Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    TN, the patron state of shootin stuff
    Posts
    1,399

    Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre

    I know this is a long read but it does makes you think. I have worked on many military bases across the country and yes it is true that except for the MP's and security the general population of the base is unarmed. But in question 2 the statement "we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists–and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course" hits the nail right on the head.


    Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre

    Chuck Baldwin
    Prisonplanet.com
    Saturday, Nov 21st, 2009

    By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.

    Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?

    After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt, these are among America’s bravest and best.

    So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.

    Question 2: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in charge gave him a pass?

    Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager, “included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution”; and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?

    I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists–and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and must be “understood.”

    As Prager quotes NPR’s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he must have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.” No, I’m not kidding. That’s what he said. (I’ll pause while you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing.)

    To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted “Jesus is greatest!” instead of what he really said, “Allah is greatest!” right before opening fire?

    If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?

    Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights–and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and crevice of our lives–are actually doing anything to make us safer? You’ve got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.

    Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.

    According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America’s finest warriors for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30–and was finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I’ve got to tell you: I cannot get my brain around this one.

    Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been subdued–and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me. None.

    Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from various vantage points–especially if they had rifles–it would have made unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The “one shooter with two handguns” explanation makes no sense.

    I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course, some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking–a task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a large building–tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.

    Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which, after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven’t believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves only to further fuel my skepticism.

  2.   
  3. #2
    We have to face it. It is not politically correct to point out that a Muslim with ties to known terrorists and had exposed terrorism on more than one occasion should not be in the military with free access to a military base. I guarantee if he had been a Christian it would be a different story. Being a Christian is not politically correct and being able to carry a firearm to protect your self is not either.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    637
    Good read.
    Baldwin is a smart man, very perceptive.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they don't have a real enemy, they'll invent one in order to mobilize us.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC USA
    Posts
    108
    I've never agreed with the DOD policy. I think for an active duty soldier or retired or disabled vet that otherwise qualifies to carry a weapon, a DOD ID card should be a federal license to carry. The idea that a soldier can't be trusted with a personal concealed weapon, but is trusty enough to be given a rifle when I need him/her to defend my country is stoopid and plain hypocritical. They sent me to Iraq where I used a rifle, a knife, a .45, claymores, and grenades. But yet, I can't be trusted to go to the PX on base with my pistol and a CHP? I could understand the restriction on civilians on base, but a soldier hads taken an oath.

    I've never agreed with the idea that an 18 year old can go to war, kill people, and get killed, but yet he can't drink a beer (legally). It doesn't figure.

    Maybe it's just me, but I feel if someone has volunteered to go to war and possibly lose their life, they have basically earned the right to do anything they want except for commit crimes.

    We should start a letter writing campaign and get an answer to why soldiers can't carry weapons on post/base.










    .
    "If it is time to bury your guns, then it is time to dig them up!"

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    St. Louis/Missouri
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by NCjones View Post
    I've never agreed with the DOD policy. I think for an active duty soldier or retired or disabled vet that otherwise qualifies to carry a weapon, a DOD ID card should be a federal license to carry. The idea that a soldier can't be trusted with a personal concealed weapon, but is trusty enough to be given a rifle when I need him/her to defend my country is stoopid and plain hypocritical. They sent me to Iraq where I used a rifle, a knife, a .45, claymores, and grenades. But yet, I can't be trusted to go to the PX on base with my pistol and a CHP? I could understand the restriction on civilians on base, but a soldier hads taken an oath.

    I've never agreed with the idea that an 18 year old can go to war, kill people, and get killed, but yet he can't drink a beer (legally). It doesn't figure.

    Maybe it's just me, but I feel if someone has volunteered to go to war and possibly lose their life, they have basically earned the right to do anything they want except for commit crimes.

    We should start a letter writing campaign and get an answer to why soldiers can't carry weapons on post/base.
    Agreed! A military base should be the safest place on the planet for any soldier.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. - Ronald Reagan

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by BigSlick View Post

    Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre

    Question 2: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in charge gave him a pass?

    Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager, “included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution”; and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?

    I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists–and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and must be “understood.”

    As Prager quotes NPR’s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he must have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.” No, I’m not kidding. That’s what he said. (I’ll pause while you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing.)

    To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted “Jesus is greatest!” instead of what he really said, “Allah is greatest!” right before opening fire?

    If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?

    Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights–and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and crevice of our lives–are actually doing anything to make us safer? You’ve got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.
    You mean this guy?

    Foxes in charge of the hen house?

    I understand why Obama wanted people to wait to investigate.

    Official: Nidal Hasan Had "Unexplained Connections" - ABC News
    A senior government official tells ABC News that investigators have found that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI" than just radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki. The official declined to name the individuals but Congressional sources said their names and countries of origin were likely to emerge so .....

    The FBI said it turned over the information to the Army, but Defense Department officials today denied that. .....

    Isn't the Commander-in-Chief of the Defense Dept. that guy ummmmm what's his name? ...

    -----------------------------------------------------
    You mean this guy?
    Foxes in charge of the hen house?

    PROCEEDINGS REPORT OF THE HSPI PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TASK FORCE
    April 2008-January 2009
    Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration group,
    The Homeland Security Policy Institute
    Presidential Transition Task Force*


    Initiated by HSPI’s Steering Committee in Spring 2008, the Task Force sought to further policy discussions of the top strategic priorities in the area of security in order to generate actionable recommendations, for the Administration taking office in January 2009, designed to effectively meet the most vexing challenges the United States faces today.

    He was a "participant" on that Homeland Defense Security panel which was "to generate actionable recommendations, for the Administration taking office in January 2009"

    "See http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_P...t_05.19.09.pdf . Go to page number 29, Participants: scroll down toward the bottom on the left column."

    Here it is in case you don't have a pdf/acrobat reader

    Participants

    Kevin Gundersen U.S. House of Representatives
    Jeff Gunnulfsen National Petrochemical &. Refiners Association
    Vikram Gupta Homeland Security Institute
    David Hagy U.S. Department of Justice
    Ronna Halbgewachs The George Washington University
    Amanda Halpern U.S. House of Representatives
    Beth Hampton Homeland Security Institute
    Nidal Hasan Uniformed Services University School of Medicine


    Here's his page from a healthcare standpoint, where you can click to make an appointment,
    Dr. Nidal M. Hasan , MD - Free Doctor Profile - Psychiatry, located in Fort Hood, TX

    Experience / Training
    Medical School:
    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine
    Bethesda, MD 2003
    Internship:
    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward Herbert School of Medicine
    Bethesda, MD
    Residency:
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center
    Washington, DC 2007
    Fellowship:
    USUHS/WRAMC - Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry
    Bethesda, MD 2009
    Undergraduate School:
    Virginia Tech
    Blacksburg, VA 1997
    -----------
    He wasn't one of the two Muslims Obama recently appointed to Homeland Security positions, he was merely a participant on the panel listed above. .... That must be the guy you are talking about...
    ------------------
    We wanted to impeach Nixon for possibly being involved in a coverup regarding a burglary, and several minutes of missing recorded tapes?
    Maybe we should wait a while to investigate this, so there's time to have things/more information/documents to come up "missing"

    I disagree that we have an "out of control Federal Government" I believe they are IN CONTROL ... Foxes IN CHARGE of the hen house?
    We wanted to impeach Nixon for possibly being involved in a coverup regarding a burglary, and several minutes of missing recorded tapes? .... really?
    The FBI said it turned over the information to the Army, but Defense Department officials today denied that. .....

    Isn't the Commander-in-Chief of the Defense Dept. that guy ummmmm what's his name? ...
    --------------------------------------
    On a side note,
    Well, I don't see that the Palestinian born guy, Farouk Shami, in Houston who creates jobs in Palestine and donates mucho money to them through and created thousands of Palestinian jobs through U.S. "charities" who claims he wants to run for Govenor of Texas on the Democratic ticket, and was using 10 million dollars for the democratic race, so he can create jobs in Houston and San Antonio, by opening plants like the one he was to open in Palestine in 2007 is getting a lot of publicity lately....? Perhaps his hair straightening/hair care products business is distracting him from running since the shooting? Maybe he is getting more publicity and still running, and I'm overlooking it.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    desha, arkansas
    Posts
    446

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by BigSlick View Post
    I know this is a long read but it does makes you think. I have worked on many military bases across the country and yes it is true that except for the MP's and security the general population of the base is unarmed. But in question 2 the statement "we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists–and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course" hits the nail right on the head.


    Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre

    Chuck Baldwin
    Prisonplanet.com
    Saturday, Nov 21st, 2009

    By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.

    Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?

    After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt, these are among America’s bravest and best.

    So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.

    Question 2: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in charge gave him a pass?

    Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager, “included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution”; and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?

    I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists–and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and must be “understood.”

    As Prager quotes NPR’s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he must have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.” No, I’m not kidding. That’s what he said. (I’ll pause while you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing.)

    To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted “Jesus is greatest!” instead of what he really said, “Allah is greatest!” right before opening fire?

    If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?

    Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights–and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and crevice of our lives–are actually doing anything to make us safer? You’ve got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.

    Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.

    According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America’s finest warriors for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30–and was finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I’ve got to tell you: I cannot get my brain around this one.

    Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been subdued–and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me. None.

    Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from various vantage points–especially if they had rifles–it would have made unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The “one shooter with two handguns” explanation makes no sense.

    I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course, some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking–a task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a large building–tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.

    Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which, after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven’t believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves only to further fuel my skepticism.
    having been stationed at ft. hood twice(2nd.armored div.& 6th. air cav.) ft.hood is the largest insallation in this country. it spreads from close to dallas to almost austin. it has open grazeing rights or did in the '70s&'80s, there was no way to keep anyone from getting on,at least at that time and had 650 sq.miles of impact area that tank,arty.,and cobra's to fire into. any one who is willing to die to kill troops can succeed.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast