12 dead in Fort Hood shooting spree

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby lightningBugout » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:53 pm

Not to mention the suggestion that he was a coward who was too afraid to go to war which potentially taints those soldiers who oppose the war.

Not to mention it sticks to the military mental health professionals who are most able to vocalize the long-term psychological and social costs of the war for the leagues of returning vets. On some level they become enemies.

How many people with Arabic sounding names will get targeted tonight with random violence I wonder? And how many of those will make it into the papers?
Last edited by lightningBugout on Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby smallprint » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:56 pm

lightningBugout wrote:Not to mention the suggestion that he was a coward who was too afraid to go to war which potentially taints those soldiers who oppose the war.

Not to mention it sticks to the military mental health professionals who are most able to vocalize the long-term psychological and social costs of the war for the leagues of returning vets. On some level they become enemies.

How many people with Arabic sounding names will get targeted with random violence I wonder? And how many of those will make it into the papers?




It's like a RWers wet dream.

Funny how that happens.
His mind now misgave him; he began to doubt whether both he and the world around him were not bewitched.
smallprint
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:33 pm
Location: IL
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:01 pm

Interestingly there have been no US military capital punishment executions since 1961, he may be the first in several decades.

Wiki:


Death penalty by the U.S. military was reintroduced by the executive order of President Ronald Reagan in 1984.[2]

On Monday, July 28, 2008, President George W. Bush approved the execution of United States Army Private Ronald A. Gray, who had been convicted in April 1988 of multiple murders and rapes. A month later, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren set the execution date of December 10, 2008 and ordered that Gray be put to death by injection at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana. The military publicly released Gray's execution date on November 20, 2008. On November 26, however, Gray was granted a stay of execution and has not yet been executed as of 2009
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:04 pm

As things stand now the oddest tell is that he was able to say what he said and not get a reprimand.

The ret col suspects something happened while he was at Walter Reed. Why does he think that?
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:06 pm

Thats why this all STINKS so badly IT COULDNT POSSIBLY BE SCOTT SMITH who did this it HAD to be NIDAL HASSAN.

I just cant fathom such coincidence. These things are made to happen for a reason.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:15 pm

Apparently a BLOG POSTING of his:

NidalHasan 5 months ago
There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.



http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:bE ... =firefox-a
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby smallprint » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:16 pm

CNN now saying he had a pistol AND a semi-automatic. Well that explains everything. Easy to hit 43 soldiers that way. You know, 22 with one hand and 21 with the other. And all those early reports of 2 or 3 shooters-- just confused grunts who can't possibly be expected to identify the direction of gunfire.

Was he also wearing a black trenchcoat, and cackling maniacally?
His mind now misgave him; he began to doubt whether both he and the world around him were not bewitched.
smallprint
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:33 pm
Location: IL
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:19 pm

smallprint wrote:CNN now saying he had a pistol AND a semi-automatic. Well that explains everything. Easy to hit 43 soldiers that way. You know, 22 with one hand and 21 with the other. And all those early reports of 2 or 3 shooters-- just confused grunts who can't possibly be expected to identify the direction of gunfire.

Was he also wearing a black trenchcoat, and cackling maniacally?


I heard he was wearing a 9/11 Truth T Shirt too....and holding a copy of Nick Bryant's book.....
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby elfismiles » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:25 pm

U.S.: The Fort Hood Shooting
November 5, 2009 | 2119 GMT

Jana Birchum/Getty Images
Soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, walk along military vehicles ready for deployment to the Middle East in 2003
As many as three gunmen opened fire on military personnel in the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood, Texas early afternoon Nov. 5, killing seven and wounding 30. One gunman is reported to be in custody while the other two are reported to be on the loose on the nearly 215,000-acre military complex. The gunmen are reported to be in military fatigues, which could present problems identifying the suspects. Fort Hood is on lock-down, as is the Killeen Independent School District.

The shooter in custody is described to be in his late 30s, but latest reports indicate that a firefight is currently occurring between one or possibly two individuals and military police. The gunmen have barricaded themselves in a single building. One holed-up gunman appears to have been wounded.

While details are still coming in, this appears to be a premeditated and coordinated attack and follows previous plots foiled by U.S. security forces, such as the Fort Dix plot and the recent North Carolina terror plot. It remains to be seen if this attack is the work of a grassroots jihadist cell or a lone-wolf or mutiny type of attack. STRATFOR will continue to monitor the situation.
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Postby MinM » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:25 pm

n0x23 wrote:Numerous reports of multiple shooters at Virginia tech, redcated, just one dead English major after all...

Officials: Fort Hood shootings suspect alive; 12 dead - CNN.com
Image
(CNN) -- A solider suspected of fatally shooting 12 and wounding 31 at Fort Hood in Texas on Thursday is not dead as previously reported, Army Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said Thursday evening.

A civilian officer who was wounded in the incident shot the suspect, who is "in custody and in stable condition," Cone told reporters.

"Preliminary reports indicate there was a single shooter that was shot multiple times at the scene," Cone said at a news conference. "However, he was not killed as previously reported."

The suspect, identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at a military processing center at Fort Hood around 1:30 p.m., Cone said.

Three others initially taken into custody for interviews have been released, Cone said.

Hasan, 39, is a graduate of Virginia Tech and a psychiatrist licensed in Virginia who was practicing at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, according to military and professional records. Previously, he worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/texas. ... index.html

Virginia Tech Gunman. Another CIA MK Ultra victim? - Yahoo! Answers
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:29 pm

Percival wrote:Apparently a BLOG POSTING of his:

NidalHasan 5 months ago
There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.



http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:bE ... =firefox-a


Sounds logical to me. But, it all depends on what weapons and the targets that are at your disposal. How many 'suicide' bombings would there be if both sides were equally armed?

I'm not sure what scholars he's talking about and what is SWT?

Ghandi?

“Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence. To take the name of non-violence when there is a sword in your heart is not only hypocritical and dishonest but cowardly ... Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”
-- Mohatma Gandhi

The pope?

"......Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense ... legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."
-- Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby smallprint » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:44 pm

I noticed people on various outlets are commenting on the fact that the media got his name wrong for the first few hours.

All the first reports said his name was Malik Nadal Hasan.

Much, much later they corrected that to Nidal Malik Hasan.

This guy is an Army Major, an MD, with publications and an internet presence. How exactly did they fuck up his name for so long?

Maybe just general incompetence.

And then there's the fact that they reported that he was dead. When he wasn't. And that the policewoman who shot him was dead. Which she isn't. I mean, you can't expect hospitals to be able to tell the living from the dead, can you?


"You can't trust those early reports"
His mind now misgave him; he began to doubt whether both he and the world around him were not bewitched.
smallprint
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:33 pm
Location: IL
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Ben D » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:49 pm

Sweejak,..
I'm not sure what scholars he's talking about and what is SWT?


It seems this is a comment in the context of a article he had read.

Check out,.. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3989813/Marty ... de-Bombing
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby Percival » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:55 pm

Sweejak wrote:
Percival wrote:Apparently a BLOG POSTING of his:

NidalHasan 5 months ago
There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.



http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:bE ... =firefox-a


Sounds logical to me. But, it all depends on what weapons and the targets that are at your disposal. How many 'suicide' bombings would there be if both sides were equally armed?

I'm not sure what scholars he's talking about and what is SWT?

Ghandi?

“Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence. To take the name of non-violence when there is a sword in your heart is not only hypocritical and dishonest but cowardly ... Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”
-- Mohatma Gandhi

The pope?

"......Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense ... legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."
-- Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE


SWT="subhanu wa ta ala" which translates as "Glorified and Exalted". Muslims write it after the name Allah commonly.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Iroquois » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:02 am

NYPD SOP 9 - ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT

In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police
Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of
police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9 (s. 69).

[...]

Hit Potential In Gun Fights


The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed
confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of
the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Sh ... Combat.htm
Iroquois
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 174 guests