Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Unhinged Muslim & One Incompetent General

Posted on 11/05/2009 7:58:38 PM PST by SwaggerStick

More intriguing to me than the story behind an unhinged Muslin is how in the hell a General could stand before America and deal out so much misinformation – there was only one shooter who had two pistols, he was shot dead and the person who shot the shooter was also shot dead.

Now I know why so many of our young are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Generals don’t know their asses from their elbows. One would expect miss information from civilians, but hearing it from seasoned military people who are very accustomed to battle is amazing.

When you have a General who lacks the common sense to realize there is no way in hell one man with two pistols could kill 11 and wound 31 you have a General who will lead our soldiers to slaughter.

Not only was the General dead wrong with his information, his second press conference was hours late with only a passing mention of him being tardy.

I served 3 years in the Army and 4 years in the Air Force, all I can say is I hope to hell we never face off with Russia or China with Generals like this.


TOPICS: Local News; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: army; nidalmalikhasan; yayanothervanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-142 next last
To: Shimmer1; SoldierDad

No insult was intended. My apologies if it was taken as such.


101 posted on 11/06/2009 9:48:44 AM PST by altair (I want him to fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: uncitizen
If that's what happened, the chances are apparently 100%.

Perhaps the two exchanged fire. Both were wounded and the officer bled out before medical help could arrive. While the murderer was wounded in a way that incapacitated him, but he did not bleed out.

102 posted on 11/06/2009 9:53:28 AM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TWfromTEXAS
I do not watch any TV. I did not know we that did not trust trained soldiers to be armed at all times. It seems like a very stupid rule.

I intend NO disrespect to any of our serving and past members of the armed forces.

103 posted on 11/06/2009 9:55:03 AM PST by altair (I want him to fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
No disrespect intended to you, sir. My disbelief is at what seems like a totally idiotic rule. There have been plenty of stupid things done in our names by our government, disarming soldiers seems like one of the most stupid.

I offer my apologies if you took it as an insult to you.

104 posted on 11/06/2009 9:58:29 AM PST by altair (I want him to fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: altair

No insult taken - we’re on the same side here.


105 posted on 11/06/2009 10:02:52 AM PST by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: altair

So you really think 30,000 guys should be walking around a US Army post with loaded weapons? Why? You think 250,000 troops throughout the US should be armed? Why? You think all sailors aboard ship should be armed?


106 posted on 11/06/2009 10:03:44 AM PST by TWfromTEXAS (Life is the one choice that pro choicers will not support.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: altair

Those with power of decision making in the Military and the civilian authorities (read - Congress) do not explain why they disarm out soldiers on Military Installations. Perhaps it’s because the civilian powers that be do not trust Military members. Regardless, if there had been soldiers with arms at the time of the shooting there would possibly have been fewer deaths/injured - we will never know.


107 posted on 11/06/2009 10:06:34 AM PST by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SwaggerStick

Gen. Russell Honere can’t be everywhere.


108 posted on 11/06/2009 10:08:08 AM PST by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Navy Seals do great work. :O)


109 posted on 11/06/2009 10:11:37 AM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Wolf-Lake
Worth repeating:

One of the first things the General stated at the press conference was that he had personally spoken with the 'president' ....
If Obama is involved with what info gets out to the public, we can expect full "transparency" /sarc

110 posted on 11/06/2009 10:14:19 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 289 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1
Good for your son, the Navy has some of the best...My Navy son was always arguing with my Air Force son as to which had the better Fighters F 15 or F16 (At least I think that was the 2 fighters they argue over.) One of them has a co-pilot and the other doesn't. Thats all I remember as it was back in the Carter/Reagan days...
111 posted on 11/06/2009 10:17:21 AM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Most anyone with three 15 round magazines could fire 45 shots in about 90 seconds. And that would be a slow pace. Bang. One thousand one. One thousand two. Bang. Pretty damned slow. And magazines are cheap. Having four or five would not be outrageous.


112 posted on 11/06/2009 10:20:39 AM PST by Vermont Lt (My wife reads my posts. In case the FBI shows up, we will have cookies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TWfromTEXAS
So you really think 30,000 guys should be walking around a US Army post with loaded weapons?

Yes.

Why?

It's their sworn duty to be armed and dangerous.

You think 250,000 troops throughout the US should be armed?

Yes.

Why?

Same reason as above. It's our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I expect military personnel to be especially trustworthy in that respect. I'm a pacifist, but I'm not stupid. If you cannot trust a soldier with a loaded gun, something is seriously wrong with either the soldier or the system or both.

Do you realize how helpless this incident makes our military look?

113 posted on 11/06/2009 10:26:15 AM PST by altair (I want him to fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Patriot2A

Having been on the other end of a pistol un a standoff situation I can tell you from experience that the first thing you do is piss your pants. And they you try to run away. And we were all pretty tough guys at the time.


114 posted on 11/06/2009 10:27:55 AM PST by Vermont Lt (My wife reads my posts. In case the FBI shows up, we will have cookies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: altair
Well General, a hundred years of Generals and Admirals disagree. There is no need to arm 19 years olds on US Army bases in this country.

Further I didn't make the rule so argue with those that did.

115 posted on 11/06/2009 10:42:26 AM PST by TWfromTEXAS (Life is the one choice that pro choicers will not support.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: SwaggerStick
I realize this thread is getting old and that there are two sides to this discussion. But in another thread on the same general subject, I posted the following:

I'm willing to bet that Sergeant Munley, a Department of Defense civilian law enforcement officer, was carrying a 9mm loaded with military ball ammunition. Ball ammo has great penetrating power but little stopping power. Likewise I suspect that the Major was carrying ball ammo. I wouldn't speculate on the caliber of his weapon(s) other that to say that it is likely it/they were loaded with high-capacity magazines. On another thread folks with no knowledge of US Army policy regarding the carry and use of firearms on military facilities have speculated as to how it was unbelievable that a single shooter, an out of shape doctor with little or no firearms training could have done what he did without help. Here are some facts: The possession of a firearm by a member of the military while on a military facility is strictly prohibited. It is a court martial offense since it is a direct violation of a direct order by a superior officer (the facility commander). All weapons owned by the Army are locked in an arms room and secured by a variety of security devices i.e. chains and padlocks, locked vault doors etc. Even weapons that are carried by soldiers during training are never loaded except on live fire ranges. All ammo is accounted for by a senior NCO and or officer and signed in and out. Military policemen and DOD police who provide law enforcement and security on Army posts are the exception. Even they, however, are prohibited from carrying weapons unless they are on duty. How do I know this? I spent five years in the US Army as a military policeman, two years in the US Air Force as a security policeman and more than 30 years as a cop. The military (at least the Army) is paranoid about some 18 year old with a grudge going after his fellow soldiers with a military weapon. Consequently, they lock up the weapons. (You can't very well lock up the soldiers) Now, as to the scene of the shooting on Ft. Hood: Imagine a crowded room, something like 300 people standing in line, standing at tables and sitting in chairs waiting for their number to be called; picture perhaps a hospital waiting room or the lobby of a hotel at a convention. Hundreds of people in a relatively small space. All unarmed; all thinking that the last thing they have to worry about is getting shot by a fellow soldier. Imagine a man in uniform walking in with brief case. He is a guy wearing the rank of Major, o boss, so to speak. He goes to a corner of the room or behind a counter and pulls out one or two guns and fires into the crowd. Some men rush him and get shot in doing so. Some dive for cover, some run for the doors. But remember he is shooting into a mass of people. He virtually can't miss. He shoots into the backs of those trying to flee. The bullets, in some cases pass through one person and into a second. He keeps shooting and reloading, one gun always loaded to hold off people while he reloads another. That he only killed 12 is miraculous. This takes less than three minutes. Finally, after what seems like an eternity, a cop shows up and engages the Major. He is now concentrating on the cop and is shot four times. He still manages to wound the cop before either being unable to shoot because of his injuries or because he is unable to reload or he is out of ammunition. I urge all of you armchair generals; swaggerstick and your compatriots to stop and think about this. You serve no valid purpose by speculating when you weren't there, don't know the facts and have a paranoid view of the world. Stop and let the truth come out. Ultimately, it will. Just wait. PLEASE

Subsequent to posting the above, I learned that the killer was armed with a FN Herstal Five-Seven pistol which comes with a 20 round magazine. You're way off base in your speculation. Nuff said.

116 posted on 11/06/2009 11:29:57 AM PST by oneolcop (Lead, Follow or Get the hell out of the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

See 91, I’ve been in countless clinics on military bases in my day and can’t recall any time where there were no armed personell present, both during daytime and nighttime visits.

Yep the doctors and nurses and staff are not armed, but I can’t think of a time in any of them where I was in a clinic where at lest one MP wasn’t on premises dealing with a “patient” for one cause or another.

Lets also note, if the reports continue this guy wasn’t using 2 semi pistols, he had 1 semi and 1 non-semi, 40+ folks shot with semi and revolver before he’s confronted? Even with a dual clip I’m having a hard time with the facts as presented at present. They just aren’t passing the smell test of my experiences.


117 posted on 11/06/2009 12:01:18 PM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1

He carried at the Reserve station, not on a base, I made that very clear. He was not in trouble, in fact they were ordered to be on guard for attack. A reserve station is NOT a base, its a building in a civilian area and a high profile relatively soft target for a terrorist attack.

Yes, they were carrying openly.

Amazing how many people don’t know what they don’t know, but damned well can tell you what you know.


118 posted on 11/06/2009 12:04:36 PM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: TWfromTEXAS
Well General

I'll shut up now. If you think disarming soldiers is a good idea, O.K.

I'm a year younger than the man occupying the oval office and I had more leadership experience prior to his assuming office.

119 posted on 11/06/2009 12:07:18 PM PST by altair (I want him to fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: altair
I did not say it was a good idea I said that's the way it is. Do you carry a gun? I do. Should everyone carry, I think so. The fact is our military does not think it a good idea.

I see you are from India, are you allowed to carry a weapon? Should you be?

120 posted on 11/06/2009 12:18:18 PM PST by TWfromTEXAS (Life is the one choice that pro choicers will not support.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-142 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson