Blame assigned for Fort Hood

eye95 · Feb 3, 2011

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ernal+-+Politics+-+Text)&utm_content=My+Yahoo

The Senate has assigned blame for the Fort Hood shooting.

Well, it wasn't Hassan and it wasn't the fact that no one was permitted to possess the tools needed to defend themsleves.

:banghead:

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 3, 2011

So.... its the FBI's fault for not detecting and deterring him early enough? Good thing it wasn't the shooter's fault, that might look a bit bad for the Muslim community.

greatsimon · Feb 3, 2011

ah come on guys, if we call him a muslim extremeist and blame it on that, then we are not being understanding.... if we blame it on him being insane we are insencitive, you all know that...(sarcasm by the way) what bugged me the most about this, other then the fact it happened, was that the media kept showing him in uniform and refering to him as Major whatever(name and rank, enlisted or officer, is a thing of honor and pride!). My favorite part, the MP who risked HER life the took him out! You know that has to humiliate him, being that" women are the lessor side to the human race". I say death penalty for treason!

Grapeshot · Feb 3, 2011

Let me see if I get this right.

SCOTUS says the police are NOT required to come to our aid or to protest us, but the Senate say the FBI failed to protect the troops. :banghead:

Too late for duct tape - waaay too late.

KansasMustang · Feb 4, 2011

greatsimon said:
. My favorite part, the MP who risked HER life the took him out! You know that has to humiliate him, being that" women are the lessor side to the human race". I say death penalty for treason!

Wasn't an MP,,it was a DA Cop, and there were too of them,,a male and a female, she wounded him,,the male took him the rest of the way down. She got wounded in the fray. Just correcting the inaccuracy of your knowledge, no offense meant. But I'm a DA Cop and know the full story.

Venator · Feb 4, 2011

KansasMustang said:
Wasn't an MP,,it was a DA Cop, and there were too of them,,a male and a female, she wounded him,,the male took him the rest of the way down. She got wounded in the fray. Just correcting the inaccuracy of your knowledge, no offense meant. But I'm a DA Cop and know the full story.

DA is what???

thnycav · Feb 4, 2011

Fallschirmjäger said:
So.... its the FBI's fault for not detecting and deterring him early enough? Good thing it wasn't the shooter's fault, that might look a bit bad for the Muslim community.

The failings of the his chain of command to take care of him and not just pass him along for someone else to deal with him is at fault as well. This however does not reduce the responabilty the shooter had.

eye95 · Feb 4, 2011

There is one place to lay blame: On the Islamic terrorist who opened fire after yelling "Allahu Akbar!"

There is one fix to minimize such future incidents and to minimize the carnage when they do happen: Allow carry on the most ridiculous GFZ in history, i.e. military installations.

thnycav · Feb 4, 2011

It is better to prevent than react. The knew he was a problem and should have been handled before being sent to Ft Hood. Do you make sure the barn is locked after the horse is running down the road?

Grapeshot · Feb 4, 2011

thnycav said:
It is better to prevent than react. The knew he was a problem and should have been handled before being sent to Ft Hood. Do you make sure the barn is locked after the horse is running down the road?

Oh they're not locking the door - just letting it flap in the wind. The senate blames the FBI, others blame the military itself, but the bottom line is that NOTHING has changed. Still business as usual.

Stay tuned for the next exciting chapter.

Bobarino · Feb 4, 2011

Whuuuuuuuuuu? You mean to tell me that our extremely well fund and staffed US government agencies failed to execute their assigned due to cover up, bureaucracy, chain of command failures and on and on and on?

That's UNPOSSIBLE! You know what we need? Another government agency to oversee these agencies. And a few more committees too. Oh and don't forget to throw billions of dollars at it too. That always seems to help.

[/sarcasm]

Bobby

3fgburner · Feb 4, 2011

Venator said:
DA is what???

Department of the Army.

thnycav · Feb 4, 2011

Bobarino said:
Whuuuuuuuuuu? You mean to tell me that our extremely well fund and staffed US government agencies failed to execute their assigned due to cover up, bureaucracy, chain of command failures and on and on and on?

That's UNPOSSIBLE! You know what we need? Another government agency to oversee these agencies. And a few more committees too. Oh and don't forget to throw billions of dollars at it too. That always seems to help.

[/sarcasm]

Bobby

No we just need the leadership to do their job. If they can not do it they need to be replaced with ones who can.

VetteFreakC5 · Feb 4, 2011

yea, but the sad thing is....in the Army just the accusation of racism will end your career, wether you are right about what you said or not....

Grapeshot · Feb 4, 2011

VetteFreakC5 said:
yea, but the sad thing is....in the Army just the accusation of racism will end your career, wether you are right about what you said or not....

I will grant you that being "politically correct" isn't working out very well, is it?

Dreamer · Feb 4, 2011

So they are laying some of the blame with Anwar al-Awlaki, the CIA's lackey? Then I think that makes the CIA and the DOD partly responsible too, since al-Awlaki is a known CIA assett, and has been reported to have been having cozy meetings in the Pentagon just months following 9-11...

Do the research folks--the "War on Terror" is really just a "War OF Terror", where most of the actors are ultimately working for the same commanders--or at least payrolled by the same people...

rotorhead · Feb 5, 2011

What a silly little report.

The blame lies solely on the shooter, period.

The bad thing is that the result of all this will be further restrictions against carrying on military installations.

There, that'll fix it. :uhoh:

JoeSparky · Feb 5, 2011

rotorhead said:
What a silly little report.

The blame lies solely on the shooter, period.

The bad thing is that the result of all this will be further restrictions against carrying on military installations.

There, that'll fix it. :uhoh:

Agreed! The blame for the act lies with the shooter. Others MAY have been able to do something earlier IF they had chosen to act instead of ignore. I don't know how much they could have done WITHOUT violating his rights and I wasn't there either!

since9 · Feb 5, 2011

I can't find a single thing in the previous 18 posts with which I disagree, so I'll add another twist:

In the wake of this report, how many non-violent innocents such as those with PTSD, depression, alcoholism, and other results common among those who've served our country will be slap-labeled and denied their Second Amendment rights in yet another pathetic attempt to stop "the nutcase factor?"

There's only one sure way to stop a nutcase who arms himself with a gun and enters a "gun-free zone" with the intent to inflict murder and mayhem: With force.

The problem is, now he's armed in this theoretical "gun-free zone" while the rest of us unwilling victims, er, "law-abiding citizens" have been disarmed, and are thereby no longer capable of taking him down.

What's really behind this (rotting) upside-down cake approach to defending military installations, anyway? Let the nutcase shoot people until he runs out of bullets? That smacks of Saddam Hussein's human shields. Is that how installation commanders are "protecting" the men, women, and children on their installation?

More than likely it's a simple case of a commander following the JAG's advice on how to limit the service's liability when it comes time for lawsuits. "Well, Ma'am, I'm sorry your son died. However, we have a standing "no firearms" policy on base." :banghead:

JoeSparky · Feb 5, 2011

since9 said:
I can't find a single thing in the previous 18 posts with which I disagree, so I'll add another twist:

In the wake of this report, how many non-violent innocents such as those with PTSD, depression, alcoholism, and other results common among those who've served our country will be slap-labeled and denied their Second Amendment rights in yet another pathetic attempt to stop "the nutcase factor?"

There's only one sure way to stop a nutcase who arms himself with a gun and enters a "gun-free zone" with the intent to inflict murder and mayhem: With force.

The problem is, now he's armed in this theoretical "gun-free zone" while the rest of us unwilling victims, er, "law-abiding citizens" have been disarmed, and are thereby no longer capable of taking him down.

What's really behind this (rotting) upside-down cake approach to defending military installations, anyway? Let the nutcase shoot people until he runs out of bullets? That smacks of Saddam Hussein's human shields. Is that how installation commanders are "protecting" the men, women, and children on their installation?

More than likely it's a simple case of a commander following the JAG's advice on how to limit the service's liability when it comes time for lawsuits. "Well, Ma'am, I'm sorry your son died. However, we have a standing "no firearms" policy on base." :banghead:

Are you suggesting that someone use LOGIC?

Create laws that only impede those that obey the law. Expect that Criminals will obey the law. Wonder in amazement when the criminal does not obey the law AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER LAW that the criminal WON"T OBEY because he is a Criminal.....

Just INSANE! Because they are doing the same thing over and over AND EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT! Definition of insanity that I've heard before!

Blame assigned for Fort Hood

Well-known member

Active member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Centurion

Campaign Veteran

Centurion