U.S. sailor shoots two female colleagues on Bahrain base in 'love triangle' killings

Daily Mail ^ | 10/22/07

[TigerLikesRooster]

U.S. sailor shoots two female colleagues on Bahrain base in 'love triangle' killings

Last updated at 17:04pm on 22nd October 2007

A U.S. Navy sailor allegedly shot and killed two female sailors early Monday on a U.S. military base in Bahrain, a Navy official said.

Initial reports suggest the shooting was the result of a "love triangle," according to a State Department official.

The alleged shooter, a male, was critically wounded in the incident in the barracks on the U.S. Naval Support Activity Bahrain base.

Fortress: The shootings took place at the U.S. naval base in Bahrain

The shootings took place around 2am, the Navy has said. Officials closed the base temporarily and reopened it about an hour after the incident.

The two women were pronounced dead at the scene, and the man was taken to a local hospital in critical condition.

No other details were immediately available, and the Navy said it was not releasing the names of those involved until their families were notified.

"The incident is under investigation, and it would not be prudent to discuss details at this time," said Navy spokesman Lt. John Gay.

Bahrain, a tiny island nation on the Persian Gulf, is a U.S. ally and home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, which is responsible for an area of about 2.5 million square miles (6.5 million sq. kilometres) of water including the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean.

About 3,600 personnel work on the U.S. Naval Support Activity Bahrain base, located just outside Bahrain's capital, Manama. The base supports U.S. naval ships in the region.

[sit-rep]

BTW...

Lapster, meet Larry...Larry, meet Lapster... Both are good folks and good friends. I’ll share my stories of both in separate PMs...

[fortheDeclaration]

And the problem is women on combat vassals, which was a Clinton program (what a shock), not a Reagan one. So, your attempt to link Reagan to the current women on combat vassals, was a bit disingenuous.

Correction-that should read 'vessel', not 'vassal' which would have been a problem only in the middle ages!

[TheGunny]

Amen! Put my 20+ with yours and we’ve got somthing there!

[LadyNavyVet]

I never tried to link Reagan to women in combatants. My statement that the expansion of women on ships from a very small test progbram to a large scale enterprise began with Reagan is true, as I have demonstrated with the facts. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[Non-Sequitur]

Now, no one is casting aspersions on any woman who has served honorably.

Except her. They have no place in the military, should not seek to serve in the military, and are less of a Christian for doing so.

I spent most of my adult life in the military. I've served with men and with women, I've supervised female personnel and have had female superiors. And I'd say that on a percentage basis that the number of dud women servicemen I've come across is about the same as the number of dud male servicemen I've come across. And that the number of exceptional female officers and enlisted I've met is about the same as the number of exceptional male officers and enlisted I've met. About the only difference I can think of is that I never once met a woman in the military who had a problem serving their country alongside of men. I can't say that about the all the men I served with.

Woman in the military are a fact. They join, for the most part, for the same reasons men join and that is love of country and a desire to serve this nation and the people in it. They are, for the most part, dedicated, competent professionals and the military is a much better organization for their contributions. They are, on the whole, far better people than those who don't serve. And they deserve much better than to have their service belittled by Ms. Downin and the people around here who think that they don't belong in the armed forces.

[LadyNavyVet]

These sailors weren’t in the Army, they weren’t on any ship, combatant or otherwise, and they weren’t in combat. None of the quick fixes proposed on this board would have saved these young women.

[TheGunny]

Perhaps Im jaded. Unfortunately, there are in fact hookers (well, service women selling their bodies) on a great many ships (I wish I didnt know this stuff, it turns my stomach)most are solo operations but but some arent. These are active duty folks Im talking about...not the Filipino wives club(I think thats what you mean)

[Larry Lucido]

for the life of me, I can’t see why coming upon such a scene would prompt a man to violence. Envy, perhaps. Violence, hardly.

My initial thoughts exactly.

Pleased to meet ya, btw.

[lapster]

The pleasure is mine. Anyone who ranks high in Tim’s book ranks high with me. He is a great guy.

[Semper911]

I can't believe not one FReeper on this thread has thanked you for your service to our country.

You have done a nice job making your case and holding your ground on this thread. I apologize for the crap you have had to dodge here. You'd think people would have some respect.

Thanks for your service to our country.

[RetiredArmy]

I think females have a place in the military. But, there needs to be restricts on some things just as there are on men. The pregnancy issue was huge when the women first came on full time with men. A lot of problems came up, the men were POed because the women got out of duty via the pregnancy or monthly period route. Men had to do a lot of extra heavy lifting type duties because the women simply could not do it physically. Like putting up a GP large or GP medium tent in the field. Those things weigh a ton and the women could not do it. Then you have the issue of latrines in the field. You have to have two for the sexes, then you have to almost like have to post a guard at night when women had to use a field latrine. Made for a lot of logistical problems. Now, all that said, women could be helpful in a lot of jobs where they would free men to do the heavy stuff and the women could do those jobs that did not require physical power and in positions that if they were not at work today because of female issues, then their loss in the field setting would not hurt as much. But, I really got sick of having to make do with 7 or 8 people when we were suppose to have 12 or 13, but those missing 5 or 6 were females who were not able to deploy because of pregnancy or monthly period issues.

[LadyNavyVet]

“Women can and should be in the military, just not in combat roles.”

You might be surprised to discover I agree with you. The problem is figuring out what a combat role is. I read the Army’s rules about where women could be and not be, and talk about a mess. The Army is trying to define the indefinable, which is where the front line is in asymmetrical warfare. The days of static warfare with huge standing armies facing each other are gone, and insurgencies are especially tricky, since the front line, such as it is, can change by the minute. In modern warfare, even women in clear support roles like nursing and administration can suddenly find themselves in the middle of combat.

Considering naval warfare, it’s easy to say, “Keep ‘em off the combatants and the problem is solved.” If the idea is to keep women safe, slow, lumbering, lightly armed and difficult to defend noncombatant ships are the last place you want women to be. They’re sitting ducks. We women used to joke that the policy of keeping women on noncombatants was evidence that the Navy didn’t care if we were the first to die in combat, as long as we didn’t kill anybody while we were at it. In an all out naval war, I want to be on a submarine. That’s the best chance of staying alive.

“If not enough men are voluntering, increase the incentives, that is what having a volunter army is about”

Doesn’t always work. The Navy is offering $50,000 to surface warfare officers, but it is not appreciably increasing SWO retention rates. Some things money can’t buy. They’re now investigating the possibility of offering SWOs year long leaves of absence and/or 90 days leave between each duty station. If that doesn’t sound desperate to you, it should. SWO retention is a genuine crisis for the Navy, and that WITH allowing women on ships. Just saying, “We’ll have enough men, no worries” is simplistic and demonstrably untrue.

[LadyNavyVet]

And thank you for yours.

I guess some days I still need to prove this ol’ gal’s got some fight left in her.

[Doohickey]

I read a small ignored piece in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings a couple of years ago that suggested that un-wed pregnancy rates in the Navy ... were out of control in the service

I personally know several females that got pregnant for the sole purpose of avoiding going to sea.

[wardaddy]

Thank you for a great post. If I’m ever tacky with you in the future please remind me for you would not have deserved my tackiness.

I’ve had two open hearts (congenital issue).....short term memory is about that of a chronic
;>)

[wardaddy]

I hope the space shutte doesn't crash....its "manned" by women

I hope it doesn't even if it's piloted by men either.

[wardaddy]

that article is 1996 before 9-11 which was a pretty nifty motivator

that carrier pilot standards were relaxed for women

that many of the men opted out in disgust over relaxed standards

that pregnancy is a problem

that relaxed PT for female troopers

(I could go on and on)

all of that is well documented

not to take away from contributions women have always made but a little social engineering goes a long way

how are you about open homosexuality in the military NS?

[wardaddy]

the military is not about whose fault it is....or fairness

it’s about power projection and ultimately killing your enemy and breaking his will to fight

oddly enough, men who impregnate female cadets at VMI (another social engineering folly) get worse treatment than the women who are allowed to stay but outside the corps

I have an Iraq war vet (combat wounded)who works for me and his wife was a SeaBee coordinator. He said it was crazy some of the situations they put women in over there and his wife said fraternization and pregnancy were large issues. However, I don’t need all that to know common sense. History is rather clear on this. Women have historically been support, nursing, camp followers, espionage, and in the extreme conditions partisans.

Nearly anyone who tried women as formal combat arena troopers in time reversed it.

To do otherwise is messianic wishful thinking.

[Uncle Meat]

When my bro was over in Saudia Arabia in 1991 he noticed that women who couldn’t score the time of day back here were suddenly quite popular over seas.

That's the way it was at Camp Stanley in Korea.It was known as "Ugly Girl's Paradise."

[John Leland 1789]

Passing judgment was in line with Scripture truth, and she named nobody and no unit. She wrote very kindly. All preachers pass judgment from pulpits if they are preaching Scripture truth, as any judge does from a bench.

Nobody knows whether the woman was EVER a Christian during her days in the military.

“. . . somehow sinful or less of a Christian?” There are many sins that must be pointed out to Christians who have yet to familiarize themselves with very much of the Word of God (or who willfully ignore God’s Word), including those that include immodesty of dress or deportment, failure to recognize God’s purposes in the family and home, failure to glorify God AS God (Romans chapter 1; etc.), failure to be transformed in our minds to the will and purposes of God (Romans chapter 12; etc.), causing the world to blaspheme or reproach God by not fulfilling our duties and functions as husbands and wives (Titus chapter 2), and hundreds of other potential SINS (both of commission and omission).

And it is a gross fallacy to believe that women who choose to SERVE our nation as wives and mothers, raising a subsequent generation of godly patriots who may have to bear arms WITH CHARACTER, are not somehow SERVING our nation’s interests. I reject entirely that women who choose to be good wives and mothers, and raise their own children, instead of enlisting in the military are not SERVING their country. They are serving their country, evidently more than you can, at this point, realize.

I believe that raising children with Christian character in the home is the ultimate form of “alternative public service” in the hedonistic society that has become America.

The woman gave a very good representation of the Scriptures that underlie her convictions. She is allowing the Scriptures to pass the judgment, as it should be.

Your mind set will encourage law makers to begin drafting women along with men, when the draft is reinstated, which it shall be. No previous generation of women who were not drafted were considered less patriotic than the men who were. There were foundational reasons of conscience in our nation that prohibited the mandatory induction of women. The same foundations of conscience used to prevent women from being placed in combat units or in combat-related service, but we have been shaving off our national conscience at an alarming speed.