Posted on 11/08/2009 5:00:51 PM PST by Freedom2specul8
This was an intentional act of war by an enemy that is using a new kind of guerrilla tactic, and you're willing to let them succeed for a little while longer until there have been a sufficient number of such attacks to warrant a response?
Shall we go back to sleep and wait until it happens again?
I take it then that you have bought into the idea that this was just some poor slob who suffers from PTSD, and that his actions, despite the calm intentional shooting and declaration of 'Allah Akbar' (Allah is Greatest), was not his fault, but the result of 'harassment'?
Oh, and one more thing..... the ban on loaded personal firearms on base sure stopped Hasan didn’t it?
Circle Philadelphia with M1A1s and when the terrorists attack start shooting inwards.
I think that the counter to each of the threats that you described was first, good intelligence.
The counter to insider threats is good background checks, etc. It sounds as though this guy would have flamed out.
But turning anywhere our military might happen to be into an open kill zone is not the hammer to use on this nail.
Soldiers(and Marines, airmen and sailors)are people, just like civilians, to say they shouldn't be armed is the same as saying that the stupid liberals who claim no one should be armed are correct. If I can be armed, and not expected to play "quick draw Mcgraw" then so can our toops. The same troops are armed in our war zones and none of the kill each other(unless they are muslims and then watch out) or shoot civilians out of hand.
The right to keep and bear arms holds true for all. Troops should be armed, at least with side arms, at all times.
What do you mean by responding in kind? Killing kids in base housing with stray rounds as an act of self-protection? I know - we should just ban families from base housing. If the Army wanted them to have a family the Army would have issued them one.
An enemy that is using a new kind of guerrilla tactic, and you're willing to let them succeed
Well first, until we have some information that this is an organized action, we might think before we leap. Second, who is willing to let them succeed. IIRC we booted AQ out of Iraq and had booted the Talis out of Afghanistan. If we would act like warriors in Afghanistan, we might keep them out.
If Saudi funded jihadists start really stiring up trouble here, toppling the Saudi government would be an act of minutes, a fact which they know and encourages them to cooperate.
I am not making light of this at all. But war is a rational enterprise. If you allow yourself to get angry and start swining wildly, you lose. Sun Tzu teaches that.
Instead, think. Disrupt the enemy's plans. Attack him where he is weak. Anticipate his actions and counter. But this idiotic lashing out is going to get a lot of innocent army brats killed.
First, despite your faith in the lack of stupidity of your fellow man, experience dictates otherwise.
Our troops kill each other in war zones all the time. It is called friendly fire and it is one of the biggest problems that a commander has to deal with. Almost nothing is more demoralizing, self-destructive, and corrosive of trust from allies and supporters back home than this.
I always had live ammo in my pockets at Ft. Hood. It would drive me crazy sometimes when we would go to the field with no ammo...and we were expected to pull guard duty.
I can’t remember if it was Ft.Hood or Ft.Sill, but I remember one year some civilians came on post and stole some weapons from some privates that were bivouacking.
Lots of us always carried personal weapons as well.
It wasn’t allowed...but we didn’t know any better...we were from West Texas.
Nope. Just trying to get folks to sober up, and think about this strategically, using their brains rather than emotion connected to an itchy trigger finger. I have stated nothing that the poor folks in the tank at the Pentagon don't have to agonize over as they try to figure out if any policies should be changed. We would all like to see some dead Jihadists. But that isn't a strategy.
Nope. Wrong guy. Armed drunk sailors, or armed bored marines are very very scary. Soldiers on a mission in combat must be armed, backed by fire support, and the meanest air support we can muster. But none of that pertains to one armed lunatic surrounded by 10,000 innocent individuals.
You said earlier (but din't ping to me) you didn't understand what I was arguing for.... allowing or disallowing firearms at the PX, bowling aley etc. If you can carry in town at the loaction; than you should be allowed to on base. Can you carry at a bar in town? No; than you shouldn't be allowed to carry at the E-club/O-club if it serves alcohol. Can you carry at a supermarket? Yes; than you should be able to carry at the PX
But turning anywhere our military might happen to be into an open kill zone is not the hammer to use on this nail.
The terrorists already turned everywhere the military is located into an open fire zone. No one is advocating allowing anyone to run around wily-nily with a gun shooting people. What I am advocating is responsible exercise of the 2nd Amendment. Responsible carry of weapons. There is a requirement to take tests (in VA; I think TX is the same) to carry concealed. For Virginia you can open carry without any test or permit. That said every military member receives at least nominal firearms training.
The onus still falls on PERSONAL RESONSIBILITY. The same as driving on base. If you are a continual screw up or receive a DUI you lose your base driving privilleges. The same should stand for firearms. If you don't have the permits out in town (same as a driver's license), or can't carry responsibly than you shouldn't carry on base. But, if you are law (and UCMJ) abiding our Constitution, which we swore to uphold and protect, recognizes the GOD GIVEN RIGHT that to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
A responsible CCW holder could have very easily neutralized the threat once his/her life was in danger.... ie the moment Hasan produced a weapon and demonstrated hostile intent/hostile act. The same standard that is held out in town.
I don't know what is so hard to understand.
I think that the counter to each of the threats that you described was first, good intelligence.
Yes, I agree. However, not every attack can/will be prevented. And that is where responsible carry of firearms comes in.
Attacks like these and the news stories afterward demonstrate how vulnerable we really are. Terrorists don't even have to be "successful" in order to accomplish their goal. They may have a goal to kill 100, but killing 3 or 4 still spreads fear. A CCW holder/open carry servicemember killing a terrorist before he has a chance to kill anyone demonstrates we are viligant and it saves lives.
We have rights for a reason; we have the 2nd Amendment for a reason. We have to remain vigilant for a reason.... its not 10 Septmeber 2001 anymore.
Travis McGee pegged you correctly in a previous post - rather than responding intelligently to the points raised in this discussion you attempt to bludgeon everyone with straw man buffoonery. You are, however, doing a pretty good job of making yourself look comical. Your condescension and belligerent attitude is especially droll.
There is a slight difference between stateside on a base and deployment to Afghanistan, though I hesitate to point it out to the tactical geniuses on this thread.
Arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous combination, although in your case it's mostly amusing. I'm no tactical expert, and I clearly stated in my post that the base commanders would be the best judges of what was necessary. However, some of the other posters in this thread you've encountered and so breezily belittled are, and far more so than you. More importantly, they at least have been able to participate in the discussion in a calm, rational and respectful manner.
Well fine, but if I were the CIC I would be embarrassed to have to explain this to the American people.
Hell man, I had to go NJP because I had a stinking machette on the back seat when I was stationed at Coronado and Imperial Beach.
You know what I’ve been thinking is that when this Major walks in he could’ve told everyone to move over there or whatever and create a kill zone that would have been easy pickings.
Man, my first guard duty was on the armory at 22 area in 1974, and we were looking forward to meeting those guys and getting some live wupass on. I had a Remington Shotgun
....oh and your 234th Birthday is coming up Marine so Happy Birthday.
With no draft there are precious few families that have any idea what the military is all about.
Even so, many who do serve don’t speak much about their experience to their families.
This disaster might open a few eyes as to the depth of the political correctness run amok.
Just think the five imams that were removed from a flight have won a substantial payoff from the airline.
The fact is that Major Hasan was able to slaughter and shoot 40+ unarmed soldiers for 3+ minutes with no fear, because of the no-CCW policy that you support.
Amen. But in addition to your armed guard policy, I would permit those with valid state CCW permits to carry on base. Make it permissable for E-6 and above. CCW is already limited to those over age 21.
Those who worry about mobs of drunken 18 year olds waving pistols are setting up a straw man argument that only makes them appear stupid.
Well now that we have settled that issue we can move on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.