-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/51906/possible-terrorist-attack-at-ft-hood-tx/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
"Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis told Fox News those at the base are trained for combat and it is not unusual to see armed people there.
"It could be a terror attack, it could be a disenchanted soldiers, it could be a varity of people," said Maginnis. "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.h...
Twenty plus wounded
Reports do say that shooters (or one of them) were/was wearing uniforms but it is not confirmed that they are military.
Shit.
Shannon, I hope your family members are okay. Please let us know when you find out.
Fort Hood is the largest U.S. military installation in the world. It's also suffered the most deaths in Iraq: 483.
Also, a lot of people may have known this, but I did not: Fort Hood is only 60 miles from Austin. So AR really is nearby.
A hideous, horrible event. I can hardly wrap my mind around it.
Editing to add: Didn't realize JeffersonDavis was active duty. Hope he's not there. shannonlee -- glad your people are safe.
Editing to add: And the fact that he is not here in this thread worries me.
One can be career military but retired. Active duty just means currently in active service. If he hasn't said he's retired, then likely he is active duty.
Actually, I missed a step. I don't even know if he is at Fort Hood. I know he's in the military, and in Texas.
Who the hell do you think shot him? Soldiers.
I hope you die of some hideous, slow, and very painful illness, alone. Soon.
You' re not my type...
I am not sure why you are so offended, I am only telling you what conservatives (NRO & Human Events) told us when there was a similar shooting spree at <span id="apture_prvw1" class="aptureLink "><span class="aptureLinkIcon" style="background-position: 100% -1346px; "> </span>Virginia Tech</span>...
I remember the argument that ensued after.
I once heard a conservative tell a liberal talk show host, either Maher or Stewart, that vets should get better health care than the average american....the host couldn't believe it...even asked the con. to say it again, which he did without flinching.
So, to some this is a greater tragedy..much like when a police officer is killed on duty.
I don't know whether this is the right thread for discussion on this, but it would be a fascinating dialogue on a less-tense post. Because there is definitely a different view of the military from different parts of society.
Exactly.
Actually, Polimom, there are similarities. The specific details of who, what, where, when, and maybe why are not precisely the same, but what is the same is that a lot of people got killed and even more got injured by a crazed gunman.
DQ's timing may be off, but he does have a point. And Austin's response that it was soldiers who shot him so of course they were armed only underscores that point: Yes, there were weapons available and the soldiers did use them and were able to stop the man -- but not before he got off a lot of shots that killed a dozen people (as of now) and injured 31.
The fact that the soldiers were there and had guns and used them did not result in an outcome that was stunningly different from Virginia Tech.
But if it turns out that this was just the 'lone crazed gunman' scenario again, then yes, I concede the similarities.
I take your meaning that it's harder to fight back against 3 shooters than 1, but I think there still is a larger point that is not completely unreasonable. Which is, that when an event like this (multiple shootings and killings at random with no apparent or obvious explanation, just shooting everyone in sight) happens, the availability of guns is not necessarily going to prevent a tragic outcome.
:-)
I wasn't suggesting that the difference was because it's harder to fight against 3 shooters (though that's certainly true). The reports of more than one shooter changes the scenario radically for me because that indicates that the attack was NOT random. That is what was behind my 'not similar' comment.
Editing -- or rather, the targets may have been random, but the attack would not be the same as the lone crazed gunman scenario with multiple people involved. At the very least, it suggests orchestration at some level.
I don't know that the argument of allowing people to be armed in either situation holds water- but the fact is that in both situations the majority of the victims and potential victims were in the exact same situation, having had no choice but to be unarmed and to rely on security officials to protect them against the attack.
Yes, it is... A wack-job with a gun decided to commit suicide by cop, and kill as many people as possible in the process.
And I disagree. He wanted a reaction, and I gave it.
I tend towards responding to crudeness with much, much worse crudeness, and to gross insensitivity with much, much worse insensitivity.
And it was a good conservative reaction, full of thoughtfulness and insights...
The man killed and wounded, (I think), more soldiers in one day than our worst one day loss in all of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Either nobody picked up on the massive red flags flying over this screwball, which has got to be SOMEBODY’S incompetent negligence, or, our military is scraping bottom barrel when finding people to actually help our mentally ill military people.
I’d like to know how long this lunatic academic has actually been in the Army. More than likely he got a direct commission. Apparently he had never seen or even been close to combat. I find it difficult, not completely unbelievable, but difficult to believe that this man turned into a complete screwball after one year of listening to horrible stories from war veterans.
Then I think about a man educated to a lesser level of discipline, whom maybe having emotional trouble also. Maybe a little government hate going on inside excited by a little Beck or Limbaugh or whatever, another military officer, a pilot, a bomber pilot carrying a load of bombs to a bombing range somewhere in the U.S…..takes a little deviation and drops the ol’ bomb load over a major city…..starts screaming incoherent rants on the radio and crashes his bomber into who knows what mass of people….
I mean….what the hell can possibly be next after Ft. Hood???
Perhaps some reflection, more civil debate, less rhetoric. and less demonizing...by all sides?
I made a perfectly resonable analogy. Considering the ever increasing violence we witness.
rhetoric?
Two Voices Blog Crazy
Perhaps if one is totally ignorant of Islamic Jihad and their actions in the past few decades can one think that terrorism had nothing to do with this attack... those who pay attention know all to well that an attack like this is something they've wanted to do for a long time.
There is no terrorist connection. It is not part of any war. By the very definition of the word, the title is both irresponsible and playing on fears. At the very least, the title should be changed. It is shameful to continue to hawk fear and hatred in a time of horror and sadness.
I understand the concern that we not overstate this as the type of terrorism that is organized, state sponsored, or more coercive in nature. But I don't understand the overblown criticism of those who would use the word terrorism to describe it either.
Overgeneralizing is the problem. In the abortionist killing, there was legitimate concern expressed that the killer held an ideological belief that his action was heroic because he would prevent fetal deaths by killing Dr. Tiller- but anyone who overgeneralized to think that this was a widely held belief among abortion opponents, or that this idea would be sanctioned by most Christian groups, was wrong to do so. In the current instance, there's emerging evidence that the killer may have believed that he was acting heroically by killing soldiers who would be sent to kill Muslims- and again, we can and should acknowledge that a minority of people might believe that even while we take care not to paint most or all Muslims with that broad brush.
It was written at a point in time, with the current information, on a breaking story. Give it a rest already.
I'll give it a rest right after the families of the dead get over their soldiers being killed. Sorry if that is inconvenient.
Jeesum!
But this site led with a title claiming terrorism. Yes, I know - "possible." Every responsible reporter said, "Nothing can be ruled out, not even terrorism." This site leads with the idea it is terrorism. See - one way includes terrorism but urges caution because it isn't known. The other way heightens fear and urges people to be afraid. It's known as fear-mongering. I know you understand this, because I've read enough of your writing to know you do.
But I'm being obtuse? It is irresponsible to leave that title. Even Fox News knows when to issue a retraction.
The very thought is offensive.
http://www.qando.net/?p=5631
Looks like he got bad evals at Walter Reed, where he did his “1 year”.
Quack?
I don't understand the bit about Hasan still being alive. I mean, the article headline says he was "wounded" but the text of the article refers to him in the past tense.
Very confusing.
Another smaller event and place like the one in Arkansas some time ago? Don't people recall that?
[sigh]
Here, people:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/0...