Topic: Fort Hood Shootings?!?!?

[BobbyR]

OK time out for some humour:


Australian Shooter Magazine

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week,
which I quote:

"If you consider that there has been an average of
160,000 troops in the  Iraq  theater of operations during the past 22
months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of
60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in  Washington  ,  DC  is 80.6 per 100,000 for the
same period. That means you are about 25 percent more likely to be
shot and killed in the  US  capital, which has some of the strictest gun
control laws in the  US  , than you are in  Iraq  .
 
Conclusion: The  US  should pull out of  Washington  ."

 

[BeSeeingYou]

It really depends on your point of view doesn't it?  Think of it from the Muslim point of view.  In Afghanistan the civilian death toll directly attributed to Coalition forces is around 6000.  In Iraq it's hard to get a hard number but it is in the tens of thousands.  That's Christians killing innocent Muslims.  Many in the Muslim world call this terrorism.   We sanitize it and call it "collateral damage" but when it happens to us we call it terrorism.  All the victims in terrorist attacks as well as the civilian victims in Iraq and Afghanistan are innocent civilians and they are dead.  What's the difference?  Is it that their lives are not as valuable as ours? Or because we cloak it in some legal veneer called war and somehow it's justifiable.  But innocent is still innocent and dead is dead.  I am not trying to justify or condone terrorism and I am as disgusted with it as the next person but I have to say that our hands are little cleaner. 

Well, yes and no. Firstly, the attack on America on September the 11th 2001 which killed thousands of innocent people was definitely a terrorist attack, perpetrated by radical muslim terrorists who deliberately targeted innocent civilians on American soil, and this should not be forgotten when you analyze the current situation.

Sadly the coalition forces in Afghanistan have occasionally killed innocent civilians, just like they did in every other war that they've participated in over the last 100 years or so, in the heat of battle, mistakes happen. 

The forced incarceration of Japanese and German civilians living in allied countries during WW2 was necessary, (after all, it was Japanese civilians who provided the intelligence for the raid on Pearl Harbor that forced the US into participating in WW2) and certainly more "humane" than the axis countries treated foreigners. (not to mention several million residents who were the "wrong" religions) And while I wouldn't advocate detaining all Muslims living here or in the US, Britain

This is exactly my point.  The way it is stated you put so much more emphasis on casualties in the U.S. or other "western countries". When it comes to Afghanistan the coalition forces have "occasionally killed", "mistakes happen", etc.  It is 6000+ and I used the low estimate.  In Iraq the number of civilians killed that were caused by direct coalition action is in the tens of thousands   Again it seems their lives are just not as important as those in the "civilized world".

While there may have been some Japanese civilians providing intelligence it was mainly the work of the diplomatic mission, Japanese intelligence service, and other professionals.  Come on, would you plan a major attack based on the intelligence of untrained civilians?  There is little or no evidence of JAPANESE AMERICANS providing intelligence for the Pearl Harbor attack.  If you are interested in the planning, attack and aftermath I would suggest you read At Dawn We Slept by Gordon Prange.  He was a historian and trained intelligence officer who shortly after the war interviewed many of the survivors on both sides that were involved in the attack.  He researched his book for 35 years before it was published, after his death actually.  It is 800 pages and is the bible on Pearl Harbor.

The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was a national disgrace and a stain on the honor of our nation.  It was common to detain or otherwise supervise foreign nationals of hostile countries.  I am glad that you oppose interning/detaining Muslims because if you resort to tyranny to fight tyranny you have already lost.

 To those at Fox News and others who advocate "locking up" or otherwise harassing Muslims in the U.S. I say congratulations, you have just handed Bin Laden a victory.

[mick7504]

The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945 remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 39 square kilometres (15 sq mi) of the city centre. Estimates of civilian casualties vary greatly, but recent publications place the figure between 24,000 and 40,000.

A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort. Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.

It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportional for the commensurate military gains.

In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000. However, figures in the regions of hundreds of thousands are considered disproportionate. Today's historians estimate a death toll between 24,000 and 40,000, with an independent investigation commissioned by the city itself stated that around 18,000 victims had been identified and that the estimated total number of fatalities was around 25,000. Post-war discussion of the bombing includes debate by commentators and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether or not its outcome constituted a war crime.

Nonetheless, the raids continue to be included among the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become one of the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.

The perpetrators will always have justification for their actions whoever that may be.

[Terry in Australia]

This is exactly my point.  The way it is stated you put so much more emphasis on casualties in the U.S. or other "western countries". When it comes to Afghanistan the coalition forces have "occasionally killed", "mistakes happen", etc.  It is 6000+ and I used the low estimate.  In Iraq the number of civilians killed that were caused by direct coalition action is in the tens of thousands   Again it seems their lives are just not as important as those in the "civilized world".

While there may have been some Japanese civilians providing intelligence it was mainly the work of the diplomatic mission, Japanese intelligence service, and other professionals.  Come on, would you plan a major attack based on the intelligence of untrained civilians?  There is little or no evidence of JAPANESE AMERICANS providing intelligence for the Pearl Harbor attack.  If you are interested in the planning, attack and aftermath I would suggest you read At Dawn We Slept by Gordon Prange.  He was a historian and trained intelligence officer who shortly after the war interviewed many of the survivors on both sides that were involved in the attack.  He researched his book for 35 years before it was published, after his death actually.  It is 800 pages and is the bible on Pearl Harbor.

I'm sorry mate, are you saying that the muslim civilians who have died so far are somehow more important to you than coalition soldiers, because they're not professional soldiers? Are you saying that because a soldier is a "professional" combatant, his or her death is somehow less of a concern to you because perhaps "they are only doing their jobs"?

This thread is about the massacre of 13 young American's who were about to put their lives on the line for all the right reasons when a Muslim (who may or may not have been a terrorist) started screaming "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Great", the standard Muslim phrase recited by jihadists in battle) and opened fire on a room full of unarmed young soldiers. He might not have been a terrorist, but he perpetrated an act of terrorism, so if you walk like a duck, and talk like a duck, then as far as I'm concerned, that's close enough to you being a duck.

What surprises (and disappoints) me is the number of folks here who are not just sympathetic to the Afghani's, but, it appears, sympathetic to the Afghani combatants as well, apparently seeing the Taliban and Al Queda as "freedom fighters" who are just  trying to defend the freedoms of the Afghani people, when in fact this couldn't be further from the truth. The Taliban are professional terrorists who used their extremist version of Islam to terrorise their own countrymen, and were responsible for the most horrendous torture and murder of many thousands of innocent Afghani civilians before the coalition forces invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban government. 

I'm sorry I don't share your opinion that the coalition forces in Afghanistan are the "bad guys". I work on defence bases as a defence contractor and an Army reservist and I talk to officers and soldiers who have served in Afghanistan, and I can tell you that they don't share your opinion either. While most of them are glad that they got home in one piece, they are all proud of the job that they did there and they all believe that Afghanistan is a better place for their service there. I'm proud of them too. Cheers, Terry.

[Retro Rocket]

+100   Well said Terry.

Mick

[demon78]

Terry by definition it's a war, both sides have dirty hands, having said that I personally don't give a #$%* who claims god is on their side, if they are butchering civvies they could be rabid Buddhist's, Islamic jihad-is, or enraged fundamental Christians they must be exterminated at whatever cost and if we as people with don't, we deserve what we get and yes I realize at 70 I'm not going to be on the barricades so what I say about sacrifice is suspect, but yeah if we have to sacrifice our young soldiers I guess that's the way it goes. Are people going to snap under pressure, of course, some worse than others, some actions are more damaging than others, once again that's the way it goes, if the people in charge are not on top of what's going on then a lot of the responsibility falls on them (not to excuse the shooter, he should roast over a slow fire) . As a Canadian my major #$%* about the war in Afghanistan is that our government didn't properly inform our people about the risks and tried to pass the decision to go, off as leadership when in fact my suspicion was that our PM was sucking up to GWB and that is a piss poor reason for casualties. A a thought maybe we should stop calling them terrorists and just refer to them with the generic term as " #$%*s ".
Bill the demon.

[BobbyR]

I you have not been in combat you have no idea how confusing it can be. My day at work looked like this:

You come in over the tree tops at 100 knots in formation, radio chatter is filling both of you ears. Tracers begin going past you about 30 seconds to 1 minutes out. The spotter does his best to identify targets. Your target window is 30 seconds so you fire a burst or a rocket and break to make another pass.

The ships around you are doing the same thing, so they watch you and you watch them and aquire a target at the same time.

You make another pass and you need to aquire another target and fire more bursts or a rockets to "neutralize" the threat to to to incoming Slicks which carry in the infantry and carry out the wounded.

The chatter in your head continues and the smoke is now obscuring the field. You make another pass and hose down some more real estate. Tracers are still going past you, and the chatter in you ears increases. Someone calls in for suppressing fire and you locate where you think they are talking about and you hose that spot down.

(All of this takes place over a ten minute period.)

You need to break off since you are low on fuel and out of ammo. While the second group comes in, you are rearmed and fueled and get back to the sh1t.

You begin supplying cover fire wherever you think they need it and cover the Medicvacs as best you can. You have no idea what or who you are hitting. You see flashes you give it a burst, you do not have time to analyze what is in front or behind it.

That night you drink and listen to music, and now and then you cry cause a main Bro did not come back. The next day you do it all over again.

War is ugly, dirty, and unmasks the evil within mankind. It diminishes everyone involved in some way. 

[BeSeeingYou]

This is exactly my point.  The way it is stated you put so much more emphasis on casualties in the U.S. or other "western countries". When it comes to Afghanistan the coalition forces have "occasionally killed", "mistakes happen", etc.  It is 6000+ and I used the low estimate.  In Iraq the number of civilians killed that were caused by direct coalition action is in the tens of thousands   Again it seems their lives are just not as important as those in the "civilized world".

While there may have been some Japanese civilians providing intelligence it was mainly the work of the diplomatic mission, Japanese intelligence service, and other professionals.  Come on, would you plan a major attack based on the intelligence of untrained civilians?  There is little or no evidence of JAPANESE AMERICANS providing intelligence for the Pearl Harbor attack.  If you are interested in the planning, attack and aftermath I would suggest you read At Dawn We Slept by Gordon Prange.  He was a historian and trained intelligence officer who shortly after the war interviewed many of the survivors on both sides that were involved in the attack.  He researched his book for 35 years before it was published, after his death actually.  It is 800 pages and is the bible on Pearl Harbor.

I'm sorry mate, are you saying that the muslim civilians who have died so far are somehow more important to you than coalition soldiers, because they're not professional soldiers? Are you saying that because a soldier is a "professional" combatant, his or her death is somehow less of a concern to you because perhaps "they are only doing their jobs"?

This thread is about the massacre of 13 young American's who were about to put their lives on the line for all the right reasons when a Muslim (who may or may not have been a terrorist) started screaming "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Great", the standard Muslim phrase recited by jihadists in battle) and opened fire on a room full of unarmed young soldiers. He might not have been a terrorist, but he perpetrated an act of terrorism, so if you walk like a duck, and talk like a duck, then as far as I'm concerned, that's close enough to you being a duck.

What surprises (and disappoints) me is the number of folks here who are not just sympathetic to the Afghani's, but, it appears, sympathetic to the Afghani combatants as well, apparently seeing the Taliban and Al Queda as "freedom fighters" who are just  trying to defend the freedoms of the Afghani people, when in fact this couldn't be further from the truth. The Taliban are professional terrorists who used their extremist version of Islam to terrorise their own countrymen, and were responsible for the most horrendous torture and murder of many thousands of innocent Afghani civilians before the coalition forces invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban government. 

I'm sorry I don't share your opinion that the coalition forces in Afghanistan are the "bad guys". I work on defence bases as a defence contractor and an Army reservist and I talk to officers and soldiers who have served in Afghanistan, and I can tell you that they don't share your opinion either. While most of them are glad that they got home in one piece, they are all proud of the job that they did there and they all believe that Afghanistan is a better place for their service there. I'm proud of them too. Cheers, Terry.

Your whole post is nothing more than a straw man argument. While this can sometimes be effective with "low information" individuals it is pretty transparent and lame.  It is usually used by politicians and talk radio types.   So somehow my opinion is that coalition forces are the bad guys.  I did not say anything of the type, how do you come to that conclusion?  I am sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Queda?  How did you figure that?   I also never said that  Muslim civilian deaths were MORE important the coalition deaths. 

My point again, and see if you can stay with me this time, is that a much larger emphasis is placed on "western casualties" civilian or otherwise, than the far greater number of Muslim civilian casualties and this disregard of innocent civilians deaths is seen in much of the Muslim world as just another form of terrorism.  That's about as simple as I can make it. 

We don't know what the reason and motivation was behind the shooting at Ft. Hood.  The claim that he shouted Allah Akbar does not really mean that much.  It is a common phrase used by virtually all Muslims, much like a Christian would say "praise the Lord".  Terrorism or mass murder at this point the facts are not all in.  Terrorism by definition has a political motivation or attacking a particular group, race, religion, etc but regardless they are victims of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 You seem to regard coalition casualties as of much greater importance than the innocent Muslim casualties.  Where do you draw the line?  5 to 1, maybe 10 to 1?  How do women and children fit into the equation?  To me one life is just as important as another. 

[cudjo]

That was BEAUTIFUL BobbyR!!!

I dont want to hijack bobbyr's sentiment here...his words speak volumes to many of the points here.
and i love that we have him here to share it!!!

thanks bobbyr.


war has become hyper-industrialized mass murder.

I am not saying that any regime or group that we feel the need to depose is not worth deposing. we don't go to war with countries that cant be painted as uncivilized... even if that is the case is not up to us to exact hyper-industrialized mass murder. anywhere. we are no ones judge...

[demon78]

Yeah Bobby, if I needed to clarify my post, I wasn't referring  to combat, I was trying to make the point that every faction out there seems to target civvies to further their agenda with quote "terror" as the preferred option, those are the ones that need obliteration.
Bill the demon.

[BobbyR]

Yeah Bobby, if I needed to clarify my post, I wasn't referring  to combat, I was trying to make the point that every faction out there seems to target civvies to further their agenda with quote "terror" as the preferred option, those are the ones that need obliteration.
Bill the demon.

Thank you. My point is, in these types of wars the civilian and combatatnts occupy the same space, and in some cases they are both civilians and combatants. When prosceuting this type of action it needs to be surgical. You want the enemy to constanly be distractced and fearful. I like the drones, you find a traing camp, you blow it up. You find a bomb factory, you blow. You find a wroking cell in any City or Country, you hit them and dispose of the bodies.
 

[cudjo]

[/quote]
Thank you. My point is, in these types of wars the civilian and combatatnts occupy the same space, and in some cases they are both civilians and combatants. When prosceuting this type of action it needs to be surgical. You want the enemy to constanly be distractced and fearful. I like the drones, you find a traing camp, you blow it up. You find a bomb factory, you blow. You find a wroking cell in any City or Country, you hit them and dispose of the bodies.
 
[/quote]

+10 on BOBBYR

[Spanner 1]

Getting back on topic !!....terrorists blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings, Americans go into their workplace and shoot the sh*t out of their co-workers, an American invention..... commonly called 'going postal,' nothing to do with jihad... that link would be a total 'Foxification '.

[Slayer]

Just want to keep things clear for this interesting discussion.

war: noun, verb, warred, war⋅ring, adjective
–noun
1.   a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.   a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.   a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.   active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5.   aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6.   a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7.   armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8.   Cards.
a.   a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.
b.   an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.
9.   Archaic. a battle.

Terrorism: –noun
1.   the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.   the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.   a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

There is a difference

[cudjo]

Just want to keep things clear for this interesting discussion.

war: noun, verb, warred, war⋅ring, adjective
–noun
1.   a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.   a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.   a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.   active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5.   aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6.   a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7.   armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8.   Cards.
a.   a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.
b.   an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.
9.   Archaic. a battle.

Terrorism: –noun
1.   the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.   the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.   a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

There is a difference

actually 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. is a large part of war, and why war is often so effective. therefor the other uses of the word Terrorism as a noun are also implicit in the actions of war. as described in definitions 1-4 and 7.

[Slayer]

Violence is a large part of war, that doesn't mean it is the same thing as terrorism. Do you think we are trying to win this war by intimidation and fear for political gain? Can a single man wage war?

[cudjo]

Violence is a large part of war, that doesn't mean it is the same thing as terrorism. Do you think we are trying to win this war by intimidation and fear for political gain? Can a single man wage war?

No i dont think that, I think that terror is inextricable part of war.
I also do not think that we are trying to win the war.

[Slayer]

LOL

[Duke McDukiedook]

Violence is a large part of war, that doesn't mean it is the same thing as terrorism. Do you think we are trying to win this war by intimidation and fear for political gain? Can a single man wage war?

No i dont think that, I think that terror is inextricable part of war.
I also do not think that we are trying to win the war.

+1.

Winning the war is not the ultimate goal in either situation- occupation, awarding of oil contracts and other resource$$$.

There's money in them thar policing actions.

[Slayer]

So out troops are financial terrorists? Oh and 9/11 was an inside job right?

[Duke McDukiedook]

Like Srust said before a terrorist is defined by what side you are on- one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

I have my thoughts on what happened on 9/11 and the government will never tell us the whole truth of what really happened on that day, plain and simple.

You can believe what you want to believe about whatever, just make sure you follow the money most of all and don't drink all the kool-aid the corporate media and our government is feeding you- you'll be better off for it.

[Slayer]

Well anybody can believe their opposition is a terrorist if they want. I'm sure every government has a flavor of kool-aid. All I know is that our troops don't covertly target mass unarmed civilians for the largest amount of damage possible. There will always be collateral damage, especially when the opposition uses women and children as human sheilds. The troops just want to finish their fight so they can go home proud. Its the politicians I worry about.

[Bob Wessner]

All I know is that our troops don't covertly target mass unarmed civilians for the largest amount of damage possible.

Actually, it has happened. I think you mean they don't do it as a matter of policy.

[BobbyR]

All I know is that our troops don't covertly target mass unarmed civilians for the largest amount of damage possible.

Actually, it has happened. I think you mean they don't do it as a matter of policy.

Sometimes it is a result of faulty Intellegence. Unfortuantley given today's weaponry, the results are horrific.

[BeSeeingYou]

All I know is that our troops don't covertly target mass unarmed civilians for the largest amount of damage possible.

Actually, it has happened. I think you mean they don't do it as a matter of policy.

Sometimes it is a result of faulty Intellegence. Unfortuantley given today's weaponry, the results are horrific.

And sometimes not.  While not "technically" the U.S. military one has to just think back to when Blackwater slaughtered 17 Iraq civilians in the street unprovoked and without cause.  Just one well known example of what happened far to often.