Posted on 11/07/2009 4:16:52 AM PST by marktwain
Out of the carnage committed by a lone gunman armed with two handguns at Fort Hood on Thursday, there was one refreshing moment of total candor, if not downright common sense. An observation to a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram by Staff Sgt. Jacob Dorisca of Dallas suggests why it is that many people consider the Army to be run by sergeants, and rightly so. According to the newspaper, “Dorisca wondered whether the slayings would lead Fort Hood’s commanding general to rethink the policy of requiring soldiers to remain unarmed while on post.” What occurred at Fort Hood is not a “tragedy” as it is being portrayed in the politically-correct media and political arenas. What happened at Fort Hood is an outrage, and while politicians and the press, and even some (not all) members of The High Road gun rights forum are dancing around the issue of the suspect’s religion, others are not so shy.
Dorisca wondered whether the slayings would lead Fort Hood’s commanding general to rethink the policy of requiring soldiers to remain unarmed while on post. Only military police are allowed to carry firearms.
How the fundamentalist Islamic religious beliefs of alleged shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan may have played a role in the crime must be examined, and they are certainly open to discussion. It should be really no different, or any more off-limits, than a discussion about the disputes between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland a generation ago. (Broadcast and print reports were quick to note that at least one of the guns used in this attack was "a semiautomatic," but they were rather reluctant to mention the suspect's religious background.)
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Americans in general should rethink their policies. We have millions of Moslems living in our midst and, by their own admission, “only” 10% are jihadist fanatics! It’s time for Israeli-style open carry.
I have been wondering if the Hasan could be gay, and that was the real source of his problems.
Good point.
Yes this has been the subject of discussion around my house. You had a building full of combat-tested heros, yet the only hero discussed by the MSM is the female police officer and her partner who arrived at the scene and SHOT BACK after recieving fire. They are hailed as the heros only because they were the only other ones armed besides Hassan. If the veteran victims were armed, Hassan would have been riddled with bullet holes and the two cops would have arrived in time to fill out the reports and instead of getting shot they would have maybe gotten a few paper cuts.
What recent President enacted this policy of unarming military bases to eliminate accidental shootings?
I can’t find the answer for my wife who mentioned Michael Savage was going to a piece on this, but she missed it.
Those innocent American soldiers were sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
There are hundreds of reasons why a person could be denied enlistment in the military. Membership in certain groups is among those reasons.
These banned memberships are there for national security reasons. Similarly the military won’t enlist someone who professes to be a conscientious objector.
Why on earth do we permit people with extreme Muslim viewpoints to either enlist or remain in the service? Are the commanders afraid of repercussions? According to US Law service members can not sue the government for ANYTHING. That would include discrimination.
I recall there have been a few such instances of Muslims shooting soldiers (can’t say they shot “fellow” soldiers because the Muslim offender was never there to be a soldier for the US).
Isn’t it time we start looking closely at some of these outlandish beliefs and weed them out. Most certainly stop enlisting them!
As I read the stories about this Hasan guy - he completed his schooling BEFORE 9/11/01 - that was 8 years ago. His payback for his education was way over! A couple choices exist - outright refuse to deploy, resign your commission, go to Canada, go awol, or just stay home.
Despite what the media is saying this guy had no other reason except his Muslim beliefs to do this.
I am pretty sure he was accruing 3 days of obligated service for each day he spent in training at Walter Reed. He paid back some in Residence, but he had a ways to go yet.
The policy goes back at least to WWII, if not before. Military commanders of installations are given wide latitude in deciding who may be armed on their base. Political correctness has meant that nearly everyone is disarmed on base, as commanders fear to tread on politicial toes because their career may be cut short.
What a hoot watching the MSM trying to spin this as having nothing to do with Islam.
Who are we gonna believe...NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The NYTIMES and WAPO...or our lying eyes?
These people really, really, think we are stupid.
MSM=Pravda.
I served in 1960 and everyone was unarmed except Military Police.
The MP’s served as the law on Post at that time and we never saw civilian police.
The Military Police wrote the traffic tickets, directed traffic and did all of the things a civilian force might do.
Political correctness has nothing to do with the policy of securing all weapons and ammunition.
The real reason is the fear that some one will lose a weapon or there will be injuries from accidental discharges. No commander is willing to place his career at risk.
I don’t know that “gay,” in our understanding, is an operative concept within that culture. It’s quietly accepted, for young Muslim males to have sexual contact with one another prior to marriage. Open, notorious professions of this are not accepted, though, to the point of stoning or public hanging.
It’s also not at all uncommon for older Muslim males to have relations with young boys. I believe this was found to be so open and common in Afghanistan as to be very disturbing to our troops.
Maybe therein lies part of the reason, for the peculiar axis of leftist radicals and militant Islam. Not only do they both want to destroy western civilization in general, but they both undermine Judeo-Christian mores, in word and deed.
The wedge appears to be western feminism. But, feminists remain oddly silent. For that, I have no explanation. Maybe they just see an opportunity to kill off the majority of males, leaving females transcendent? There are weirder notions in currency, among the more radical lesbian contingent, so it’s not out of the question.
The majority unwittingly allowed discourse to be captured and controlled by all these radicals, of wildly differing stripes but all in agreement as to the destruction of this society as we know it. It’s going to be a very difficult exercise, to regain the public square while maintaining our form of governance. They know this.
Agreed.
This is the guy we were not suppose to be afraid of. Not a terrorist, not on any list of names, just a guy living his life and practicing his religion. To me, this event has just neutralized the argument that only 10% are jihadist fanatics.
...but Hasan was 38 years old and unmarried. At some point, he would have had to make a decision regarding his sexuality, a decision that would have been complicated by other decisions that he had made in life, joining the military, joining a radical mosque and the decision not to marry.
I wonder how many of the people that Hasan shot were women? We know that one was a 21 year old, pregnant young woman.
I think that you are correct in the assumption that Hasan was obligated to serve in exchange for his training. One of his relatives mentioned that he had offered to repay the military for his education in exchange for an early out.
Refusing deployment to the Middle East makes no real sense because the man was support, he was not front lines. He was never going to be asked to take arms against fellow Muslims. His job would have been no different in the Middle East than it was at Fort Hood.
Such fear is exacerbated and magnified by political correctness. It has not always been this way. It is hard to understand that officers are deliberately kept disarmed, for example. I have looked at this for four decades, and it appears to me that it has been a deliberate policy to attempt to place British type controls in the American mind.
I carried a loaded pistol on post, as did several hundred other officers, with two each EM each, with rifles & ammo.
This was required each payday when picking up payroll & paying troops monthly.
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.