to superiors;

5. A few months ago [?] he bought two (2) handguns, coincidentally, the same two that were pried out of his unfortunately not dead hands;

6. Apparently, under the new protocols, the FBI was not entitled to that information; on the 20 anniversary of the fall of the wall, we find that another one has been built.

This was not a tragedy. This was criminal negligence at a minimum. I believe it rises to a court marshal offenses as high in the military as Tail Hook and other such prosecutions.

Every single Mosque that even has a whiff of suspicion should be monitored 24/7. They can start with the Mosques in downtown Brooklyn, the Astoria Mosque and the Patchougue Mosque.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dick Morris should learn to count.

The DC Sniper. The Fort Dix Six. The Buffalo group. The Florida crowd. The Recruiting Station Shooting in Arkansas. Some others that I cannot recall right now,

The actual issue is that:

1. The FBI investigated and confirmed 6 e-mails to the "renegade" Imam from Falls Church, Virginia, one of which asked the key procurement leader al-Qa'eda, "How can I help the jihad?";

2. Two of the 911 hijackers attended the same Mosque, with the same Imam, who has since has fled/relocated to Yemen, at same time that he and his family attended. The Fort Hood Terrorist Traitor still attends this Saudi funded Mosque;

3. The "Doc" gave a presentation to his fellow officers at a conference wherein he switched from the health topic to an explanation of the war against Islam, with slides, explaining that his loyalty was to Islam above the US Constitution and much much more;

4. At least five fellow officers made formal reports about him to superiors;

5. A few months ago [?] he bought two (2) handguns, coincidentally, the same two that were pried out of his unfortunately not dead hands;

6. Apparently, under the new protocols, the FBI was not entitled to that information; on the 20 anniversary of the fall of the wall, we find that another one has been built.

This was not a tragedy. This was criminal negligence at a minimum. I believe it rises to a court marshal offenses as high in the military as Tail Hook and other such prosecutions.

Every single Mosque that even has a whiff of suspicion should be monitored 24/7. They can start with the Mosques in downtown Brooklyn, the Astoria Mosque and the Patchougue Mosque.

Adam

Adam--

1) Don't you understand that if you're a Dick Morris sort of Republican, since all the but the last of the incidents you refer to occurred under the Bush adminstration, they weren't terrorist acts?

2)In addition, the Liberty City (Miami) group should be called terrorists only if the FBI is listed an unindicted co-inspirator, which is why so far there have been two hung juries: it seems to have been an FBI orchestrated terror group more than anything else.

3)I'd suggest the key difference is not whether something is a terrorist act but whether a jihadi group was involved in planning it, as opposed to a single man taking his religion much too seriously

4) The wall you mention doesn't seem to have been very solid: the FBI had at least some of the Army's info. Besides, there was enough evidence of his leanings to warrant the conclusion that the Army had ample reason to at least suggest he resign his commission--without any reference to what the FBI had. SImilarly , if the emails really did include the phrase you quoted, the FBI had enough evidence to pursue Hasan without any help from the Army. So, both the Army and the FBI each royally fubared on this one.

http:

//www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-fort-hood-1109-1110nov10,0,834661.story

Jeffrey S.

Edited by jeffrey smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffrey:

Your statement about the Army having enough information is evasive at best.

You know the "wall" that I was talking about that led to 911 not being discovered in time. This was the Jamie Garelik "wall".

Don't be disingenuous.

If you wish to make apologies for folks who hate us and wish to kill us, be my guest.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffrey:

Your statement about the Army having enough information is evasive at best.

You know the "wall" that I was talking about that led to 911 not being discovered in time. This was the Jamie Garelik "wall".

Don't be disingenuous.

If you wish to make apologies for folks who hate us and wish to kill us, be my guest.

Adam

Adam--

Did you happen to go to the news story I posted (sorry you need to cut and paste it--I couldn't get it to link properly in the post)?.

The Army did share at least some informatin with the FBI, which decided based on that that Hasan wasn't worth following.

Meanwhile, there's enough evidence about Hasan in the Army to suggest that had the Army folks done a proper job, Hasan would at the very least have been forced out of the military, and they did not need any input from the FBI to have done a proper job: they had enough evidence on their own (those statements from fellow officers you mentioned, for one thing). The FBI may have screwed up; the Army certainly did.

Now how is pointing that out apologizing for the jihadis?

Jeffrey S.

(Here's the URL again for that news story)

http:

//www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-fort-hood-1109-1110nov10,0,834661.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff:

Do you have to wear an oxygen mask from the elevated plateau that you condescend from to voice your opinion, which, for now the second time you have chosen to avoid the "wall" question.

I read the article.

The ability to link diverse and vastly different snaps of information is critical in espionage.

The FBI was PREVENTED from even getting a tinkle of information when his name came up on a different track as buying TWO SEMI AUTOMATIC HANDGUNS OUT OF THE BLUE -- this is the intelligence domestic police WALL the Jamie Garelik set up during Clinton which directly led to us missing 911.

This piece of information would have potentially changed the FBI's interpretation of one of the last e-mails which specifically asked what he could do to help the Jihad.

Conflict of Interest

A 1995 Department of Justice memorandum states that the procedures her memorandum put in place, for the investigation of the first WTC bombing "go beyond what is legally required...[to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." The wall intentionally exceeded the requirements of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) for the purposes of criminal investigations, and the then-existing federal case law. These rules were, shortly after their creation, expanded to regulate such communications in future counter-terrorism investigations.[9]

Ms. Gorelick eventually recused herself from reviewing her own role in the regulation of information about terrorist activities.[citation needed] Attorney General Ashcroft was incensed before the 9/11 commission to learn that the commission had not investigated or been told of Gorelick's memo or her role regarding the "wall". This assertion was disputed by former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), a member of the 9/11 Commission, who said, "nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies." Gorton also asserted that "the wall" was a long-standing policy that had resulted from the Church committee in the 1970s, and that the policy only prohibits transfer of certain information from prosecutors to the intelligence services and never prohibited information flowing in the opposite direction.[8]

However, the "Gorelick Wall" barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation.[citation needed] "During the time of Ms. Gorelick's 1995 memo, the issue causing the most tension between the Reno-Gorelick Justice Department and Director Freeh's FBI was not counterterrorism but widely reported allegations of contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign from foreign sources, involving the likes of John Huang and Charlie Trie." [10] Mr. Trie later told investigators that between 1994 and 1996 he raised some $1.2 million, much of it from foreign sources, whose identities were hidden by straw donors.

Testifying before the commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft said, "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review," he said. "Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."[11]

Once again, my point is that the wall is back which makes us less secure and leads to great soldiers dying.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[To Jeffrey Smith:] Don't be disingenuous. If you wish to make apologies for folks who hate us and wish to kill us, be my guest.

The Argument from Intimidation, Presumptive Motive Variant? Do we really have to descend into that particular rhetorical sewer? This soon, anyway? (I've come to almost expect its appearance in Objectivist venues.)

Others may disagree with the weighting of evidence, and assumptions as to culpability, that you have made. That does NOT mean that they're engaging in "apologies" for presumed enemies. All of this is eminently open to debate, especially when information about such a crime is still fragmentary.

Even assumptions as to the nature and extent of those enemies — and the scope of that collective "us" — are open to question. Their provocations, motives, and capabilities for action are not transparent. Nor are those of U.S. military leaders. No matter how much some bloodthirsty neoconservative or neoliberal crusaders may want them to be.

Shall we let our accusations follow a step or two behind the advancing front of our knowledge? Please? For once? As an experiment in being ... oh, I dunno ... somewhat more sane?

Edited by Greybird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[To Jeffrey Smith:] Don't be disingenuous. If you wish to make apologies for folks who hate us and wish to kill us, be my guest.

The Argument from Intimidation, Presumptive Motive Variant? Do we really have to descend into that particular rhetorical sewer? This soon, anyway? (I've come to almost expect its appearance in Objectivist venues.)

Others may disagree with the weighting of evidence, and assumptions as to culpability, that you have made. That does NOT mean that they're engaging in "apologies" for presumed enemies. All of this is eminently open to debate, especially when information about such a crime is still fragmentary.

Even assumptions as to the nature and extent of those enemies — and the scope of that collective "us" — are open to question. Their provocations, motives, and capabilities for action are not transparent. Nor are those of U.S. military leaders. No matter how much some bloodthirsty neoconservative or neoliberal crusaders may want them to be.

Shall we let our accusations follow a step or two behind the advancing front of our knowledge? Please? For once? As an experiment in being ... oh, I dunno ... somewhat more sane?

Yes Greybird:

It takes a practitioner to jump to those arguments from intimidation.

"...some bloodthirsty neoconservative or neoliberal crusaders...

So well put and not requiring any assumptions that were not proved. I can just see Cheney with the blood of Muslim babies dripping from his blackened fangs.

Since this is the only "Objectivist venue" [i have no clue what convoluted path you are mentally traveling to get to that statement] I belong to, might you clarify what you mean?

Does the fact that he was not addressing the particular narrow point about the internal "wall" that has been erected and is directly responsible for "missing" this Jihadist Terrorist matter to your evaluation of my post?

Just some preliminary thoughts.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

Here is Maj. Nidal M. Hasan's Muslim Terrorist Jihadist's slide presentation that was delivered, by him, at a medical topic presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007. He actually lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/MAJHasanSlides.pdf

Incidentally, other classmates who participated in a 2007-2008 master’s program at a military college said they, too, had complained to superiors about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s anti-American views, which included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.

He should have been more than likely taken into custody then. However, when he sent the e-mail to the chief recruiter to the declared enemy that we are at "war" with he should have been arrested for treason. Tried under the Universal Code of Military Justice. Convicted. Finally, he should have been publicly executed and it should be pay for view with the proceeds going to families of soldiers that have been killed or wounded in these wars.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the GOP Eagle

Ft. Hood Attack Was Terrorism

By Dick Morris

November 9, 2009

The dividing line, of course, between a terrorist and a psychopathic killer is political motivation....

Is this an important distinction? Shouldn't we be concerned about psychopathic killers no matter what their political motivation? Is a pro-democracy psychopathic killer better than an islamic psychopathic killer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the GOP Eagle

Ft. Hood Attack Was Terrorism

By Dick Morris

November 9, 2009

The dividing line, of course, between a terrorist and a psychopathic killer is political motivation....

Is this an important distinction? Shouldn't we be concerned about psychopathic killers no matter what their political motivation? Is a pro-democracy psychopathic killer better than an islamic psychopathic killer?

You make an error here. You think Maj. Hasan's devotion to Islam is only accidentally connected to his deed. Not so. It was his devotion to Islam that caused his deed. It is because Hasan is a fanatical Jihadi that he did what he did. If this were a rare event we might well be able to ignore the Islam-violence connection, but this happens every single day. Not a day goes by without a Muslim fanatic either setting up an IED or blowing himself and his enemies to kingdom come with an explosive device. The Religion of Submission is the Religion of Violence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Argument from Intimidation, Presumptive Motive Variant? Do we really have to descend into that particular rhetorical sewer? This soon, anyway? (I've come to almost expect its appearance in Objectivist venues.) [...]

Yes, Greybird: It takes a practitioner to jump to those [A]rguments from ntimidation.

Practitioner of what? Of nothing more than intellectual laziness. Making such smears requires no particular mental process, except a dollop of rhetorical skills. Dick Morris, and you, both know better. Unlike him, you've had a rational philosophic outlook at hand to guide you otherwise.

[...] I can just see Cheney with the blood of Muslim babies dripping from his blackened fangs.

So, unfortunately, can I. Without being sarcastic — and "fangs," as in feasting on blood for political gain, is the proper allusion to such State vampirism.

Cheney belongs in the dock at The Hague. So do Bush and Powell. So, before them, Clinton, Gore, and "Yes, 500,000 dead Iraqi children are 'worth it'" Albright. So also, now, Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and that long-time hack for both parties, Gates. Among hundreds of others.

Since this is the only "Objectivist venue" [...] I belong to, might you clarify what you mean?

Don't be so presumptuous as to think I was talking only about you. Using that form of intellectual intimidation is the stock in trade of all sorts of self-proclaimed Objectivists from all factions.

I'd come to think you were a little better than that. Well, I also once respected Leonard Peikoff, more than thirty years ago.

This attempt at discussion has terminally deteriorated, as do most here (and elsewhere) that adduce raging bloodlust and the anti-concept of "Islamofascism" as substitutes for genuine argument, so I've had enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now