• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood[W:87, 145]

Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Right, Bush ignored Clinton's counter terrorist policies and the country was attacked. The failure was all Bush.

Horse crap. I worked in both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. Jamie Gorelick-a clinton high level operative-prevented the various intelligence agencies from sharing information. you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

You say that like there's anything stopping you from bringing anything on base. There's no TSA search, you just drive up to the guard house, show your ID and then....drive forward....and *poof* your on the base. There's no search. There nothing but an ID check.

There's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from bringing a firearm on base. Nothing. In fact during my pre-deployment a soldier smuggled his wife on base. He smuggled her the next day, too.

Just because you make a no-gun rule doesn't mean there's anything in place to enforce it. There's no magic forcefield just because you made a rule.

Why would he have to smuggle his wife on base? Where were you stationed?

I know most military bases allow wives on them, and if a person has any military ID they can normally escort others on the base. Heck, they would have let me come on base at K-Bay to see my husband (who was only my fiance at the time) leave for deployment and come back from it, even if I didn't have a military ID.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Military personnel should be allowed to carry guns when in their bases, if civilians in the state of TX can do it I dont see why men in uniform shouldnt, they are trained to use them more than your ordinary civilian and could have put a stop to his the moment it happened.

Not all military personnel are trained to use guns though, not in the way most believe. I've never actually held a government issued real weapon. We had laser rifles during my time in bootcamp (they were renovating the actual firing range because of asbestos at the time I went through). And there was no other watches I ever stood that required me to be armed. And they wouldn't know which military members would actually have received that training or when they last received the training.

Plus, since this was a military member that was responsible, how would those who are meant to deal with these situations actually know who the initial shooter was and who the people just trying to stop him were? The military cops/sentries/patrols are going to simply shoot whoever has a gun, particularly if they come up to someone shooting another person who is armed, even if the one being shot was the initial shooter.

Allowing military members to carry weapons onbase would definitely not be a good idea. The very fact that we do have armed sentries and patrols onbase would cause bigger problems if others onbase were also armed while not on duty. The response time for military police is going to be much better than in a civilian setting most of the time when there is this sort of incident, just given the closed in space of the bases. Even larger bases would have short response time compared to the civilian world.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

I don't disagree with your final point, however, I do disagree with your premise that there is simply nothing that can be done to stop such actions. I don't have answers, however.

Well if one of your answers would be 'more laws' restricting guns, please think again.

Laws dont stop the people who choose to break them (cliche I know....). We call them criminals and increasingly, the mentally ill are crossing over that line.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

What can't be prevented is 100% of any incidents. Even condoms fail. Most employees and residents will comply with the no-gun rule because thats the military culture, but there will always be the radical element who chose to quietly disregard the rules, and thats when prevention fails. At that point you need the ability to "react-to-contact".

What we as a society can do is to return to a culture in which courtesy and consideration for others and manners is the norm. In such a culture, random violence is uncommon. In a culture in which self gratification, violence, rage, anger, coarse and angry language, and antisocial behavior is exalted, violence is going to be more common.

Buy as you say, in just living our daily lives, we cannot anticipate when the mentally ill or evil person will choose to act in harmful or deadly ways and the only way to avoid or diminish tragedy is an ability to react to the situation and a culture that encourages us to do just that.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Why would he have to smuggle his wife on base? Where were you stationed?

I know most military bases allow wives on them, and if a person has any military ID they can normally escort others on the base. Heck, they would have let me come on base at K-Bay to see my husband (who was only my fiance at the time) leave for deployment and come back from it, even if I didn't have a military ID.

Probably because je was quartered in the barracks and females weren't allowed in male barracks.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Horse crap. I worked in both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. Jamie Gorelick-a clinton high level operative-prevented the various intelligence agencies from sharing information. you don't know what you are talking about.

Yeah and I'm the Queen of England.


Jamie Gorelick got her marching orders from the WH.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Yeah and I'm the Queen of England.


Jamie Gorelick got her marching orders from the WH.

OH DEAR you really STEPPED IN IT BIG TIME

she was only working for the GOVERNMENT DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

OOPS

SO SHE WAS DOING WHAT CLINTON WANTED and the wall of silence persisted through the entire CLINTON ADMINISTRATION and INTO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

OH DEAR you really STEPPED IN IT BIG TIME

she was only working for the GOVERNMENT DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

OOPS

SO SHE WAS DOING WHAT CLINTON WANTED and the wall of silence persisted through the entire CLINTON ADMINISTRATION and INTO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Right, I got her confused with April Galspie. You remember her, she's the one that told Saddam that the US didn't care about his dispute with Kuwaite....which Saddam intepreted as a green light to do whatever he wanted.

I fail to see how Jamie Gorlick convinced the new Bush admininstration to ignore Clinton's foreign anti-terrorist policy. Richard Clarke tried his best to convince the Bush administration to take terrorism seriously but obviously they thought they knew better.....and the result was 9/11.


Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Right, I got her confused with April Galspie. You remember her, she's the one that told Saddam that the US didn't care about his dispute with Kuwaite....which Saddam intepreted as a green light to do whatever he wanted.

I fail to see how Jamie Gorlick convinced the new Bush admininstration to ignore Clinton's foreign anti-terrorist policy. Richard Clarke tried his best to convince the Bush administration to take terrorism seriously but obviously they thought they knew better.....and the result was 9/11.

Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified

The memos used in that issue are not conclusive as to what she actually did say to Saddam but they are all in agreement that she didn't say we didn't care about the dispute between Saddam and Kuwait. She said that it didn't involve the USA. It has been speculated that Saddam interpreted that to mean that we would not retaliate if he did invade Kuwait. And, in fact, had he not also been threatening Saudi Arabia at the time, we very well may not have retaliated. Galspie is on the record that she did not think Saddam would overrun Kuwait, and she testified before Congress that, on more than one occasion, she had counseled Saddam not to deal with Kuwait militarily.

But out of curiosity, what does any of this have to do with the shooter at Fort Hood?
 
So...

Are there any things we can do to prevent the dangerous from doing dangerous things?
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

The memos used in that issue are not conclusive as to what she actually did say to Saddam but they are all in agreement that she didn't say we didn't care about the dispute between Saddam and Kuwait. She said that it didn't involve the USA. It has been speculated that Saddam interpreted that to mean that we would not retaliate if he did invade Kuwait. And, in fact, had he not also been threatening Saudi Arabia at the time, we very well may not have retaliated. Galspie is on the record that she did not think Saddam would overrun Kuwait, and she testified before Congress that, on more than one occasion, she had counseled Saddam not to deal with Kuwait militarily.

The memos were transcripts of a telegram sent by April Galspie to Saddam. Both transcripts say the US has "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". Imo, that leaves little doubt that Galspie told Saddam that the US had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflict".


April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"...the transcript has Glaspie saying:

We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. ”

Another version of the transcript (the one published in The New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying:

“ But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 1960s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly....

"No opinion" could be interpreted as "doesn't care"..."won't interfere"..."won't retaliate"....


But out of curiosity, what does any of this have to do with the shooter at Fort Hood?
I dunno. Apacherat might be the best person to ask that question.....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...er-fort-hood-w-87-145-a-7.html#post1063108220
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

The memos were transcripts of a telegram sent by April Galspie to Saddam. Both transcripts say the US has "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". Imo, that leaves little doubt that Galspie told Saddam that the US had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflict". April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "No opinion" could be interpreted as "doesn't care"..."won't interfere"..."won't retaliate".... I dunno. Apacherat might be the best person to ask that question..... http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...er-fort-hood-w-87-145-a-7.html#post1063108220

It was in fact, as I clearly stated, speculated that Saddam interpreted her statements to mean we would not retaliate. From the same source you linked, you'll find references to other documentation that she made it quite clear that we did care and we were interested.

I don't personally care one way or the other as I think it was absolutely necessary to force Saddam out of Kuwait and prevent him also taking the Saudi oil fields. My interest however, is to see what actually did happen in these things and not allow them to be defined via political spin or the desire of partisans to cast blame and/or condemnation on somebody with 'edited' evidence. Everything that happens isn't because somebody has a D or an R after their name.

But dragging the train back onto the tracks here, I am equally determined to believe the real story that might be available re the Fort Hood shooter, and not attempt to politicize it by manipulating what is available to know.
 
So...

Are there any things we can do to prevent the dangerous from doing dangerous things?

Arm soldiers; at least allow NCO's and officers to varry sidearms on post.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

It was in fact, as I clearly stated, speculated that Saddam interpreted her statements to mean we would not retaliate. From the same source you linked, you'll find references to other documentation that she made it quite clear that we did care and we were interested.
Saddam must have believed the US wouldn't retaliate because that was the question that he asked Galspie and her answer was the US had no opinion in the matter. So obviously, he thought the US wouldn't retlatiate based on Galspies response.


I don't personally care one way or the other as I think it was absolutely necessary to force Saddam out of Kuwait and prevent him also taking the Saudi oil fields. My interest however, is to see what actually did happen in these things and not allow them to be defined via political spin or the desire of partisans to cast blame and/or condemnation on somebody with 'edited' evidence. Everything that happens isn't because somebody has a D or an R after their name.
The evidence shows that Kuwaite was taking more than their share of oil from the Ramali oil fields that it shared with Iraq and producing more than was allowed under the quota system of OPEC. Kuwaite even admitted it and said they were doing it because they wanted to force Saddam to the negotiating table in order to come to an agreement. That is the cruxt of the dispute between Iraq and Kuwaite. Kuwaite was stealing Iraqs oil in order to force Saddam into an agreement.....

CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; The Oilfield Lying Below the Iraq-Kuwait Dispute - New York Times

But dragging the train back onto the tracks here, I am equally determined to believe the real story that might be available re the Fort Hood shooter, and not attempt to politicize it by manipulating what is available to know.
No arguement there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Why would he have to smuggle his wife on base?
We were on pre-deployment orders, no visitors allowed, no 'family time'.

Where were you stationed?
Fort Bliss, TX., but we weren't stationed there. We were conducting pre-deployment training.

I know most military bases allow wives on them...
Not when you're on pre-deployment orders, that's up to the company commander, and ours said 'no'. That didn't stop a certain SGT from smuggling his wife on base anyway.

Point is smuggling contraband onto a base takes exactly no effort. You're not searched. There's an ID check and that's it. It's simply not possible to search every vehicle coming through without a lock-down, and try conducting business under a lock-down.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Plus, since this was a military member that was responsible, how would those who are meant to deal with these situations actually know who the initial shooter was and who the people just trying to stop him were? The military cops/sentries/patrols are going to simply shoot whoever has a gun, particularly if they come up to someone shooting another person who is armed, even if the one being shot was the initial shooter.
Have you never been in a military living situation where everyone is armed? Jesus Christ, in Afghanistan every soldier had a firearm, by order of General Allen, and yet when **** happened no one ever just started shooting wildly like you describe. No, cops/sentries do not just start shooting whoever has a gun. That's just a retarded thing to say.

We are all armed while deployed, there's no reason to disarm when we comes back.

Edit:
I realized you just said you never actually carried a firearm while in the service. Well sir, I have, quite often, and I was constantly surrounded by several other soldiers who were similarly armed. When **** happened, our training kicked in...we called out Description, Direction, Distance and followed 'react to contact' and 'gunnery' protocol. We all worked as one, not as individuals. My military experience is saturated with firearms carried by just about everyone, everywhere we went. I am thus acclimated to and very comfortable with walking among a well armed population.
 
Last edited:
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Have you never been in a military living situation where everyone is armed? Jesus Christ, in Afghanistan every soldier had a firearm, by order of General Allen, and yet when **** happened no one ever just started shooting wildly like you describe. No, cops/sentries do not just start shooting whoever has a gun. That's just a retarded thing to say.

We are all armed while deployed, there's no reason to disarm when we comes back.

Edit:
I realized you just said you never actually carried a firearm while in the service. Well sir, I have, quite often, and I was constantly surrounded by several other soldiers who were similarly armed. When **** happened, our training kicked in...we called out Description, Direction, Distance and followed 'react to contact' and 'gunnery' protocol. We all worked as one, not as individuals. My military experience is saturated with firearms carried by just about everyone, everywhere we went. I am thus acclimated to and very comfortable with walking among a well armed population.

So do you believe that all soldiers on a domestic facility like Ft Hood should be constantly armed?
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

So do you believe that all soldiers on a domestic facility like Ft Hood should be constantly armed?
Every soldier should have the option of being armed while on or off duty, on or off base, in or out of uniform. This is basic safety.

That being said, I agree to additional certification to carry on base, because armed personal can be called upon to assist base security and will need to be familiar with certain policies, tactics, and points-of-contact. The base will need to maintain a roster of people who can be called upon for special duty and what assets/training they bring to bear.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Every soldier should have the option of being armed while on or off duty, on or off base, in or out of uniform. This is basic safety.

That being said, I agree to additional certification to carry on base, because armed personal can be called upon to assist base security and will need to be familiar with certain policies, tactics, and points-of-contact. The base will need to maintain a roster of people who can be called upon for special duty and what assets/training they bring to bear.

Fair enough.
 
There is an active shooter at the sprawling central Texas base of Fort Hood, a source at Fort Hood told CNN on Wednesday.

The situation is serious and sirens are going off, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

A spokesman for the base said an "incident" was under way but declined for provide additional information.

Fort Hood's official Twitter feed asked that all personnel on post to shelter in place.

Multiple casualties

Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood - CNN.com

If this was true they would have never released the story....

It's almost as if our government enjoys tragedies - just so they can talk **** and further degrade the Bill of Rights using their tyranny as an excuse for your safety.

Our government has a political reason for everything it does.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

Every soldier should have the option of being armed while on or off duty, on or off base, in or out of uniform. This is basic safety.

That being said, I agree to additional certification to carry on base, because armed personal can be called upon to assist base security and will need to be familiar with certain policies, tactics, and points-of-contact. The base will need to maintain a roster of people who can be called upon for special duty and what assets/training they bring to bear.

When I was in the service it was common place to SD (secondary duty)--that's how I learned to drive trucks. Simply allow troops to SD with the MP's for "X" amount of hours and become cerified to act in certain scenarios.
 
Re: Source: Active shooter at Fort Hood

When I was in the service it was common place to SD (secondary duty)--that's how I learned to drive trucks. Simply allow troops to SD with the MP's for "X" amount of hours and become cerified to act in certain scenarios.
Unlike the civilian world, really this is about a soldier doing their basic job, General Order #1. Gun-free-zones are prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and conduct.
 
Back
Top Bottom