University of the Health Sciences )
In the wake of yesterday's carnage at Fort Hood, the media is scrambling to find answers about the reported shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and his motives. While they're all asking basically the same questions, here are some they're not asking.
From Lt. Gen. Robert Cone:
Cone said in a press conference Thursday night that "there was no indication" that the weapons used in the shootings were military weapons. Soldiers at the post do not carry weapons unless they are doing training exercises or something of that nature, he said.
"This is our home," Cone said. "So we do have security guards that are here -- the MPs and the Department of the Army civilian police, but soldiers on Fort Hood do not carry weapons."
So didn't the shooter take full advantage of what is essentially a "gun free zone"?
One phenomenon the "mainstream" press is prominently highlighting is "anti-Muslim backlash." Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars notes an inconsistency:
If the attackers had been "Christian Identity" types, does anyone reading this doubt that their religious beliefs, no matter how sick and twisted, would not have been trumpeted by the state-run media?
For that matter, what do you think the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League would be saying, and do you think Chris Matthews would be giving them a forum to take full advantage of their agendas?
And here's one more question I'd really like to see people with investigative journalism team resources explore: In his position as a medical professional treating and diagnosing soldiers with mental health issues, both at Walter Reed and at Fort Hood, did Dr. Hasan report any veterans to the federal government for entry into the NICS "prohibited persons" database? In other words, have "gun control" laws enabled a mass shooter to cause the government to disarm others?
I could come up with a laundry list of other questions, but for now, these will serve to illustrate a larger point. We'll be getting answers to a lot of questions about this incident in the coming days from "Authorized Journalist" outlets. I don't expect we'll be seeing answers to these. Let's hope my cynicism proves unfounded.
Also see: "Lessons from Fort Hood shooting" by Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner Daniel White.
Update: Also see commentary from Kurt Hofmann, Dave Workman and Howard Nemerov.
Comments
My only statement about the soldiers not being armed unless during training events, is that it may be an attempt to conform with Posse Comitatis. Since soldiers are controlled by the Federal Government it would essentially make any actions they take, actions on the Fed.Gov's behalf.
I'm not trying to pass judgement on the idea one way or another, however let's not forget that there are other laws and implications behind the legal status of a soldier.
Good point by Steve, except that the military has been ignoring Posse Comitatis all over the place with illegal checkpoints and shocking displays of criminality at events like the G20 in Philly.
But, a soldier is still a citizen of the U.S. and when they're not soldiering, they have the same unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights as the rest of us. They can be both off-duty and on the base at the same time.
I'm curious to hear if the media will explore/ignore if this shooter attended that Saudi funded islamic high school in fairfax County. Remember the one where citizens said no to commissioners on the expansion of the school and the pols allowed it anyway.
Military bases restrict civilian visitors like you and me from bringing our firearms on base. Somehow I will make everyone safer by un-holstering. They even prohibit base personnel from keeping a sidearm in their vehicle. What about this is keeping with the same oath that the military swears to uphold?
I've been out of the service a long time, but I don't thing anything has changed as far as forearms policies on military bases. They are strictly disallowed. If you life in base housing, your weapon has to be registered with the provost office. If you live in barracks, forget it! Possession of a weapon in the barracks is a big No No.
I find it astonishing that within minutes of the initial reports surfacing the FBI released a statement claiming no terrorism was involved. This is not the first time they've done this. Police and FBI were still searching for potential active shooters and the base was still in full lock down with an undetermined number of active shooters still on the loose.
There is positively no way anyone could make that assessment that quickly. Also the fact that military and media reported the shooter was dead when in fact he very much alive added to my doubts about the real nature of the crime. It should be a fairly easy procedure to confirm whether he was dead or alive.
The bottom line IMO is that even on a highly secured military base on U.S. soil, the 'gun free zone' has once again claimed lives that would otherwise have been save if only the victims were given the opportunity to defend themselves as per the Constitution.
My condolences to the victims and their families.
I was listening to a live interview one of Nasan's cousins was talking about how he could never see this happen and one with Nasan's co-workers who stated that he definitely thought something like this would happen. He stated that Nasan really really really didn't want to get deployed and that he thought that Muslims shouldn't be fighting Muslims. While he didn't know that he had hired a lawyer to fight his deployment orders, he did know that he was getting more and more agitated and aggressive.
Did you guys hear PBOs speach about 'Dept of Interior Biz'...I'd like to give a 'shout out to all my hard workin' peeps'....'doing really good work over there.... oh, and I almost forgot about the guys down at Ft. Hood, uh, let's uh keep'em in our thoughts and prayers...uh, Thank You very much & GBTUSA!"
PBO definitely brought the weak sauce to that conference and put on display how little he thinks of our soldiers and their families.
Nice question on PTSD, David ;-)
TAP, great point. I watched PBO's news briefing yesterday and I was shocked at his introduction. It was truly appalling. I even heard some laughter in the audience as he attempted some humor before discussing the Fort Hood shooting.
If anyone in America has any residual doubts about Obama's wanton contempt for the military and his unsuitability to be the Commander-In-Chief, let them watch that video replay. It was reprehensible and unforgivable on it's face IMO.
If the following posting on Scribd made in May of this year was typed by the accused, it seems clear that the accused's viewpoints on "suicide" attacks are quite different than a typical American's.
(at www-scribd-com/NidalHasan )
"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..."
It's apparent that this guy thought of himself as a Muslim first. He didn't look at himself as an American. He didn't want to shoot other Muslims. Only two questions, (1) How did he get into the military? (2) How did he get the guns onto the post?
@Otter: Most US bases are 'open-posts' meaning that many of them have unmanned guard houses except at the most visible entrances. Visitors can get passes, there are no drug, gun, bomb dogs at the vast majority of our installations.
Hasan joined the Army prior to 9/11 as an officer. As a Major he probably had on-base housing, was not subject to 'barracks inspections'. His problems started, probably because he was a psychologist/therapist assigned to help soldiers cope with the trauma of war.
Can you imagine listening to a Muslim sitting on your couch tell you about how his buddy died, and how he didn't understand how Christians had a right to kill him? How they went on raids and beat-up folks, or shot people, even if by mistake.
How would you console someone that you fundamentally disagreed with and were glad that their actions caused them pain? What if you thought they weren't hurting enough? What if you could strike the heart of your enemies top warriors? Would you do it?
Good questions. I'm still waiting for the mainstream press to identify the murderer as muslim, as of now they are all still "waiting for the facts to come in."
Here's some quotes from msnbc.msn.com/id/33712858
"first-hand accounts from witnesses on the scene that the suspect shouted "Allahu Akbar," which means "God is Great" in Arabic"
"Officials are not ruling out the possibility that some of the casualties may have been victims of "friendly fire," that in the mayhem and confusion at the shooting scene some of the responding military officials may have shot some of the victims."
"I was confused and just shocked," said Spc. Jerry Richard, 27, who works at the center but was not on duty during the shooting. "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."
"A neighbor said Hasan cleaned out his apartment in the days before the rampage." - This means it probably was an 'off-post' apartment, not officers quarters that I had eluded to in my previous post.
To quote an often used phrase, "Once is bad luck, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action."
More victims of "Free Fire Zones." More victims of misguided trust in supposedly non-dangerous people. I'd sooner trust a Hells Angel than any muslim, any day of the week. But then again, I might trust a muslim sooner than I would trust an ATF Agent. Go figure! At least the muslims make no bones about wanting to kill you and yours...
Stupid willful government thinks it prudent to have Muslims on the American side involved in war against their own kind in another land where Muslims reside. This did not likely happened in W W 2. Our Japanese American soldiers were not sent to fight against their brothers in Japan where they? Our government is being over-run with politicians (mainly liberal Democrats) who will do anything possible to even-up the odds in a war by making it just about impossible for us to win any war. We have lost every important war from Korea until now. Little by little America is inching toward being U.N. controlled. Giving the enemy a fair break is not the way for American to wage it's wars.
God forbid the guy kept any people with PTSD from carrying guns. Can't have any unarmed crazy people running around out there, eh?
Did you ever think that maybe the 'state-run media' doesn't ask the questions you ask because they're, well, not insane?
Something about the number of guns/rounds/casualties doesn't add up. The shooter reportedly had two handguns--let's say, 30 rounds total, with possible a couple of extra loaded magazines in his pocket. That's 60 rounds total. Let's say he hit with every round, which is a near impossibility under hectic conditions with real moving targets. So he killed 13 and wounded 30 more with only 60 rounds?
I suspect friendly fire will be discovered as the investigation proceeds.
TC
Leatherneck, I saw a report on FOX last night that one of the guns the shooter used was an FN Five-Seven pistol chambered in 5.7MM and fires the 5.7x28MM cartridge. It has a standard magazine capacity of 20 rounds and can be equipped with a 10 round magazine extension for a total of 30+1 rounds.
IMO the tools used to commit the crime is not relevant as he was going to find someway to wreak havoc and cause maximum carnage, guns or no guns.
There’s enough info already available to conclude without any doubt the killing and wounding of these unarmed American soldiers was a premeditated act of terrorism by a Muslim turned Jihadist.
Many people who decide there’s no reason to continue living or won't face certain situations in their life commit simple suicide but kill only themselves.
Those indoctrinated to the Islamic ideology are brainwashed into believing that killing persons opposed to Islam and other non-believers results in blessings granted in the afterlife.
While the non-indoctrinated might simply kill themselves, this ideology gives purpose and reason to suicidal acts involving the premeditated murder of other people.
In many circumstances Muslims also become victims.
This makes no sense at all to the non-indoctrinated without the knowledge that, as part of the belief system, other Muslims who die as a result of a Jihadist‘s acts become instant martyrs for the cause and are blessed accordingly.
(here's one more question I'd really like to see people with investigative journalism team resources explore: In his position as a medical professional treating and diagnosing soldiers with mental health issues, both at Walter Reed and at Fort Hood, did Dr. Hasan report any veterans to the federal government for entry into the NICS "prohibited persons" database? In other words, have "gun control" laws enabled a mass shooter to cause the government to disarm others?)
Good point David!
Mike also makes a good point; I guess we should be thankful the shooter wasn’t a Christian!
One question that I have is was the shooter on a drug like Prozac
Paul: Beg to differ about Americans of Japanese ancestry in WWII. SOME were sent, as translators, recon specialists. But largely, the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry Regiment were sent to the ETO so that Caucasian Soldiers and Marines wouldn't get confused and start shooting "Japs" who wore our uniforms. If you check, you may find that the men in those two units amassed more personal and unit decorations than any other units of their size in that war. Many of them, from Hawaii, lost relatives in the Pearl Harbor attack. Sen Daniel Inoye (D Hawaii) lost an arm as a Lieutenant with the 442.
The question regarding the shooter at Fort Hood is this: With all the warning signs, why wasn't he stopped earlier? Answer: Our military has become PC about Muslims since 911. "Don't do or say anything which might offend them, or Congress and the ACLU will be calling your commander!"
CORRECT Answer: Don't be a rumor-monger, when issues are raised, do a thorough and fair investigation, then act.
Then to military bases as "Gun Free Zones": In past eras, Soldiers were notorious for drinking, fighting, womanizing. Back when everyone but officers and a few senior NCOs lived in barracks, and civilians gave no thought to the lives of Soldiers (about 40-50 years ago now).
Back then, private firearms, knives, etc. might be kept by the Soldiers in barracks (there was no other place for them). Soldiers also kept their issued small arms in barracks with them. Beginning in the 70's, small arms got moved to "arms rooms", ammo was moved to base-level storage facilities, and it became more and more difficult for individual Soldiers to possess private weapons, including combat/field knives.
Commanders are worried that they can't trust little Johny to not shoot or stab his buddy, thus casting an aspersion on said officer's illustrious career (it's called "risk aversion", and it is practiced with a high degree of proficiency by many of today's officers).
(cont.) Therefore, littly Johny is prohibited from having anything in barracks (or in on-post housing) with which he might injure himself or another.
Little Janie (PFC Jane Doe), at risk of sexual assault from little Johny and his buddies, is required to travel with a "battle buddy", and have a whistle to use to call help should she be attacked. But she is also not allowed the means to defend herself, in case she does so and makes her commander "look bad".
I mobilized at Fort Dix in January, and we were required to give up all knives with blades over three inches in length during an "amnesty period" immediately after reporting on post. This included Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, Majors, a Sergeant Major, and a Master Sergeant. (We got them back just before boarding the plane for Iraq.)
Talk about being offended at being treated like children!
Just a minor quibble...
I really have a problem with calling this guy - and people who do such things - a shooter. He is a murderer, a terrorist, I would even be OK with gunman, but I don't like shooter. I am a shooter. I don't like such connotations being attached to a name I call myself all the time.
Jeff
David,
Now MSNBC is reporting a possible link between the Fort Hood terrorist and the 9/11 hijackers. It's time the media and politicians drop the political correctness and call this an act of terrorism and an act of war. I've included the related links below.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33777070/ns/us_news-tragedy_at_fort_hood
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html
Guys, cut it off! The net is filled with posts of leaks by uniformed personnel. There seems like there was a revolt to avoid being sent as fodder for israel in their proxy wars, and this Muslim was used as the fall guy, exactly as Oswald was used in the assassination of JFK. Check the names of the posters, and get the idea of who is behind the paranoia propaganda machine (Joshua, do you have a JOB?), which only attempts to unconstitutionally confiscate guns. Americans will never surrender to the ZOG, their Right to Bear Arms.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!