PDA

View Full Version : Fort Hood Shooting


lomalinda
11-05-2009, 11:28 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Let's see how the Anti's try to overlook the fact that these were military guys.

The lady on MSNBC is stressing that "just because they're wearing military fatigues and shooting on a base in no way means they're military people."

Flopper
11-05-2009, 11:42 AM
It's the same thing on Fox, they really don't know if they're military yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html

There are a lot of civilians on that base.

But it will be interesting to see what the anti's say, since they repeat so often that the "highly trained and screened" LEO's and military are the only ones that can be trusted with firearms.

(No offense intended to military or LEO.)

k1dude
11-05-2009, 11:52 AM
I suspect they will now consider banning the military from having guns.

shooten
11-05-2009, 11:57 AM
This reminds me of the Al Quaida wanna be's from back east a few years back. They stopped them that time...

professionalcoyotehunter
11-05-2009, 12:01 PM
sucks to hear this.

Mitch
11-05-2009, 12:23 PM
But it will be interesting to see what the anti's say, since they repeat so often that the "highly trained and screened" LEO's and military are the only ones that can be trusted with firearms.

No one wins with this, since after Virginia Tech our side was saying the problem was the only guns on campus were in the hands of the shooter.

TaxAnnihilator
11-05-2009, 12:26 PM
First Thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=238170)

lomalinda
11-05-2009, 12:49 PM
MSNB:

"Captured shooter has an Arabic-sounding name."

Hmm...

lomalinda
11-05-2009, 12:55 PM
Army official:

"All shooters military personnel...Primary shooter used two handguns..."

Decoligny
11-05-2009, 1:04 PM
No one wins with this, since after Virginia Tech our side was saying the problem was the only guns on campus were in the hands of the shooter.

A lot of people do not realize that on the average military base, the only people who are actually armed are the Military Police.

Other than at the firing range, the average military member does not handle a firearm as part of their day to day duties. They are issued weapons upon deployment and turn them back in to the armory upon return. It is actually more likely that there are less guns in the general population on a base than in an off base town of equal population. Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses are not recognized on military bases. Open Carry is only allowed in the performance of official duties while in uniform with Government Issued weapons.

A screwed up as it sounds, in reality, a military base is essentially one large gun free zone.

Decoligny, TSgt, USAF (Retired)

Mitch
11-05-2009, 1:12 PM
A screwed up as it sounds, in reality, a military base is essentially one large gun free zone.

I believe it. It's not my father's military.

lomalinda
11-05-2009, 1:14 PM
Chris Matthews and another guy are talking about how handguns allow you to run into a place with concealed weapons, with hundreds of rounds in high-cap magazines.

Always a way to spin it for one's purposes.

Rahm's out there figuring out how to avoid "letting [this] good tragedy go to waste."

Mitch
11-05-2009, 1:17 PM
Rahm's out there figuring out how to avoid "letting [this] good tragedy go to waste."

He learned that in the IDF.

tango-52
11-05-2009, 1:30 PM
Not drawing any conclusions about motive based upon his name but:

The suspected gunman was identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.

woodsman
11-05-2009, 1:50 PM
Chris Matthews and another guy are talking about how handguns allow you to run into a place with concealed weapons, with hundreds of rounds in high-cap magazines.

Always a way to spin it for one's purposes.

Rahm's out there figuring out how to avoid "letting [this] good tragedy go to waste."


Latest news is the shooter was a convert to Islam. We'll see how that bone head Matthews handles that one.

lomalinda
11-05-2009, 1:51 PM
He sure won't be getting a "chill down his leg" like he does when Obama speaks.

Shane916
11-05-2009, 1:56 PM
A lot of people do not realize that on the average military base, the only people who are actually armed are the Military Police.

Other than at the firing range, the average military member does not handle a firearm as part of their day to day duties. They are issued weapons upon deployment and turn them back in to the armory upon return. It is actually more likely that there are less guns in the general population on a base than in an off base town of equal population. Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses are not recognized on military bases. Open Carry is only allowed in the performance of official duties while in uniform with Government Issued weapons.

A screwed up as it sounds, in reality, a military base is essentially one large gun free zone.

Decoligny, TSgt, USAF (Retired)

Intriguing. I had always wondered about that. Good to know.

lomalinda
11-05-2009, 2:04 PM
Most useful defense against the **** Rahm et al will say about this:

"A screwed up as it sounds, in reality, a military base is essentially one large gun free zone."

spencerhut
11-05-2009, 2:04 PM
People have the wrong impressions about weapons on bases. Like the previous poster said, they are only in the hands of MP's unless you are at the range. Anyone getting into the military thinking they get to play with guns all the time will be sorely disappointed. When you deploy it's different, but in the states you will hardly even see your weapon.

M1A Rifleman
11-05-2009, 2:04 PM
MSNB:

"Captured shooter has an Arabic-sounding name."

Hmm...

Just heard the name of the dead shooter: XXX, XXXX, Hassan. Hmm is that an Irish name? :rolleyes: Sounds like a terror plot to me!

Rob454
11-05-2009, 2:07 PM
There are no guns allowed on any bases for military personnel to keep with them unless they're guards or they're military police or shore patrol or guard duty etc. basically someone who is authorized to carry a weapon with them during the normal course of their duty.
other than that I had to sign my guns in/leave my guns at the armory if I RESIDED on base. If I lived OFF BASE my guns came with me. If you get caught with your guns on the base you get in trouble. You carry guns when you go to the range or training but otherwise they get turned back in and they're really really good at making sure that ALL weapons get turned in. I'm sure some guns have grown legs and walked away but I bet it rarely happens. i personally have never witnessed that or heard of it happening.
Reason IMO is there is a lot of crap that goes on a base and leaving guns around makes more trouble. At least these days it does.
You would be surprised at what happens inside our military bases.

G17GUY
11-05-2009, 2:09 PM
Damn nutcase.

reidnez
11-05-2009, 2:26 PM
You'd be surprised at the kind of maladjusted people that make it past MEPS with serious psychological problems. In my mere four years in the Corps, I could name five people off the top of my head, whom I would rather not have next to me with a weapon. They ranged from the oddball (one kid lost his meal card and bank card, and didn't eat for three days because he was afraid to tell anyone) to the downright unstable--two guys in the field who had their weapons taken away in separate incidents, because they made death threats on NCO's they didn't like. The fact is, all the services--even the "elite" Marines--need warm bodies. The result is that a lot of guys who should wash out in boot camp (and would have 30 years ago), are instead pushed through. The Army has been particularly hard-hit by recruitment and retention difficulties (mainly because they are the largest service) and their recruitment standards have plummeted in the last couple of years.

The thing that struck me was that this guy was a Major--a career officer with a few years of service under his belt. He waited a long time to snap. I'm sure it will take months before there is any reliable background info, but it will be interesting to find out what was going on behind the scenes.

ETA: in a further irony, Maj. Hasan was also apparently a mental health professional!

bill104
11-05-2009, 2:36 PM
I'll Ad that the first reports I herd, was there was 2 guys armd with M-16's then they went on to Explain that a M-16 was a semi auto assualt weapon, I laughed, but I hear their saying now there was 3 and the one named had two hand guns and died. nothing more about the other 2 yet, But I bet they have funny sounding names to.

Ding126
11-05-2009, 2:57 PM
Bless all the families & military people.

wash
11-05-2009, 3:02 PM
The thing that struck me was that this guy was a Major--a career officer with a few years of service under his belt. He waited a long time to snap. I'm sure it will take months before there is any reliable background info, but it will be interesting to find out what was going on behind the scenes.

ETA: in a further irony, Maj. Hasan was also apparently a mental health professional!
Doctors in the service get big ranks quickly so he might not have been in all that long...

greed647
11-05-2009, 4:07 PM
-November 5th is the same date Saddam Hussein and his fellow defendants were sentenced to death, in 2006.
-Hasan is from Jordan, who's main religion is Sunni Muslim, which is the same religion as Hussein.
-50% Palestinian, which was supported by Hussein.
- It's being reported that after he received word that he'd be deployed to Iraq, Hasan was emphatic about not wanting to go to Iraq.
Again this is all speculation, but these pieces of information seem to provide a possible motive.

reidnez
11-05-2009, 4:16 PM
Doctors in the service get big ranks quickly so he might not have been in all that long...

That is true actually, I hadn't thought of that.

lomalinda
11-05-2009, 4:19 PM
A letter to the NY and LA Times ought to address the fact that the base was essentially a perfect place for an armed person to attack large numbers of people who were (by law, perhaps) unable to carry weapons of their own.

This situation is similar to the Virginia Tech situation and, just like Rahm, we ought not to let a good crisis go to waste with this one.

Sgt Raven
11-05-2009, 4:56 PM
A lot of people do not realize that on the average military base, the only people who are actually armed are the Military Police.

Other than at the firing range, the average military member does not handle a firearm as part of their day to day duties. They are issued weapons upon deployment and turn them back in to the armory upon return. It is actually more likely that there are less guns in the general population on a base than in an off base town of equal population. Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses are not recognized on military bases. Open Carry is only allowed in the performance of official duties while in uniform with Government Issued weapons.

A screwed up as it sounds, in reality, a military base is essentially one large gun free zone.

Decoligny, TSgt, USAF (Retired)

That might be true for the Air Force. Fort Hood is a Combat Arms Army Fort and the home base of the 4th ID and the 1st CavD. As a 11B I had my weapons out of the Arms-room almost every day.

Alaric
11-05-2009, 5:46 PM
My condolences to the soldiers and their families affected by this tragedy. Something broke down in the system to allow this to happen (Take your pick: recruiting, base security, intelligence, ...).

That said, this is already being spun as another Virginia Tech massacre. The details are lost upon the MM in their rush to condemn guns and gun owners.

How do we begin to confront the media bias when incidents like this (inevitably perhaps) occur?

RandyD
11-05-2009, 6:26 PM
A lot of people do not realize that on the average military base, the only people who are actually armed are the Military Police.

Other than at the firing range, the average military member does not handle a firearm as part of their day to day duties. They are issued weapons upon deployment and turn them back in to the armory upon return. It is actually more likely that there are less guns in the general population on a base than in an off base town of equal population. Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses are not recognized on military bases. Open Carry is only allowed in the performance of official duties while in uniform with Government Issued weapons.

A screwed up as it sounds, in reality, a military base is essentially one large gun free zone.

Decoligny, TSgt, USAF (Retired)

I noted that you were in the Air Force, your observation may be true for an Air Force base but if you took a tour of Camp Pendleton post 9-11 you would notice many Marines with 30 round magazines inserted into their M-16s.

lomalinda
11-05-2009, 7:25 PM
The shooter's still alive and in stable condition.

CavTrooper
11-05-2009, 7:26 PM
I noted that you were in the Air Force, your observation may be true for an Air Force base but if you took a tour of Camp Pendleton post 9-11 you would notice many Marines with 30 round magazines inserted into their M-16s.

Only at the range.

You wont see anyone with a hot weapon outside of the range on any Military base, MPs excluded.

radioburning
11-05-2009, 7:54 PM
Condolences to the families.

lomalinda
11-05-2009, 8:00 PM
Important distinction. Good to suss these things out here before taking it to the LAT tomorrow in the letters to the editor section.

6172crew
11-05-2009, 8:03 PM
Only at the range.

You wont see anyone with a hot weapon outside of the range on any Military base, MPs excluded.

When I was stationed at Camp Pen everyone who had guard duty at the armory had a magazine inserted into a M16A2. This was in 1993 and I remember the guys who had the duty saying there were only a few rounds in the mag or some other crazy deal but they were armed.

As a young E2 I was picked to clean a bunch of belt fed stuff and watched the whole deal over a 10 hour CLP fest.

KylaGWolf
11-05-2009, 8:07 PM
Condolences to the families. That goes for ALL military bases. Unless your military job requires you to be armed on duty on base such as LEO you won't be armed. If you live in base housing your weapons MUST be in the armory no exceptions. Even if that military housing is off post you still cannot have handguns in the house.

From last report I heard this doctor had a bad review and the one coming up was not going to be any better. And of course the anti-gunnies are going to be all over this one. What was really sad is some of the comments on the news threads about the "evil" guns and such. Also was disgusted by the news media coverage even before they had any facts they were already going for the should guns be illegal. I finally turned off the TV just to stop listening to the drivel and normally I am am one that has it on for at least background noise.

bubbapug1
11-05-2009, 8:10 PM
Gun Free zones are great habitats for mass murderers...case proven...horribly.

Fantical Muslim shrink...in a gun free zone....trained in tactics and firearms....and again, out of political correctness no one could challenge this guy even though he showed a lot of warning signs...what next, recruitment for any Gitmo prisoner who wants to join up?

RRangel
11-05-2009, 8:31 PM
My condolences to the soldiers and their families affected by this tragedy. Something broke down in the system to allow this to happen (Take your pick: recruiting, base security, intelligence, ...).

That said, this is already being spun as another Virginia Tech massacre. The details are lost upon the MM in their rush to condemn guns and gun owners.

How do we begin to confront the media bias when incidents like this (inevitably perhaps) occur?

Support alternative media whenever you can is one very good idea. There is no pretense today where some of these media outlets stand in relation to the political spectrum, and especially when it comes to gun rights.

Today the alternative media has helped expose major bias from mainstream media. The fact that certain media outlets will go to great lengths to push their political agenda is now the talk of common household discussion. In doing so they have become their own worst enemy.

bubbapug1
11-05-2009, 8:58 PM
Support alternative media whenever you can is one very good idea. There is no pretense today where some of these media outlets stand in relation to the political spectrum, and especially when it comes to gun rights.

Today the alternative media has helped expose major bias from mainstream media. The fact that certain media outlets will go to great lengths to push their political agenda is now the talk of common household discussion. In doing so they have become their own worst enemy.

What ever happened to Walter Cronkite. although he was very biased against Nixon...

Mike d'Ocla
11-05-2009, 9:07 PM
Only at the range.
You wont see anyone with a hot weapon outside of the range on any Military base, MPs excluded.

Generally so, but it's a little more complicated. And it's likely to vary among the services and at different posts or camps.

USMC units in training will have weapons available at all times, to simulate combat conditions. These units are closely supervised by their noncoms 24/7. Ammo is not available except for range work and then it's very carefully accounted for.

But when I was at Pendleton in training in the '60s, when we drew guard duty, we carried weapons with magazines loaded with live rounds.

wellerjohn
11-06-2009, 2:01 AM
Fantical Muslim shrink...in a gun free zone....trained in tactics and firearms....and again, out of political correctness no one could challenge this guy even though he showed a lot of warning signs...what next, recruitment for any Gitmo prisoner who wants to join up?

.

Wonder how long and how may lifes will be lost to political correctness. We are at war with islam...and they are at war with us. America needs to wake up and smell the coffee before it's to late. In the 40's Japanese did not cause any terrorist incidents....cause we locked them up until after the war was over. Yet radical islamic fundimintalist run around our counrty with impunity, plotting:o ......even get elected as president!

FreshTapCoke
11-06-2009, 2:26 AM
In the 40's Japanese did not cause any terrorist incidents....cause we locked them up until after the war was over.

It's unfortunate we didn't lock up the Chinese, Germans and Italians while we were at it.

HAVOC5150
11-06-2009, 6:46 AM
I was just watching Fox news and they were interviewing a father of one the victims. He said that his daughter (who was shot in the shoulder) told him that before the sh*t head started shooting he said "Allah Akbar" meaning god is great. It is also what terrorists say when they attack our troops.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all of our troops and their families.

Bugei
11-06-2009, 6:47 AM
I've quit caring why people do these things. It always seems to boil down to "he's nuts."

But with 500 people -- Army people -- present, it's just a damned shame that the problem wasn't resolved by 300 people drawing their weapons and cutting this guy to doll rags on the spot.

Can't blame the legislators for this one, though they're certainly holding people's arms everywhere else but military bases. In this case, though, standard military policy that you have given up your right to have a weapon on you at all times is at fault. So thanks, DoD, for the Fort Hood massacre.

And thanks to the California Legislature for all the future gun-free zone massacres in our state. You're doing a great job of looking out for us, and I'm sure that someday the citizens of California will reward you appropriately.

The next time someone goes nuts and shoots people in one of our California legislatively-mandated victim-disarmament zones, we should call it the "De Leon Memorial Massacre". The one after that could be called the "Roberti-Roos Killings." Perhaps a tasteful memorial should be placed in some public place.

I'm a little grumpy today.

Decoligny
11-06-2009, 7:15 AM
Heard this morning that the Major was actually sitting at his desk in the deployment processing line when he stood up shouted "Allahu Akbar" and started shooting.

It may indeed be that this was no "terrorist plot", but that doesn't mean it wasn't a terrorist act. It was a lone gunman who decided to go Jihadi.

It was also reported that he had posted on some website about 6 months ago something along the lines of "A suicide bomber is the same as a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers". This caused him to be briefly looked at by the FBI.

He survived taking four bullets. He will undoubtably receive the death penalty.

FeuerFrei
11-06-2009, 7:22 AM
Sad day for America.
Terrorist attack on a military base and nobody had a weapon to take this piece of garbage out as soon as shots rang out?
Our own military people aren't allowed to carry weapons on base?
WTF!! I say let any military person carry weapons on base anytime. It would have reduced losses to this scumbag. IMO.

ilbob
11-06-2009, 7:29 AM
But when I was at Pendleton in training in the '60s, when we drew guard duty, we carried weapons with magazines loaded with live rounds.
A guy I used to work with was a reservist in the MPs. His unit got called up one weekend to guard some military aircraft that were at O'Hare airport for an air show.

They were each given a magazine with 5 rounds in it and the magazine was inserted. They were not allowed to chamber a round though. They were required to attach a lanyard to the gun.

Story as he told me. One of the aircraft was still highly secret. The air force painted a circle on the tarmac around it about 50 feet away from the aircraft. The guards were not allowed inside the circle, and they were directed to use deadly force against anyone who entered within the encircled area who was not on the list of authorized persons they were given. He stated they did not find it necessary to shoot anyone the night he was sgt of the guard there.

dantodd
11-06-2009, 7:33 AM
Sad day for America.
Terrorist attack on a military base and nobody had a weapon to take this piece of garbage out as soon as shots rang out?
Our own military people aren't allowed to carry weapons on base?
WTF!! I say let any military person carry weapons on base anytime. It would have reduced losses to this scumbag. IMO.

There are a lot of assumptions in that post. CNN had running along their ticker this AM that some of the casualties were believed to be from "friendly fire" though they didn't go into any details.

dixieD
11-06-2009, 7:41 AM
He survived taking four bullets. He will undoubtably receive the death penalty.

Hopefully it will involve hanging. How does the military justice system exercise capital punishment these days?

oldrifle
11-06-2009, 7:45 AM
Yeah and the US government also grossly violated the rights of and greatly disrupted the lives of 120,000 patriotic and America-loving Japanese-Americans in the name of "security". History has shown that Japanese internment was a fruitless endeavor that probably didn't make us any safer and only punished innocent people. I'm sure if you asked the majority of those people if they where Japanese or American at that time, most of them would have proudly said "I'm an American!". I don't know if they were feeling too proud after having been torn from their livelihoods and treated like terrorists. I know that's a chapter in our history I'm not too proud of.

It's this kind of generalized thinking about groups of people that will make it more dangerous for all of us.

In the 40's Japanese did not cause any terrorist incidents....cause we locked them up until after the war was over.

inbox485
11-06-2009, 7:47 AM
I suspect they will now consider banning the military from having guns.

They already did that a long time ago. It was a civilian officer that hit him with the first shots. She just got out of surgery:
http://policelink.monster.com/news/articles/125968-civilian-army-police-officer-wounded-out-of-surgery?page=1

inbox485
11-06-2009, 7:51 AM
Yeah and the US government also grossly violated the rights of and greatly disrupted the lives of 120,000 patriotic and America-loving Japanese-Americans in the name of "security". History has shown that Japanese internment was a fruitless endeavor that probably didn't make us any safer and only punished innocent people. I'm sure if you asked the majority of those people if they where Japanese or American at that time, most of them would have proudly said "I'm an American!". I don't know if they were feeling too proud after having been torn from their livelihoods and treated like terrorists. I know that's a chapter in our history I'm not too proud of.

It's this kind of generalized thinking about groups of people that will make it more dangerous for all of us.

I'm with you on this one. I'd rather have some terrorist's bullet in my head than to start locking up what ever race we want to call the boogie man these days. Too many have died for our freedom and robbing an entire race of their rights is no better than pissing on their graves.

creampuff
11-06-2009, 7:51 AM
America needs to wake up and smell the coffee before it's to late. In the 40's Japanese did not cause any terrorist incidents....cause we locked them up until after the war was over. Yet radical islamic fundimintalist run around our counrty with impunity, plotting:o ......even get elected as president!

While I am tired of the MSM trying to dance around that fact that we are indeed at war against a group of people who has a goal of exterminating all of the "infidels". And for whatever bizarre reason this country treats Christians as more of a threat than a radical Muslim - however, we still need to be factual.

Not all the Japanese were locked up. Only the West coast Japanese. 1/3rd of the population of Oahu was Japanese, and that was also the location of the pre Pearl Harbor spy - but there was no internment of the Japanese in Hawaii. It is very rare for the Supreme court to admit a mistake, and yet they did in the internment of the Japanese. The military report that led to the internment, was false and incorrect. In a forum, where we take great offense to depravation of any of our constitutional rights, I find it ironic that we condone the mass round up of any people group without due process.

As much as I am opposed to BHO, I doubt that he is a radical Islamist.

However, I do agree with you; in that the Islamist is almost an "untouchable" group in the media, and I don't get it. If a right wing person says this Ft Hood shooting was the result of a radical Islamist, he would be massacred in the news as a racist/hater. If someone from the Islamist side, said..no we are peace loving peope..and by the way "death to america!!"..he would be hailed as open minded, and speaking due to his years of oppression.

Eckolaker
11-06-2009, 8:08 AM
First off, one of the guys was a PhD in Psychiatry. Dollars to donuts he was taking some form of anti-depressant as well.

I'm willing to bet there is much more going on here than any of us can imagine.

This story will dominate the news for weeks, and there are some huge bills sprinting through the legislature that may now go largely uncovered by the MSM.

Conspiracy isn't a Theory it is a crime.

lomalinda
11-06-2009, 8:11 AM
Guys,

This went from being the proverbial albatross around the neck to a "great crisis" to use to our opportunity when it was clear that:

1. The shooter was a military guy using military equipment and ammo.

2. The victims were all unarmed (possibly due to military regulations.

We need to ram this home with the news media and everyone we talk with regarding this issue. This doesn't overlook the terrible tragedy but rather it complements it, as the tragedy was avoidable/would have been lessened on multiple levels had the victims been armed.

oldrifle
11-06-2009, 8:30 AM
Agreed... this is one gun-related tragedy that could actually work out in our favor. Not to sound callous, but we have to take what we can get these days.

No surprise that the ignorant liberal blogosphere is trying to spin this story into an argument against guns because they think everyone on a military base is armed at all times. We need to do what we can to dispel this BS.


Guys,

This went from being the proverbial albatross around the neck to a "great crisis" to use to our opportunity when it was clear that:

1. The shooter was a military guy using military equipment and ammo.

2. The victims were all unarmed (possibly due to military regulations.

We need to ram this home with the news media and everyone we talk with regarding this issue. This doesn't overlook the terrible tragedy but rather it complements it, as the tragedy was avoidable/would have been lessened on multiple levels had the victims been armed.

yellowfin
11-06-2009, 8:38 AM
Perhaps there is hope that those responsible for the no carry policy on base will be held accountable for it. The military does often punish those responsible for making decisions that result in senseless screwups that cost lives. This is clearly a senseless and preventable mistake that falls into that category.

vf111
11-06-2009, 8:51 AM
1. The shooter was a military guy using military equipment and ammo.



His guns were military? I read a story yesterday that had a quote from a military guy that the guns were not issue equipment. I took that to mean they were privately owned handguns. I do notice the reports are making a big deal out of one of the guns being semi-automatic; probably the writer being ignorant to the fact an SA is not equivalent to a machine-pistol.

Nodda Duma
11-06-2009, 9:17 AM
I would be very hesitant of using a tragedy to further a political agenda.

-Jason

Guys,

This went from being the proverbial albatross around the neck to a "great crisis" to use to our opportunity when it was clear that:

1. The shooter was a military guy using military equipment and ammo.

2. The victims were all unarmed (possibly due to military regulations.

We need to ram this home with the news media and everyone we talk with regarding this issue. This doesn't overlook the terrible tragedy but rather it complements it, as the tragedy was avoidable/would have been lessened on multiple levels had the victims been armed.

gunn
11-06-2009, 9:17 AM
Wonder how long and how may lifes will be lost to political correctness. We are at war with islam...and they are at war with us. America needs to wake up and smell the coffee before it's to late. In the 40's Japanese did not cause any terrorist incidents....cause we locked them up until after the war was over. Yet radical islamic fundimintalist run around our counrty with impunity, plotting ......even get elected as president!

It's unfortunate we didn't lock up the Chinese, Germans and Italians while we were at it.

We did lock up the German citizens but not those of german ancestry (unlike with Japanese). Did these people of German ancestry start an insurgency? No.

http://iowa-travel.suite101.com/article.cfm/pow_camp_remains_in_small_iowa_town

As for whether or not the American-born folks of Japanese ancestry would have started an insurgency in America, I have no information on that so I cannot debate that point. However, you simply CANNOT damn the whole group. After all, take a look at the 442nd Infantry Regiment which was made up mostly of young japanese-americans from the camps. They still hold the distinction of being the most decorated military unit in the US history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

Now, I'm not arguing that there are islamists who feel that they are in a holy war with America. I believe they do exist and I AGREE that the MSM should bring up this point more However, I am curious though why you think that ALL muslims in America should be locked up "just like the Japs".... do you think there's something in their melanin?

Most of the muslims I know and work with are like every other American; they bust their *** working to send their kids to the best schools and to make a better lives for their families. They aren't particularly interested in blowing their asses up. It's the underclass, the ones that don't see a better future that are twisted and exploited. These are the ones that go all jihadi on people.


-g

oldrifle
11-06-2009, 9:20 AM
Why? The antis do it every single time... or are you being sarcastic?

I would be very hesitant of using a tragedy to further a political agenda.

-Jason

Mike d'Ocla
11-06-2009, 9:27 AM
First off, one of the guys was a PhD in Psychiatry. Dollars to donuts he was taking some form of anti-depressant as well.

I'm willing to bet there is much more going on here than any of us can imagine.

This story will dominate the news for weeks, and there are some huge bills sprinting through the legislature that may now go largely uncovered by the MSM.

Conspiracy isn't a Theory it is a crime.

This is just plain uninformed fantasy.

Psychiatry is a medical specialty, so the guy was an M.D. or equivalent, not a Ph.D. Psychologists have Ph.Ds. or equivalent.

Anti-depressants do sometimes have bad side effects. There are many variables, but the anti-depressants that have come into wide use in the past 20 years or so have saved far more lives than they have hurt.

What I think is important is the fact that this guy had a poor performance evaluation and was allowed to continue in his military career. He was probably far less than the best psychiatrist to have on staff treating soldiers with problems. Those soldiers need and deserve the best treatment.

What this incident shows is that the military, by and large, still does not provide the needed highest level of psychiatric care to soldiers who get emotionally bent-out-of-shape from overly-long tours of very tough duty in our longest war.

We are grinding people up and then failing to take good care of them after multiple tours of duty. Like we've done in every war. I think this is rotten policy. The evidence of this is abundant if you care to look outside the mainstream media. This is a fact, not a fantasy.

When people make uninformed statements about complex topics, no one benefits. Suggesting that anti-depressants are bad and destructive is exactly like anti-gun people saying that guns are bad and destructive. It's exactly the same and it is absolutely not useful. Returning soldiers with PTSD have one class of drugs which can help them live with their ruined nervous systems: anti-depressants.

The shouting matches between those who see guns as bad, or drugs as bad, or anything as being simple or black-and-white, do all of us no good at all.

Nodda Duma
11-06-2009, 9:29 AM
No I'm not being sarcastic. If all your friends stepped in a pile of poop, would you do it to? No? Then why would you compromise your moral ethics simply because a bunch of left wing nuts compromise theirs? Just counter their arguments and leave it at that.

-Jason

Why? The antis do it every single time... or are you being sarcastic?

oldrifle
11-06-2009, 9:38 AM
You're right... I'm with you on that. But don't you ever get tired of always taking the high road? Sometimes I get frustrated with taking the morally superior position when others have no qualms about exploiting such situations to further their causes.

No I'm not being sarcastic. If all your friends stepped in a pile of poop, would you do it to? No? Then why would you compromise your moral ethics simply because a bunch of left wing nuts compromise theirs? Just counter their arguments and leave it at that.

-Jason

wash
11-06-2009, 9:59 AM
What this incident shows is that the military, by and large, still does not provide the needed highest level of psychiatric care to soldiers who get emotionally bent-out-of-shape from overly-long tours of very tough duty in our longest war.
This is it right here.

The military won't pay competitive wages for doctors so they give away a medical school education in return for a commitment.

There are a lot of doctors that wind up doing other things with their life because they aren't very good doctors. In the military they don't have that option, no matter how bad they are.

I'm guessing this guy got in to medical school before 9/11 and at that point he was stuck.

The guy should have known better if he was opposed to war against muslims, he obviously new about the first Iraq war and should have known about things like the WTC truck bomb.

He shouldn't have been there. The only reason he was is the "free" medical school.

If the military hired civilian doctors for a competitive wage, this guy probably would have never even become a doctor.

vf111
11-06-2009, 11:05 AM
It's unfortunate we didn't lock up the Chinese, Germans and Italians while we were at it.

I suspect you're being sarcastic, but China was on the Allied side during WW2 and kept hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops busy in China where they could not be used to reinforce the Japanese islands the US were invading as part of Nimitz's island hopping campaign.

Mitch
11-06-2009, 11:13 AM
But don't you ever get tired of always taking the high road?

Never. It's not tiring at all.

MasterYong
11-06-2009, 11:16 AM
Am I the only one that finds it interesting that yesterday the media stated that there was a coordinated attack at Fort Hood involving two gunmen with rifles? The news stated that two men opened fire simultaneously at two locations on the base, one in the medical building and another in a theater.

Suddenly today it was a lone gunman (sorry couldn't help but use that term) that was a 'terrist. One man wounded 31 people with a handgun before being taken down on a MILITARY BASE??? I just don't buy it. Wasn't this guy surrounded by trained military personnel? Seems like he shoulda been tackled before getting off a minimum of 31 shots.

I'm just saying it sounds fishy. My heart goes out to the victims. One thing is for sure I doubt we'll ever really know what happened or why.

:TFH::TFH::TFH:

wash
11-06-2009, 11:26 AM
There are survivors, the second story keeps getting supported by witnesses.

I don't see a conspiracy here, at least not yet (the anti's might try to cook something up).

MasterYong
11-06-2009, 11:52 AM
There are survivors, the second story keeps getting supported by witnesses.

I don't see a conspiracy here, at least not yet (the anti's might try to cook something up).

This whole thread is a conspiracy!!!

Ok all joking aside...

The only reason I brought it up is that while I know the media gets details wrong all the time, it's usually trumped-up stuff like the way they keep accidentally saying "semi-auto" like that makes a gun illegal when used in a crime. The kinds of misreporting, coming from every major news agency (which I realize they copy each other a lot) seem like they were awfully cohesive, yet so far from what is now being reported as the truth. Earlier today, an army spokesperson was quoted as saying the intruder was dead. Now he's alive.

Just odd is all. Tragedy aside, I do enjoy a good mystery. I hope the wounded victims fully recover and the wounded families hold their loved ones in the highest regard in their memories.

Lone_Gunman
11-06-2009, 12:02 PM
Heard this morning that the Major was actually sitting at his desk in the deployment processing line when he stood up shouted "Allahu Akbar" and started shooting.

It may indeed be that this was no "terrorist plot", but that doesn't mean it wasn't a terrorist act. It was a lone gunman who decided to go Jihadi.

It was also reported that he had posted on some website about 6 months ago something along the lines of "A suicide bomber is the same as a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers". This caused him to be briefly looked at by the FBI.

He survived taking four bullets. He will undoubtably receive the death penalty.



I bet he's not going to be happy when he wakes up to 72 FBI agents rather than 72 virgins. Why anyone would want 72 virgins is beyond me anyway... too much trouble. :rolleyes:


-LG

U2BassAce
11-06-2009, 12:17 PM
Am I the only one that finds it interesting that yesterday the media stated that there was a coordinated attack at Fort Hood involving two gunmen with rifles? The news stated that two men opened fire simultaneously at two locations on the base, one in the medical building and another in a theater.

Suddenly today it was a lone gunman (sorry couldn't help but use that term) that was a 'terrist. One man wounded 31 people with a handgun before being taken down on a MILITARY BASE??? I just don't buy it. Wasn't this guy surrounded by trained military personnel? Seems like he shoulda been tackled before getting off a minimum of 31 shots.

I'm just saying it sounds fishy. My heart goes out to the victims. One thing is for sure I doubt we'll ever really know what happened or why.

:TFH::TFH::TFH:

I assume he was in uniform. I assume the first responders were in uniform also (it was a military base) and coming in from all directions. It is not out of the realm of possibility that in the chaos witnesses outside the building thought responding MP's with rifles were the shooters. (correct me if I am wrong, but MPs, unless working the gate, do not normally carry around rifles on base) So the sight of riflemen was probably a bit shocking to really notice the details beyond there uniform. Which again would have matched the shooter's uniform.

He wounded 31 and killed 13 for a total of 44 shot.

I have also heard unconfirmed reports that some of the wounded MIGHT have been hit by friendly fire. One thing is for sure this is going to take a while to unwind everything.

HAVOC5150
11-06-2009, 12:18 PM
Hopefully it will involve hanging. How does the military justice system exercise capital punishment these days?

Hopefully better than the Kalifornia criminal justice system does.

MasterYong
11-06-2009, 12:19 PM
I bet he's not going to be happy when he wakes up to 72 FBI agents rather than 72 virgins. Why anyone would want 72 virgins is beyond me anyway... too much trouble. :rolleyes:


-LG

I think Robin Williams's joke was:

"Who the heck would want 72 virgins??? I mean, after about 5 or 6 wouldn't you just want a professional?"

;)

lomalinda
11-06-2009, 12:23 PM
The "Japanese internment camp analogy" falls flat on its face. We were at war with Japan, and naively thought that locking up Americans of Japanese descent would help with security. There were no documented reports of Americans of Japanese descent siding with the Japanese to justify this decision.

The Muslim issue is very different. There's no "Muslim" nation, but there are Muslims all around the world, some of whom have killed even their own countrymen--whom they've sworn to defend--because they are involving them in a war with fellow Muslims. Clearly, they're choosing sides here.

Bottom line: no internment camps will help this situation. Honest, open dialog is a must to promote tolerance. But pretending that there isn't a real threat from Islam that is simply not present from other religions is not working.

putput
11-06-2009, 12:34 PM
I heard cnn say at least once that it was 31 INJURED. So, that's not necessarily 31 wounded by this one guy with two semi-auto pistols but maybe some injuries from the chaos. My own paranoia tells me that they (the media) would very much like to make it seem as though one guy with 2 semi-auto pistol could kill and WOUND so many. :TFH:

mej16489
11-06-2009, 12:46 PM
I assume he was in uniform. I assume the first responders were in uniform also (it was a military base) and coming in from all directions. It is not out of the realm of possibility that in the chaos witnesses outside the building thought responding MP's with rifles were the shooters. (correct me if I am wrong, but MPs, unless working the gate, do not normally carry around rifles on base) So the sight of riflemen was probably a bit shocking to really notice the details beyond there uniform. Which again would have matched the shooter's uniform.


I'm regularly on US Military Bases all over the country. My primary office is on a USAF installation.

Since 9/11 its not at all unusual for me to see security forces with rifles anywhere they go. Prior to 9/11 it still happened, but not nearly as common as it is now.

As I understand it, any weapon checked out to someone must stay within their immediate possession 100% of the time.

Brown Rock
11-06-2009, 4:43 PM
Oh man here we go. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cop-killer-gun-thought-ft-hood-shooting/story?id=9019521

lomalinda
11-06-2009, 5:12 PM
Not that it counters the FUD spread about the FN pistol (and all firearms owned by civilians in general) but most of the comments attached to the link are by gunnies.

It's always the same old nonsense, though. "Cop killer" gun/bullets according to someone in the Federal ranks. Oh boy.

.454
11-06-2009, 5:14 PM
Hasan the Islamist pig apparently had some issues with women. Avoided his female colleagues at work, wouldn't allow his picture to be taken as part of department photos because they included women, etc., and didn't fare much better with Muslim women either; apparently they were never devout enough for him or something. So I imagine he'd be quite distressed when he wakes up from the coma he's in and learns that it was a woman who took him out.

bubbapug1
11-06-2009, 5:26 PM
I'm with both of you on this, but I also think the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were correct, not because of any racial intonation, because it has nothing to do with race, but with the saving of millions of american lives had we had to invade the island.

As to the Middle East, 9/11 was similar to pearl harbor, and the populations of Syria, Jordon, Iran, Palastine, Afganistan, Yemen, and especially Saudi Arabia supported and condoned the attack. We need to fight a real war, a war of destruction like sherman waged on the south to take the fight out of the culture, only than will we have peace....


I've quit caring why people do these things. It always seems to boil down to "he's nuts."

But with 500 people -- Army people -- present, it's just a damned shame that the problem wasn't resolved by 300 people drawing their weapons and cutting this guy to doll rags on the spot.

Can't blame the legislators for this one, though they're certainly holding people's arms everywhere else but military bases. In this case, though, standard military policy that you have given up your right to have a weapon on you at all times is at fault. So thanks, DoD, for the Fort Hood massacre.

And thanks to the California Legislature for all the future gun-free zone massacres in our state. You're doing a great job of looking out for us, and I'm sure that someday the citizens of California will reward you appropriately.

The next time someone goes nuts and shoots people in one of our California legislatively-mandated victim-disarmament zones, we should call it the "De Leon Memorial Massacre". The one after that could be called the "Roberti-Roos Killings." Perhaps a tasteful memorial should be placed in some public place.

I'm a little grumpy today.

I'm with you on this one. I'd rather have some terrorist's bullet in my head than to start locking up what ever race we want to call the boogie man these days. Too many have died for our freedom and robbing an entire race of their rights is no better than pissing on their graves.

yellowfin
11-06-2009, 6:05 PM
You're right... I'm with you on that. But don't you ever get tired of always taking the high road? Sometimes I get frustrated with taking the morally superior position when others have no qualms about exploiting such situations to further their causes.What's frustrating is that our side doesn't take EVERY road, throwing 100% of everything possible at it when the other does. You can't beat an enemy playing nicer than them or playing less than full strength when they don't hold anything back. As if we don't want it as much as they do--and many on our side honestly don't and that just sucks.

wellerjohn
11-06-2009, 6:26 PM
Most of the muslims I know and work with are like every other American; they bust their *** working to send their kids to the best schools and to make a better lives for their families. They aren't particularly interested in blowing their asses up. It's the underclass, the ones that don't see a better future that are twisted and exploited. These are the ones that go all jihadi on people.


-g

I will give you that. But given there religion islam which is about murder, killing and forced conversion to the religion. If they are belivers in the religion, I am happy to lump them all in the same basket. Lots of folks will call it racism but I look at as being practical, they want to kill me and my countrymen and we don't want to die. You may look at a muslim and see them as just another person, I look at them as a liability. People are sheep and will stand around to be slaughtered.
Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQdZgojOFI

technique
11-06-2009, 8:24 PM
I will give you that. But given there religion islam which is about murder, killing and forced conversion to the religion. If they are belivers in the religion, I am happy to lump them all in the same basket. Lots of folks will call it racism but I look at as being practical, they want to kill me and my countrymen and we don't want to die. You may look at a muslim and see them as just another person, I look at them as a liability. People are sheep and will stand around to be slaughtered.
Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQdZgojOFI

I agree with you 110%...

Here is my favorite quote of the day:

For the last 1400 years, Islam has sought to expand. Their religion commands them to convert the entire world to Islam. There is no religious tolerance in Islam. Ask any Muslim today if he/she is commanded to convert the world to Islam and they will affirm it.

Where this can be done aggressively, by military force, they have done so. Only naked force has stopped aggressive expansion. When they were not able to directly conquer territory, they have immigrated and converted. How do you think 1/4 of the world's population became Muslim?

Unless you want your descendants to be Muslim, living under Sharia law, Islam as a religion must be recognized as an enemy to every other religion and every non-muslim nation on the planet. Anything less and you are simply hiding your head in the sand. If you can find anything in their history that contradicts what I've stated, please present it. If you can't, you're really just hoping that somehow, someway, they are different now. That despite everything they've done for 1400 years, THIS generation is different. That this generation's actions in Lebanon 1983, Lockerbie Scotland, Somalia, USS Stark, Khobar Towers, NYC, etc., are somehow different. And lets not forget that they're hatred is not confined to the US. The London tubes and stations, Spain, etc.

We are long past the time when being a socially progressive and superior liberal was a viable alternative to a hard nosed realist.

Just remember...

November 4th 2009 Nidal Malik Hasan was just one of the "peaceful" Muslims we all hear about.

November 5th 2009 Nidal Malik Hasan KILLED innocent people screaming الله أكبر

.454
11-07-2009, 9:09 AM
George W. Bush Visits Fort Hood, Wounded Soldiers
FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) ― Former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, visited wounded soldiers and their families near the site of the worst mass shooting on an Army post in the United States.

The Bushes made their private visit to Fort Hood's Darnall Army Medical Center on Friday night. Bush spokesman David Sherzer said in an e-mail that the couple thanked Fort Hood's military leaders and hospital staff for the "amazing care they are providing."
------------
Link (http://cbs11tv.com/wireapnewstx/George.W.Bush.2.1298076.html)

President Bush went to Ft. Hood with his wife to offer the families of the murdered soldiers his sympathy and support. Where is Obama?

And why was Obama so quick to condemn police officers and call them "stupid" when they arrested Mr. Gates but not quick to condemn Nidal Malik Hasan by calling him what he is: an Islamic terrorist?

Two Shots
11-07-2009, 9:28 AM
Where is Obama?


Pushing his Agenda.

President Barack Obama made a rare visit to Capitol Hill earlier in the day to meet with members of the House Democratic caucus and push forward proposed the health care measure.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

.454
11-07-2009, 9:37 AM
Pushing his Agenda.



Exactly. Here is a video (http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/11/bush-visits-ft-hood-obama-still-in.html) of what the Commander In Chief is doing today instead of being with the families of the Ft. Hood victims.

cortayack
11-07-2009, 10:17 AM
[QUOTE=gunn;3323928]We did lock up the German citizens but not those of german ancestry (unlike with Japanese). Did these people of German ancestry start an insurgency? No.

Actually your wrong. Germans of ancestry where lockup or put into camps. They where also held 2 years after the WW2 was over as well....U.S Government also lockup/camps the Nazis(those who believed in it) with the NON-Nazis...Which didn't help either...

Mike d'Ocla
11-07-2009, 11:55 AM
Originally Posted by wellerjohn
"But given there [sic] religion islam [sic] which is about murder, killing and forced conversion to the religion. If they are belivers [sic] in the religion, I am happy to lump them all in the same basket. Lots of folks will call it racism but I look at as being practical, they want to kill me and my countrymen and we don't want to die. You may look at a muslim [sic] and see them [sic] as just another person, I look at them [sic] as a liability."

"For the last 1400 years, Islam has sought to expand. Their religion commands them to convert the entire world to Islam. There is no religious tolerance in Islam. Ask any Muslim today if he/she is commanded to convert the world to Islam and they will affirm it."

Wow! I guess I should be shocked that some posters here have never heard of The Crusades or The Spanish Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan, the pro-lifers who shoot doctors in the name of Jesus. How about the Lehi (Stern) Gang?

Folks, please read a little history. All the Abrahamic religions have their murderous factions, while their scriptures celebrate love and peace. The Koran is worth reading because it is especially celebrates peace and kindness.

The evidence is pretty strong that most Muslims as well as most Jews and Christians are not murderous fanatics.

The real problem is tolerance. People who think that they are always right and the other guy is always wrong are well on the road to fanaticism. A good book to read on fanaticism is The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Hoffer, by the way, was an ordinary guy, a longshoreman. But he knew a fanatic when he saw one. Read his book before you become one yourself.

wellerjohn
11-07-2009, 4:49 PM
Originally Posted by wellerjohn
"But given there [sic] religion islam [sic] which is about murder, killing and forced conversion to the religion. If they are belivers [sic] in the religion, I am happy to lump them all in the same basket. Lots of folks will call it racism but I look at as being practical, they want to kill me and my countrymen and we don't want to die. You may look at a muslim [sic] and see them [sic] as just another person, I look at them [sic] as a liability."

"For the last 1400 years, Islam has sought to expand. Their religion commands them to convert the entire world to Islam. There is no religious tolerance in Islam. Ask any Muslim today if he/she is commanded to convert the world to Islam and they will affirm it."

Wow! I guess I should be shocked that some posters here have never heard of The Crusades or The Spanish Inquisition, etc. How about the Lehi (Stern) Gang?

Folks, please read a little history. All the Abrahamic religions have their murderous factions, while their scriptures celebrate love and peace. The Koran is worth reading because it is especially celebrates peace and kindness.

The evidence is pretty strong that most Muslims as well as most Jews and Christians are not murderous fanatics.

The real problem is tolerance. People who think that they are always right and the other guy is always wrong are well on the road to fanaticism. A good book to read on fanaticism is The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Hoffer, by the way, was an ordinary guy, a longshoreman. But he knew a fanatic when he saw one. Read his book before you become one yourself.

I have heard time and again about islam being about love. The book itself tells another story about death and conversions under the treat of death. We don't speak arabic and don't fully understand the book, luckily others do. I would encourage you to watch the movie FITNA. As for the crusades that was 200 years ago and mainly catholics from England. Currently, right now, today the islamic people are terrorizing and killing all over the world. Been going on every since oil was found in the middle east, just as soon as they had money they started killing and conquering.

Mike d'Ocla
11-07-2009, 9:23 PM
As for the crusades that was 200 years ago and mainly catholics from England. Currently, right now, today the islamic people are terrorizing and killing all over the world. Been going on every since oil was found in the middle east, just as soon as they had money they started killing and conquering.

Nope, absolutely.

Just a little bit of knowledge of history would be so helpful to you. The date of the English Reformation, January 15, 1535, was the end of the Catholic Church in England. Ever heard of Henry VIII? I guess not.

And you must have cut all those high school civics classes where they tell you that those Englishmen who first settled our country were fleeing just the same kind of religious intolerance that you avidly espouse.

lomalinda
11-07-2009, 10:28 PM
Mike,

What do you suppose the Englishmen to whom you refer would do with radical Islamic terrorists?

Your attempt to liken their unwillingess to accept religious intolerance fails big-time here because it's the Islamist's intolerance that is at issue. The Crusades are very old news, so it's time to let go of Christian intolerance and deal with what we have on our plate.

inbox485
11-09-2009, 8:13 AM
Mike,

What do you suppose the Englishmen to whom you refer would do with radical Islamic terrorists?

Your attempt to liken their unwillingess to accept religious intolerance fails big-time here because it's the Islamist's intolerance that is at issue. The Crusades are very old news, so it's time to let go of Christian intolerance and deal with what we have on our plate.
+1. This absolute crap pile of tolerating Islamofascist terrorism just because it is there religion to kill non muslims and even those muslims not of the same sect as they are is nauseating. I don't know of any Judeao/Christian/Abrahamic scripture that advocates beheading non believers unless they convert. Calling worship of violence and hate a religion does not somehow purify their vile acts nor does it make intolerance of their vows to rape, torture, plunder, and kill non-believers a bad thing. I get real intolerant when people swear to kill me at their first convenience.

Mitch
11-09-2009, 9:24 AM
I don't know of any Judeao/Christian/Abrahamic scripture that advocates beheading non believers unless they convert.

You've never read Exodus? That's a pretty important part of the Old Testament, it's surprising you missed it.

There are several examples of exactly that in Exodus. Exodus 32:26-29 is the first that comes to mind, and Exodus 31:15 can easily be interpreted the same way.

inbox485
11-09-2009, 2:37 PM
You've never read Exodus? That's a pretty important part of the Old Testament, it's surprising you missed it.

There are several examples of exactly that in Exodus. Exodus 32:26-29 is the first that comes to mind, and Exodus 31:15 can easily be interpreted the same way.

I was tempted to simply ignore your smug comments, but I'll answer you this once. Don't expect follow ups to anything with a similar tone.

Exodus 31:15 applied only to those under the law of Moses up until the completion of the law of moses. The law of Moses was a covenant between those entering into it and the lord wherein those penalties were known and agreed upon.

Exodus 32:26-29 involved the wide scale application of the death penalty to those non-repentant under the law of moses for acts of idolatry per the law of moses. It was not a crusade or jihad against those of non conforming religions.

Mitch
11-09-2009, 2:53 PM
I was tempted to simply ignore your smug comments, but I'll answer you this once.

My "smug comments" were cites refuting your blanket statement. And I was surprised by the statement because the Old Testament is full of examples of religious intolerance. Mostly in Exodus, but I'm sure a bit of Bible surfing can dig up a lot of examples from Leviticus, Genesis and other parts of the Pentateuch.

Your replies simply insist that Moses' advocacy of killing those not a part of his covenant is somehow different from his advocating killing those of a different religion.

How you square that circle I can't possibly imagine.

inbox485
11-09-2009, 3:02 PM
My "smug comments" were cites refuting your blanket statement.
My reply demonstrated that your refute was lacking.
And your replies simply insist that Moses' advocacy of killing those not a part of his covenant is somehow different from his advocating killing those of a different religion.
In neither example was somebody outside of Moses's covenant killed. If some emom made certain acts within his sect punishable by death and made agreement to those rules a condition of entry to the sect and enforced them only on members of the sect, I wouldn't give a flying rats whiskers about the executions that resulted.
How you square that circle I can't possibly imagine.
How you fail reading at an elementary level escapes me.

inbox485
11-09-2009, 3:11 PM
And I was surprised by the statement because the Old Testament is full of examples of religious intolerance. Mostly in Exodus, but I'm sure a bit of Bible surfing can dig up a lot of examples from Leviticus, Genesis and other parts of the Pentateuch.

You'll find plenty of examples of people living under the law of moses being executed under the law of moses, and chronicles of territorial wars, but I've never seen a single verse where people under the law of Moses were told to kill another people simply because of a difference in beliefs. In fact the house of Isreal was warned at times to be tolerant of outsiders as they had previously been the outsiders. And by no stretch of the imagination will you find a blanket commandment to demand either the head or the conversion of non believers.

I think my point is reasonably settled, and seeing as this is a gun forum, consider me checked out of this squabble.

inbox485
11-09-2009, 3:16 PM
Mike,

What do you suppose the Englishmen to whom you refer would do with radical Islamic terrorists?

Your attempt to liken their unwillingess to accept religious intolerance fails big-time here because it's the Islamist's intolerance that is at issue. The Crusades are very old news, so it's time to let go of Christian intolerance and deal with what we have on our plate.

More importantly, the crusades were a secular matter not supported by canonized texts. The blame for those deeds lie squarely with the clergymen that committed them, and anybody who persists in believing they were acts of God (assuming any such persons still exist).