Posted on 07/01/2020 11:58:05 AM PDT by bgill
A suspect in the disappearance of a 20-year-old Fort Hood soldier killed himself as law enforcement approached Tuesday night and a second person, a civilian, is now in the custody of the Texas Rangers and awaiting charges as the investigation into human remains found on the post continues, officials with the base say.
The unnamed soldier, officials said, was wanted in connection with the disappearance of Pfc. Vanessa Guillen, who was last seen April 22 in a parking lot outside her Regimental Engineer Squadron Headquarters. Her car keys, barracks room key, ID card and wallet were found in the room where she was working the day she disappeared.
Wednesday morning, officials at the Fort Hood confirmed they were attempting to locate an unnamed junior soldier who left the post late Tuesday and that as law enforcement officers approached him he reportedly pulled out a gun and killed himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcdfw.com ...
God forbid our soldiers be proud of wearing their nation's uniform.
Stupid poster. You should make it clear you're some little demon playing "human."
I may be an anachronism, but I use the word "soldier" in it's traditional sense of meaning someone who fights with weapons.
Yes, nowadays people say "soldier" if you are simply part of the great machine, but this usage never resonated with me. For most of my life, when someone said "soldier", they meant someone who carried a gun and shot at enemy soldiers, or someone who fired cannons at the enemy.
My dad was a Marine in the South Pacific during WWII. "Soldier" to me means "one who fights."
The suggestion that a female shouldn’t be the secretary that handles a commander’s work schedule because other soldiers will assault or kill her seems off, and I don’t think you are suggesting that only a muscle-bound 6-foot male could answer a telephone.
No, not at all. Let me walk back my point a bit. I have no objection to women doing tasks at which women can excel. I just do not think they should be in any combat arms group. I do not think they should be aboard smaller naval ships or submarines.
The benefits, if any, are trivial, and the downsides, which are all but guaranteed, are huge.
Medics, doctors, logistics, clerical, and so forth. No problem. Combat "soldiers"?
No.
:)
What do you think of gays in the Boy Scouts?
Can’t believe we agree on something again. I spent 21 years in the military. Started in the Marines and retired from the Army. Was both enlisted and officer. Served in combat units and combat support units. Deployed to Iraq twice.
Over that time I observed a few woman that could honestly hack it in the military, pull their own weight, and contribute to mission accomplishment. However, the vast majority were overall detrimental to their unit and far outweigh the good ones.
Women should be limited to the nursing corps and admin units. Letting them serve in combat units is sheer madness.
That is exactly correct. I blame much of our modern madness on prosperity. People can have foolish ideas because they haven't had to suffer under the consequences of their foolish ideas.
Back when times were hard, people did not tolerate foolish ideas lightly, because the school of hard knocks had taught them better.
This current crop of kids protesting the cops have no grasp of what they will get if they get what they think they want.
You’re a disgusting human being. You shouldn’t be allowed to post here. Sick
Not sure that I do. My family has known tragedy, but not this particular sort of tragedy.
None of the female members of my family have enlisted. Virtually all of the males have, now that I think about it.
You think it's unreasonable for a father to keep his son out of the hands of a gay scoutmaster?
I would think every father would not allow this to happen.
Women in combat makes as much sense as women football players.
We probably agree on most things. Same with most people on this site.
Over that time I observed a few woman that could honestly hack it in the military, pull their own weight, and contribute to mission accomplishment. However, the vast majority were overall detrimental to their unit and far outweigh the good ones.
That is the consensus when you can get people to speak honestly about it. Nowadays everyone would be terrified about admitting the truth because in the Clintonized, Obamanized military, speaking the truth can get you cashiered.
Women should be limited to the nursing corps and admin units. Letting them serve in combat units is sheer madness.
Exactly my point. And we all have Patricia Schroeder to thank for starting this bullsh*t.
Oh cool. Now we want to engage in name calling and censorship. When people get mad, their inner liberal comes out.
Thank you.
A Command Sergeant (Major) is wrapped up in this, too? Amazing!
Same here!
She wasn’t a little girl. She was a grown woman who served honorably.
That’s one way to look at it.
It’s called self control & responsibility.
Quit acting like men are helpless. They make their decisions too.
I think its reasonable for a father to keep his son from any real or perceived risk the father feels it's prudent to keep his son away from.
That's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. If a boyscout is molested by a gay scout master, my issue is with the policy makers at BSA, and I would not hurl any smears at the victimized scout.
You may disagree with women in any role in the military, but either you're too simple minded or too cowardly to speak against the policy makers that permitted it and jumped into blame and belittle the victim mode from the outset of this thread.
I am a former military police officer. The military police corps exists, largely in part because soldier misconduct exists. I've seen violence done by male on male soldiers, female on male soldiers and male on female soldiers. None of it, when unprovoked, is excusable, nor the fault of the victim.
I would rail to my late Father about all the stupid things being done in the world and he would listen considerately but say nothing. This only made me more outraged. Ultimately I would ask him if he didn’t have something to say!?
He would say, “Yes I do. You are correct in almost all you say and I agree with you on most of it. However, I have too much behind me and not enough ahead to become too wrapped up in it even if I thought I could do a thing to change the outcome we see racing to meet us.” Then he would want to go for a walk or some other diversion to make the most and most pleasant of our short time together.
God how I miss that man!
I am approaching that age when he began to say these things to me. I am seeing more behind me than ahead. I will not give up but will do my best with what I can and endure what I can’t change as long as I need to somehow.
To your note on the ills of prosperity, yes. My son notes this frequently as well. No hard choices, no crucibles, no really bad consequences.
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.