13 Dead, 30 wounded

I

indications_say_yes

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
1
At the Fort Hood Military Base. That's one crazy story. Apparently a Major in the army with orders to deploy to Iraq today decided not to go. So instead last night he opened fire in a readiness center full of troops about to be deployed. He killed 13 and wounded 30. They are saying he was distraught about being sent to Iraq and had been complaining about other offices giving him crap for years about being a muslim and was trying to get discharged from the army.

On a side note this was at what they are calling the worlds biggest military base and it started inside a readiness center where combat trained troops were "ready" to be deployed to combat locations. There was a single shooter but the army called in a civilian S.W.A.T unit to deal with him and it was a civilian female swat officer ho shot the shooter after being wounded herself. I've often wondered how we could still be at war in several 3rd world countries but it's a lot less confusing now!
 
My sympathies go out to all of the families and friends devastated by the horrible tragedy.

As far as your comments about the "readiness center" and combat trained troops, please keep in mind that a readiness center is generally a place where they check medical and dental records, issue uniforms and basic equipment, take care of paperwork (e.g. next of kin, power of attorney, direct deposit of money, etc.). Units process in and spend the time taking care of these things before they deploy to a combat zone.

The units there may or may not be combat-arms units and may or may not be combat-experienced. They also do NOT have weapons or any ammo. About all they can do is react, try to avoid getting shot, and move the injured to a place where they can render first aid. All of which they did very well according to the news reports.

Of course, that is also why a civilian law enforcement agent was needed to come in and take care of the shooter... that's their job.

As far as whuy we are actively involved in military struggles with various nations of the world... well, that's up to the foreign policy people and the voters who put our leaders in office. Troops go where they are told to and do what they are told to.

Again, my sympathgies to all involved...
 
Apparently, the suspect shooter has been under investigation for almost 6 months due to postings on his website praising terrorist as heros.

I find it distasteful, to say the least, that most news sites that posted this refer to him as the Muslim Major, or suspected Muslim shooter.

Up to now their is no evidance that religion played any part in this tragic ordeal, only his distress at not being discharged and his deployment to Iraq.

He apparently had no problem going to Afghanistan though, which doesn't make sense.

My sympathies to the family and friends affected by this, and well-wishes to those injured.
 
You have to understand that the military is not eager to give out ammo unless someone is going into a danger zone. Texas is not a battlefield like Iraq, or wasn't until now. The military worries that soldiers are more likely to shoot each other in rage than the enemy. For that reason, bayonets are the last thing to be issued to troops.

The situation is worse in conditions in which soldiers are kind of bored because they have little to do, but there is always the chance that they will die in the back of their mind. Did you ever see the movie "Crimson Tide"? Do you remember how two sailors nearly came to blows over a dispute over who was the best artist in a comic book? That is the type of thing you see, and the military does not want them to have weapons they can use on each other unless it is justified. The worst example of this was the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut. The guards at the gate did not even have any ammo in their weapons.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - A classmate of the Fort Hood shooting suspect says Maj. Nidal Hasan was an outspoken opponent of the U.S. war on terror and called it a "war against Islam."

Dr. Val Finnell was a classmate of Hasan's at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. Both attended a master's in public health program in 2007 and 2008.

Finnell says he got to know Hasan in an environmental health class. At the end of the class, students gave presentations. Finnell says other classmates wrote on subjects such as dry cleaning chemicals and mold in homes, but Hasan's topic was whether the war against terror was "a war against Islam." Finnell described Hasan as a "vociferous opponent" of the terror war.

Finnell says Hasan told classmates he was "a Muslim first and an American second."
 
Probably so, which is why I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a religiously motivated act of violence by an evangelical against some policy of the American government.
 
Thank you for this, I did not find any connection to his religion from the articles that I read.

Still, saying "a Muslim first and an American second" is comparing a religion to a country, no connection in that aspect. A more accurate statement would have been "a Palestinian first and an American second."

Also, did anyone notice how he's pictured wearing traditional Arabic garments, as the "headline picture."

It's ironic how he was so distressed of the harrasement he received after Sept. 11 attacks, and he goes and commits an act of terror himself.
 
He wasn't Palestinian.

...and you can't call this a terror attack yet. For all we know he just snapped, like soldiers sometimes do.
 
I thought he was Palestinian when I read this:



I should have read this more carefully.

I did not mean 'terror' as in 'terrorist', but it was a bad word choice. My fault.
 
Obviously there's nothing wrong with a religious person saying that their religion comes first, their nation second. Most religious people would say that. But when that same person says that their nation is at war with their religion, it becomes a whole lot more of a problematic statement when coming from someone serving in the military. It's the two statements combined that are a warning sign.

I don't think there will ever be a shred of evidence that this guy had al-Qaeda or other terrorist organization ties. But I wouldn't say he "just snapped," in the way that postal workers have just snapped from the stress of their jobs. Given his previous comments and the targets of his violence, it seems pretty straightforward to me that he was motivated by his interpretation of his religion and his (mis)understanding of America's foreign policy.
 
It would be logical, unfortunately, that his targets were U.S. Soldiers because he is in the military.

It's just like the Kentucky Plastic Plant worker that argued with his boss and shot and killed 5 empolyees including the boss.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372281,00.html
 
But this shooter shot a bunch of soldiers being deployed, not the people he worked with on a day-to-day basis. Big difference in my opinion.
 
Yes, I see your point.

By the way it's already being called a terrorist attack:



This is the point I was trying to point out.



Source:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/yaki/detail?entry_id=51126
 
As far as the "Readiness Center" Thomas is right, it's an area set up for large scale in and out processing. You start going there months out in case you run into issues that need to be addressed before deployment. You need to get rubber stamped on all departments (medical, dental, legal etc...) before deploying.

Unless you are heading to a range or out on a training exercise you won't be carrying weapons.

I'm struggling with what happend with the Major. I really can't understand his objection. He would be doing the same job he did in the states, in Iraq. He would never roll outside the wire or be required to perform combat duties due to his rank and MOS (job). A perfect situation for a conscientious objector.
 
That could be explained by the location of the incident rather than intent on the killer's part. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that he sought out troops who were about to be deployed.

I really don't see the point in making idle speculations about motive before all of the facts are in.
 
Terrible argument by SFGate:



Klebold and Harris weren't religious. Actually, they were very anti-Christian, and some of the victims they sought out were sought out because of religion (others were targeted for being jocks or popular kids; others for no reason at all). To suggest that they were motivated by their adherence to Protestantism is just plain false on every level.

Here, the murderer, by his own words, placed his religion before his nation and said the two were in conflict, and then he shot a bunch of soldiers being deployed (not his immediate coworkers or acquaintances).

Not every murderer who is a Muslim is motivated by their interpretation of that religion. That's a clearly false and bigoted position. But the evidence certainly appears to me that this particular murder was motivated by his interpretation of his religion and its interaction with international issues. I don't think there's anything bigoted or anti-Muslim about making such an observation.

Finally, the SFGate article suggests that the media would never point out religious connections with a non-Muslim terrorist. I disagree. I think that the media was open about the fact that Eric Robert Rudolph was motivated largely by his extremist religious beliefs.
 
Being cynical. Does this have anything to do with the recent murders by another 'friendly' Muslim in Afghanistan? New tactics perhaps. I guess time will tell.
 
Back
Top