A Tale of Two Shootings
Sir Frederick
http://townhall.com/columnists/ScottWheeler/2009/11/09/a_tale_of_two_shootings
Obama's remarks upon hearing that abortionist George Tiller was shot--- "I am shocked and outraged"
contrasted with his statement on the news that 12 unarmed soldiers were gunned down at Ft. Hood Army
Post: "I would caution against jumping to conclusions" about the motives of the gunman.
Obama�s Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says her Department is now working to deflect
any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by a Muslim soldier. This is the
same Napolitano that issued a report earlier this year cautioning against the domestic threats of
�right-wing extremism� and right-wing groups that might use issues such as abortion as a recruiting
tool. Were Obama and Napolitano concerned about backlash against pro-life advocates in the wake of
Tiller being shot? It turns out that there was reason for concern, though you would not know from
the mainstream media but pro-life activist James Pouillon was murdered with virtually no media
attention just a short time after the massive coverage of Tiller�s murder.
The media, except for Fox News Channel and very few others, played right along with Obama�s Fort
Hood narrative, failing to mention reports that the Army Major Nidal Hasan screamed �Allahu Akhbar�
as he murdered more than a dozen and wounded over thirty other unarmed soldiers. Imagine the media�s
coverage and the Obama Administration�s outrage if the man who shot late-term abortionist George
Tiller had yelled �Hail Mary� as he shot Tiller.
US Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey further promulgated this bizarre approach on the Sunday
talk shows saying, �I am worried�that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some
of our Muslim soldiers.�
So far there have been two incidences of Muslims murdering their fellow soldiers in the peaceful
confines of a military base or encampment. There is not one single solitary incident of a non-Muslim
soldier shooting an American Muslim soldier to date. So why is it that when a Muslim shoots dozens
of his fellow American soldiers Obama, Casey and the media are concerned for Muslim soldiers?
It would seem that the non-Muslim soldiers are in more danger than our Muslim soldiers. We�re now
allocating resources to try to protect Muslim soldiers that would be better spend shifting policy to
try to prevent any similar incidents from occurring. And of course we will be told that we must
recognize the importance of sensitivity to Muslims in the military, after all, many of them are
translators for the languages spoken by the radical Islamist enemy. I don�t suppose it would occur
to General Casey that if Islamist soldiers would murder their fellow non-Muslim soldiers that they
might also sabotage the translation of documents and communications of the enemy.
The real problem with our government and military�s handling of events such as this is that it is
further evidence that they simply do not understand Fourth Generation Warfare, the type of
non-military tactics the jihadists are using against us. If we recognize this act of internal
treachery for what it clearly and obviously is, an Islamic jihad attack from within our own ranks,
then we deny the enemy a propaganda victory. We can deter them from claiming Americans �are turning
on their own� which allows them to recruit more Islamic extremists to carryout these attacks.
When the first Islamic attack occurred in the 101st Airborne Division by Sgt. Asan Akbhar, many
warned of the enemy within. I was one of them in an April 2003 article in Insight Magazine I quoted
former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney stating "If [extreme] Islamists have infiltrated
into the [armed] services it is a matter of grave concern because, by definition, Islamists are
engaged in advancing an agenda that is inimical to this country and what it is and what it stands
for, and its security most especially."
The Islamic jihadists who are waging this war against America want our soldiers to not feel safe
where they sleep; the tragedy is that our own military and civilian leaders may allow them this
great success.
Michael Gordge
> A Tale of Two Shootings by Scott Wheelerhttp://townhall.com/columnists/ScottWheeler/2009/11/09/a_tale_of_two_...
Irrationalism is the one and only enemy of man, all religion is
irrational, even dopey Obamammama preys and prays.
MG
ZerkonXXXX
> A Tale of Two Shootings by Scott Wheeler
One tale of one Scott Wheller....
"Scott L. Wheeler is executive director of the National Republican Trust
PAC. He was previously a contributing writer (2002-2004) for Insight, a
national biweekly newsmagazine published by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's
News World Communications."
.. and his boss
ZerkonXXXX
> as he murdered more than a dozen and wounded over thirty other unarmed
> soldiers.
Over 42 soldiers, one shooter.
Be lead around by media like this, then comes back and tell everyone how
nature and individual human consciousness is deceptive yet crap like this
is somehow infallible.
This is a a ready made propaganda package
Zinnic
It cannot be dismissed so easily. Neither propaganda nor PC is
infallible. Do you deny all validity of criticism of the PC stance
regarding Islam?.
If a sect of another religion were to inspire and advocate such an
outrage would you characterize it as "Over 42 soldiers, one shooter"?
What is your implication here? The heroism of an Islamic martyr in
the face of the American military? If not, explain!
tg
A couple of interesting separate questions here.
1) Why is it not a generally understood principle that the best thing
to do when someone pulls out a gun is for everyone to attack him and
beat him to death? (Slowly.) It just seems that the odds are much
better for any individual in that case. Given the weapon that the
shooter was using in this incident, he would have gotten off a number
of shots but without aim the mortality would have been low.
2) Let's assume this guy was a jihadi trained in Pakistan (instead of
a loser with serious psycho/emotional issues). How is attacking
unarmed US soldiers on a US military base different from blowing up
the jihadi training camp in Pakistan with a drone missile? In neither
case are the soldiers/fighters engaged in combat, but the case can be
made that it is a legitimate part of warfare. (BTW I think the idea of
'rules' about warfare are nonsense, but the philosophical question is
there for those who think otherwise.)
-tg
John Stafford
<cca09008-13f4-41fa...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 1) Why is it not a generally understood principle that the best thing
> to do when someone pulls out a gun is for everyone to attack him and
> beat him to death?
People tend to behave as they are trained to behave. Soldiers are
trained to first seek shelter when unanticipated fire begins.
tg
> In article
> <cca09008-13f4-41fa-b300-d56ed8ad5...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 1) Why is it not a generally understood principle that the best thing
> > to do when someone pulls out a gun is for everyone to attack him and
> > beat him to death?
>
> People tend to behave as they are trained to behave. Soldiers are
> trained to first seek shelter when unanticipated fire begins.
Wrong. Soldiers are trained to return fire and assault if possible,
particularly in an ambush (where they are not in an established
defensive position.) That's the analogous situation.
Also, obviously the great majority of civilians act exactly the same
way in these shooter episodes---they act as if they are helpless.
I'm just suggesting that 'advice about what to do' in these situations
should include the understanding that fight makes more sense than
flight in many cases. If you see someone pull out a gun, everyone
should close on them immediately if they are within a few yards.
-tg
John Stafford
<62e080d4-0107-462a...@j19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 10:34�am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> > In article
> > <cca09008-13f4-41fa-b300-d56ed8ad5...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > 1) Why is it not a generally understood principle that the best thing
> > > to do when someone pulls out a gun is for everyone to attack him and
> > > beat him to death?
> >
> > People tend to behave as they are trained to behave. �Soldiers are
> > trained to first seek shelter when unanticipated fire begins.
>
> Wrong. Soldiers are trained to return fire and assault if possible,
> particularly in an ambush (where they are not in an established
> defensive position.) That's the analogous situation.
Do you speak from military combat experience or training? I do.
Regardless, the victims in this case were not armed.
tg
> In article
>
>
>
> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 10:34 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <cca09008-13f4-41fa-b300-d56ed8ad5...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > 1) Why is it not a generally understood principle that the best thing
> > > > to do when someone pulls out a gun is for everyone to attack him and
> > > > beat him to death?
>
> > > People tend to behave as they are trained to behave. Soldiers are
> > > trained to first seek shelter when unanticipated fire begins.
>
> > Wrong. Soldiers are trained to return fire and assault if possible,
> > particularly in an ambush (where they are not in an established
> > defensive position.) That's the analogous situation.
>
> Do you speak from military combat experience or training? I do.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100897/ebook-US-Army-Ranger-Handbook
Scroll down to page 6-11
-tg
John Stafford
<84b8beda-2939-4b9d...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Not applicable. The victims were unarmed. When unarmed, then jump to the
section Seek Cover. In this case they were all crowded together. Those
who could did seek cover in the immediate vicinity, the rest had to move
out to find cover.
One does what he is trained to do.
Some training differs due to time and objectives, MOS, for example recon
and medics.
Zinnic
So the question remains-what to do about the enemy within, without
committing the politically incorrect sin of profiling to the
'discomfit' of Islamic believers!
Andy F.
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cca09008-13f4-41fa...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
****************************
That would only be true on the very rare occasions when it's a spree
shooting.In most cases when someone pulls out a gun the best way to stay
alive is to do what they say.
2) Let's assume this guy was a jihadi trained in Pakistan (instead of
a loser with serious psycho/emotional issues). How is attacking
unarmed US soldiers on a US military base different from blowing up
the jihadi training camp in Pakistan with a drone missile? In neither
case are the soldiers/fighters engaged in combat, but the case can be
made that it is a legitimate part of warfare. (BTW I think the idea of
'rules' about warfare are nonsense, but the philosophical question is
there for those who think otherwise.)
********************************
And that's a good reason why radical Islamists should be kept out of the
Army.
tg
What enemy within? This guy is just another Timothy McVeigh type---a
loser with severe psycho/emotional issues.
What you do about such people is to ease them out of the military.
However, this guy was kept in because it was more important to get rid
of gay people. There are probably lots of McVeigh types being
retained (Timmy wasn't) because of shortages in various specialties at
this point.
It would be reasonable to dismiss Hassan's supervisors for
incompetence---how a bunch of psychologists could miss that he was
screwed up is beyond me. However, those superiors will be retained
*and promoted* for the same reason that Hassan was.
-tg
Zinnic
Soldiers of Allah (SOA) is an organization that exemplifies what I
referred to as the "enemy within" in the war between tolerance and
intolerance. I believe that members of this organization should be
investigated despite the fact that this may discomfit 'peaceful'
muslims.
For authorities to be paralyzed by the fear of being labelled as
politically incorrect is to allow the rights of the 'intolerant' to
take precedence over those of the tolerant.
In my view, you lean so far backwards that you have lost all balance
in this matter.
tg
Never heard of them before this. Sounds like Christian Rock to me.
But what I really don't get is that you think that they are *not*
being investigated; we've got spooks galore probing everything as if
they were aliens with Rush Limbaugh's ass on the table.
Likewise, Hassan----he *was* investigated and not considered a threat.
Again, you are looking at the wrong culprits for the wrong reasons,
and you obviously haven't read the reporting on his history with the
military. The guy gave a lecture that should have landed him in
compulsory therapy, but his peers couldn't believe that he was a
threat. Not because he was a Muslim, but because he was 'one of them',
*a doctor*---the problems with incompetent, substance and patient
abusing doctors being coddled are well known.
> For authorities to be paralyzed by the fear of being labelled as
> politically incorrect is to allow the rights of the 'intolerant' to
> take precedence over those of the tolerant.
> In my view, you lean so far backwards that you have lost all balance
> in this matter.
No, had I been the authority there he would have been long gone.
-tg
Zinnic
>
> - Show quoted text -
PC is invidious. IMO the fact that Hassan was Muslim was a critical
factor in the decision of the 'authorities' NOT to act.
The Soldiers of Allah are muslim indigents or immigrants who are
sympathetic to the urgings of Mullahs (foreign and domestic) to take
up individual Jihads and kill those they label as enemies of Islam.
The enemy in this case being USA military personal.
Hassan, insane or not, acted this out because he is a Muslim and a
confessed member of the SOA. Probably other Muslims knew of this
danger. Are they too cowed by their own extremists to expose them?
tg
No. As I said, you need to read up on what actually happened. Had he
been a Christadist or a Zionadist the result would have been the same.
Security agencies concluded that his contacts were consistent with the
research he was given to do. He was assigned that because his
superiors didn't believe that someone who had the same education/
profession/class as they did could be 'bad' or 'irredeemable' or
simply crazy.
Security agencies have scooped up plenty of Muslims and Jihad
Wannabies, but they were almost all lower-class people.
>
> The Soldiers of Allah are muslim indigents or immigrants who are
> sympathetic to the urgings of Mullahs (foreign and domestic) to take
> up individual Jihads and kill those they label as enemies of Islam.
> The enemy in this case being USA military personal.
> Hassan, insane or not, acted this out because he is a Muslim and a
> confessed member of the SOA.
Please give a reference for this. I thought you were talking about a
bunch of musicians.
-tg
TruthSlave
So this person was investigated and not considered a threat.
What exactly does 'investigated' mean in this case? Would it allow
for being harassed, and if so, would that be seen as contributory
to this tragic outcome? How professional were the professionals
in this area? Or do we just take this as read? It seems to me,
there may well be another element beyond the simple tidy summary,
yet as the marginally-defined, or the ill-classified, its the kind
of stuff one doesn't talk about. The outcome is all we need concern
ourselves with, as such there is nothing to learn, certainly no
single person to take responsibility for any part they might have
played. Its hard for me to take this story on appearance, something
about it just does not compute, and so i have to wonder about the
front line human factors which might have played their part as
contributory factors. With no other connection to cause, with no
one to take responsibility for errors, or poor conduct, or deliberate
programing, it seems to me such tragedies are destined to repeat
themselves. There again it could just be as it seems, just another
angry man with a gun and no real cause.