Questions Regarding the Fort Hood Massacre
Iconoclast
http://www.infowars.com/questions-regarding-the-fort-hood-massacre/
Chuck Baldwin
November 20, 2009
By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news
accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas.
This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a
highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic
questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part,
absent from the discussion.
Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base
that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready
soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these
were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the
largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have
engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which
American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means
Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt,
these are among America’s bravest and best.
So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged,
highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons
on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding
airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial
airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns
in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry
their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we
should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.
Question 2: If the federal government–including the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of
dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and
intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not
protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily
guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the
country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they
might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that,
because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in
charge gave him a pass?
Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan,
had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda;
that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American
views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager,
“included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and
telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution”;
and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American
activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such
an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be
allowed to advance to the rank of Major?
I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured
out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government
that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians,
pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second
Amendment activists–and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of
course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-
American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who
have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and
must be “understood.”
As Prager quotes NPR’s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in
combat, he must have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.”
No, I’m not kidding. That’s what he said. (I’ll pause while you pick
yourself up off the floor from laughing.)
To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C.,
anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American
point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative,
Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous.
Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and
the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted
“Jesus is greatest!” instead of what he really said, “Allah is
greatest!” right before opening fire?
If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims
(and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do
with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original
question: If the federal government–including the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of
dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and
intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not
protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily
guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the
country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they
might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?
Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type
laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and
Bill of Rights–and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every
corner and crevice of our lives–are actually doing anything to make us
safer? You’ve got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is
stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it
proves that.
Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with
only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3
times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained
warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the
most.
According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he
was allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America’s finest warriors
for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100
rounds of ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30–and was
finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE
BUILDING. I’ve got to tell you: I cannot get my brain around this one.
Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight,
they know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives.
They are trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy.
Had even a small group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if
they came at him from multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan
would not have been subdued–and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the
on-rushers would have been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them
all. That is a fact! And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hasan
was not only unmolested by soldiers inside the building, but he was
allowed to leave the building entirely, and then get shot by civilian
policemen? Again, this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me.
None.
Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the
case, the scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had
opened fire from various vantage points–especially if they had rifles–
it would have made unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That
scenario would make sense. The “one shooter with two handguns”
explanation makes no sense.
I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of
course, some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are
trained warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-
killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained
civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed
attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and
stop a hijacking–a task infinitely more difficult than for a group of
highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by
scores or hundreds in a large building–tell me again how Hasan was
able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of
people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this
makes no sense.
Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of
the events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred.
Which, after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are
being told, is becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then
again, I haven’t believed much that the federal government or major
news media has told me since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I
must say, this story serves only to further fuel my skepticism
jaf
"Iconoclast" <gold...@nym.hush.com> wrote in message news:74aeda06-1416-4a0e...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
From the Alex Jones website, www.infowars.com:
http://www.infowars.com/questions-regarding-the-fort-hood-massacre/
Chuck Baldwin
November 20, 2009
Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base
that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready
soldiers.
Soldiers are paid to wage war.
Soldiers are issued and carry weapons ONLY in an active combat zone.
No military base is an active combat zone.
Soldiers, Marines, Saliors, and Airmen are not allowed to load their weapons in an active combat zone until they are clear their
base.
Always been that way. Always will be that way.
It's called accident prevention.
If Baldwin had ever served, he would know that.
If Baldwin had had a brain he would know that.
Question 2: If the federal government�including the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of
dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and
intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws�could not
protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily
guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the
country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they
might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that,
because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in
charge gave him a pass?
They can't. That's why they are the gubbermint.
Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with
only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3
times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained
warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the
most.
...I�ve got to tell you: I cannot get my brain around this one.
Obviously.
Typical Baldwin twitness.
John
hal
<gold...@nym.hush.com> wrote:
>From the Alex Jones website, www.infowars.com:
>
>http://www.infowars.com/questions-regarding-the-fort-hood-massacre/
>
>Chuck Baldwin
>November 20, 2009
>
>By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news
>accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas.
>This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a
>highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic
>questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part,
>absent from the discussion.
>
>Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
If soldiers carried loaded weapons constantly there would be many,
many more killings, both accidental and otherwise. Loaded weapons
only in a combat zone. That way friendly fire incidents can be hidden
in the chaos of combat.
No Way losers
> From the Alex Jones website, www.infowars.com:
>
> http://www.infowars.com/questions-regarding-the-fort-hood-massacre/
>
> Chuck Baldwin
> November 20, 2009
>
> By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news
> accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas.
> This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a
> highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic
> questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part,
> absent from the discussion.
>
> Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
>
> After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base
> that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready
> soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these
> were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the
> largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have
> engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which
> American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means
> Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt,
>
> So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged,
> highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons
> on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding
> airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial
> airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns
> in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry
> their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we
> should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.
>
> Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of
> dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and
> protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily
> guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the
> country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
> politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they
> might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that,
> because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in
> charge gave him a pass?
>
> Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan,
> had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda;
> that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American
> views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager,
> telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution�;
> and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American
> activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such
> an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be
> allowed to advance to the rank of Major?
>
> I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured
> out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government
> that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians,
> pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second
> course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-
> American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who
> have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and
>
> As Prager quotes NPR�s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in
> combat, he must have suffered from �pre-traumatic stress disorder.�
> No, I�m not kidding. That�s what he said. (I�ll pause while you pick
> yourself up off the floor from laughing.)
>
> To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C.,
> anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American
> point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative,
> Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous.
> Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and
> the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted
> greatest!� right before opening fire?
>
> If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims
> (and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do
> with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original
> Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of
> dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and
> protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily
> guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the
> country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
> politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they
> might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?
>
> Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type
> laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and
> corner and crevice of our lives�are actually doing anything to make us
> safer? You�ve got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is
> stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it
> proves that.
>
> Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with
> only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3
> times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained
> warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the
> most.
>
> According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he
> for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100
> finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE
>
> Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight,
> they know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives.
> They are trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy.
> Had even a small group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if
> they came at him from multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan
> on-rushers would have been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them
> all. That is a fact! And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hasan
> was not only unmolested by soldiers inside the building, but he was
> allowed to leave the building entirely, and then get shot by civilian
> policemen? Again, this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me.
> None.
>
> Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the
> case, the scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had
> it would have made unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That
> explanation makes no sense.
>
> I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of
> course, some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are
> trained warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-
> killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained
> civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed
> attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and
> highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by
> able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of
> people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this
> makes no sense.
>
> Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of
> the events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred.
> Which, after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are
> being told, is becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then
> news media has told me since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I
> must say, this story serves only to further fuel my skepticism
caught emailing terrorists ?
None4U
"No Way losers" <nolo...@att.net> wrote in message
news:dNGdnbUlI9pdCpfW...@giganews.com...
> Iconoclast wrote:
>> From the Alex Jones website, www.infowars.com:
>>
>> http://www.infowars.com/questions-regarding-the-fort-hood-massacre/
>>
>> Chuck Baldwin
>> November 20, 2009
>>
>> By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news
>> accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas.
>> This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a
>> highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic
>> questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part,
>> absent from the discussion.
>>
>> Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
>>
>> After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base
>> that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready
>> soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these
>> were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the
>> largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have
>> engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which
>> American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means
>> Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt,
>>
>> So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged,
>> highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons
>> on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding
>> airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial
>> airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns
>> in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry
>> their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we
>> should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.
>>
>> Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of
>> dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and
>> protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily
>> guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the
>> country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
>> politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they
>> might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that,
>> because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in
>> charge gave him a pass?
>>
>> Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan,
>> had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda;
>> that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American
>> views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager,
>> telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution�;
>> and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American
>> activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such
>> an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be
>> allowed to advance to the rank of Major?
>>
>> I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured
>> out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government
>> that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians,
>> pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second
>> course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-
>> American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who
>> have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and
>>
>> As Prager quotes NPR�s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in
>> combat, he must have suffered from �pre-traumatic stress disorder.�
>> No, I�m not kidding. That�s what he said. (I�ll pause while you pick
>> yourself up off the floor from laughing.)
>>
>> To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C.,
>> anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American
>> point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative,
>> Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous.
>> Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and
>> the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted
>> greatest!� right before opening fire?
>>
>> If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims
>> (and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do
>> with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original
>> Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of
>> dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and
>> protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily
>> guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the
>> country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
>> politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they
>> might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?
>>
>> Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type
>> laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and
>> corner and crevice of our lives�are actually doing anything to make us
>> safer? You�ve got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is
>> stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it
>> proves that.
>>
>> Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with
>> only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3
>> times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained
>> warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the
>> most.
>>
>> According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he
>> for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100
>> finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE
>>
>> Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight,
>> they know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives.
>> They are trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy.
>> Had even a small group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if
>> they came at him from multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan
>> on-rushers would have been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them
>> all. That is a fact! And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hasan
>> was not only unmolested by soldiers inside the building, but he was
>> allowed to leave the building entirely, and then get shot by civilian
>> policemen? Again, this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me.
>> None.
>>
>> Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the
>> case, the scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had
>> it would have made unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That
>> explanation makes no sense.
>>
>> I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of
>> course, some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are
>> trained warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-
>> killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained
>> civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed
>> attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and
>> highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by
>> able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of
>> people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this
>> makes no sense.
>>
>> Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of
>> the events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred.
>> Which, after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are
>> being told, is becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then
>> news media has told me since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I
>> must say, this story serves only to further fuel my skepticism
> The question is Why was this islamic shit head not shot when he was
> caught emailing terrorists ?
I can only say , that Military bases are not armed to the teeth every
minute. A crowd full of unarmed solgiers is a target. And just because
they are trained, doesnt mean they can kickass at a moments notice. Most
likely they are not capable of doing much but walking around. And the
Government created this by their politically correct , but blatently wrong
practice.Of hiring Muslims in the first place. The poor and foreigners
are being used as pawns to overthrow America. The government thrives on
creating fear situations and chaos to take advantage of. There is an
agenda. This is going to continue to happen until foreigners are locked
out. Or The Muslims are given the helm and the rights to crate laws to
enslave us. As in the Netherlands. In which case civilians will be the
targets , not the military.
SaPeIsMa
"hal" wrote in message news:4b0a928f...@news.newsguy.com...
Really ?
On what do you base this presumption
What about soldiers who are ALWAYS armed in Iraq and Afghanistan
Do you have ANY data from there to support your claim ?
Or are you just spewing more ignorant left-wind propaganda ?
Dan
> From the Alex Jones website, www.infowars.com:
> Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
They were home.
> Question 2: If the federal government�including the Department of
> Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of
> dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and
> intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws�could not
> protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily
> guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the
> country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
> politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they
> might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?
We are intelligent.
> Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with
> only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3
> times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained
> warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the
> most.
Dunno.
Dan
Gunner Asch
wrote:
I think you got it in one.
Gunner
Colin
4ax.com:
Actually there are statistics from countries where soldiers are supposed to carry their sidearms always
and everywhere. A case in point is Israel. With more than 80,000 (at least) under arms at all times the
number os shootings is as follows:
Accidental discharge (may or may not have caused an injury): 1 per year (sometimes 2).
Mass shootings at army bases: 0
Mass shootings of civilians: 0
I don't think we would do any worse. Especially since accidental discharges happen usually whe the
weapons are cleaned, which happens anyway, even if soldiers are not allowed to carry them
--
Read and be merry http://blog.rankarmor.com
None4U
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IkKOm.78234$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
> Iconoclast wrote:
>> From the Alex Jones website, www.infowars.com:
>
>> Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
>
> They were home.
>
>> Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of
>> dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and
>> protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily
>> guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the
>> country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
>> politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they
>> might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?
>
> We are intelligent.
>
>> Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with
>> only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3
>> times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained
>> warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the
>> most.
>
> Dunno.
>
> Dan
Reloading takes about 2 seconds. Firing the hanguns into crowds doesnt take
much when everyone ducks.
Whats the problem here.
spicpussy
attacks were characterized and described by various fine arts folks as
"works of art" for their success and almost flawless execution. On
Bush's watch!
Almost likewise, the still-alive Fort Hood killer DID achieve his
original mission, whether it was ordered by Islamic crazies or
internally inspired from within Major Nidal Malik Hasan.
So, instead of directing your knee-jerk, childish and petulant disgust
and hatred at the perpetrator(s), you shallow-thinkers should lay
blame where it ought to have been brought after 9/11 -- at the once-
United States' sorry security and intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA,
DOD, etc.) that enabled both horrors to take place!
.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Then they too are at fault for allowing your $2 a trick mommy and the
drunken lout who boffed her, to get preggers?
Damn. Well..that problem will be taken care of in less than 3 yrs.
Shrug
Gunner
>
>
>.
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton