Ft Hood Shooter is still alive

[Dench]

So, we are supposed to turn away in "feigned ignorance" from islamic extremists who have already proven their intent and mission on a host of occasions?

since when has our country turned a blind eye towards islamic extremists?

If my memory is correct im pretty sure our military is in a strange land called Afghanistan, fighting people who happen to be islamic extremists.

Have you done your part in fighting extremists?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Oh dearie me, an unsigned neg rep.

I would respond, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. Since when do skinheads not have the right to free speech?

Pardon me for not signing it....I don't participate in the rep point business all that much.

What I'm arguing is that you don't want government to charge the islamic jihadists who openly call for murder and terrorizing of the American people but advocate that people take them out.

Which is it? There are already laws on the books that prohibit riotous incitement of that nature and that is exactly what those fanatics were doing.
So, you say it would be ok for someone to walk up and cap them since they threaten to murder?........but not for the police to charge them?

Which is it?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

since when has our country turned a blind eye towards islamic extremists?

If my memory is correct im pretty sure our military is in a strange land called Afghanistan, fighting people who happen to be islamic extremists.

Have you done your part in fighting extremists?

Why yes I have as matter of fact, far more than my part. Not only have I served my entire military obligation on active duty, I have devoted the rest of my adult life to public safety, sent logistical support directly to troops in the field (out of my own pocket) and a few other things I care not to mention here.

Why do you ask? Are you trying to bait me or slander me in public?

You evidently misread or misunderstood my comment concerning "feigned ignorance". Do you need a more detailed explanation or can you get a grip of it from the context of the messages in the box?

 

[vellnueve]

Have you done your part in fighting extremists?

Of course he has! He sends his $30 every month.

 

[wolf223]

So, we are supposed to turn away in "feigned ignorance" from islamic extremists who have already proven their intent and mission on a host of occasions?

If it were white guys with a "REBEL FLAG" you could bet your ass there would be law enforcement feedback on scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh



round up all the gringoes too.... right?

 

[Jose]

since when has our country turned a blind eye towards islamic extremists?

If my memory is correct im pretty sure our military is in a strange land called Afghanistan, fighting people who happen to be islamic extremists.

Have you done your part in fighting extremists?

It turns a blind eye to them HERE. If you can't see that, there is no helping you.

 

[Dench]

Why do you ask? Are you trying to bait me or slander me in public?

You evidently misread or misunderstood my comment concerning "feigned ignorance". Do you need a more detailed explanation or can you get a grip of it from the context of the messages in the box?

yeah i was trying to bait you and i misread it.
im still working on reading comprehension.
whoops.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Of course he has! He sends his $30 every month.

Pardon my ignorance but whats that supposed to mean? I don't send anyone thirty dollars a month for anything.

 

[vellnueve]

Pardon me for not signing it....I don't participate in the rep point business all that much.

What I'm arguing is that you don't want government to charge the islamic jihadists who openly call for murder and terrorizing of the American people but advocate that people take them out.

Which is it? There are already laws on the books that prohibit riotous incitement of that nature and that is exactly what those fanatics were doing.
So, you say it would be ok for someone to walk up and cap them since they threaten to murder?........but not for the police to charge them?

Which is it?

If any person seriously threatens another person specifically, and the threatened person has reason to fear for their life, the threatened person has the right to defend their live by any means necessary. So yes, if some fanatic threatens you specifically, I say that you have the intrinsic human right to self-defense, even if it means acting pre-emptively. Same goes for the country as a whole: Hostile states threatening the US should be fully aware that they will get what's coming to them.

That said, if a group is spewing random bouts of threats and hate, I say that the government does not have the right to shut them up. It is up to the people to drive them out of town. The government can certainly keep an eye on them and head off any attempts at actual violence, but it should not be stopping them from saying what they want to say, only from acting upon it. I don't care if they have Lou Horuchi sitting 300 yards away from the fanatics place with a rifle, waiting for them to try to act on their threats, but as long as they're just talking, they should be allowed to talk.

It is up to the PEOPLE to self-regulate what they will tolerate in terms of speech and expression in their community, not the government. This is why police did not exist in early America.

 

[depicts]

BeltFed, you're always going to post on the radical side on any issue. Radical of course means anyone left or right of my point of view!!!

In the past you have expressed your position about what some of us should tolerate. You always talk tough, like when you are talking about cops coming to your home to get your guns, you say it wouldn't happen. (And that's a gentle interpretation of your comments)

What I saw in the Video was some idiots speaking their piece about a political position. That's what free speech was all about. Freedom to criticize the government and the Establishment.

I think you and a few of your equally tough INTERNET-commando type posters in this room should just go down to that Mosque and kick some butt, and fix it for us.

Thanks, I appreciate that!

 

[vellnueve]

What I saw in the Video was some idiots speaking their piece about a political position. That's what free speech was all about. Freedom to criticize the government and the Establishment.

This is what I'm getting at. I am distinguishing between an actual, veritable threat of death or actions towards that end against innocent parties (which should be met by overwhelming force by either the government or the threatened), and rhetoric, even angry, violent rhetoric, which is still protected under the First.

 

[CrossFrire]

I'm not sure what to make of this but I have been reading posts on some other military rifle and surplus boards I frequent. Guys who I know to be current duty Army and on site at Hood have descretly disputed the single shooter story. No wild stories but remarks that "the whole story isn't availible" and such.
These are career guys who were near the event and have made statements early on that were later confirmed.
Even back when I was in I saw military command bow to civilian political power. I'd hate to think political correctness is going to do here what it did in Oklahoma City.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

If any person threatens another person specifically, the threatened person has the right to defend their live by any means necessary. So yes, if some fanatic threatens you specifically, I say that you have the intrinsic human right to self-defense, even if it means acting pre-emptively. Same goes for the country as a whole: Hostile states threatening the US should be fully aware that they will get what's coming to them.

That said, if a group is spewing random bouts of threats and hate, I say that the government does not have the right to shut them up. It is up to the people to drive them out of town. The government can certainly keep an eye on them and head off any attempts at actual violence, but it should not be stopping them from saying what they want to say, only from acting upon it. I don't care if they have Lou Horuchi sitting 300 yards away from the fanatics place with a rifle, waiting for them to try to act on their threats, but as long as they're just talking, they should be allowed to talk.

It is up to the PEOPLE to self-regulate what they will tolerate in terms of speech and expression in their community, not the government. This is why police did not exist in early America.

Ok. See its easier once you take a stand.

Now, what about the incitement part of it? Why is there ALWAYS a double standard applied as far as on scene law enforcement participation goes,when the color of the participants skin is pigmented or their religion is other than Christian? This is what has me puzzled.

 

[clinotus]

My predictions of what we will hear..

1) He will be painted as the victim of harrassment,due to being Muslim.

2) He will claim PTSD by proxy because of all the soldiers he treated returning from war.

3) He was a good American,that just snapped.

4) The media will keep covering this to take attention away from the health care bill being voted on under the cover of media darkness(Saturday)

5) This whole thing could have been avoided if the American people were more tolerant of other races and religions.

6) You will rarely hear the word terrorist or Muslim regarding this POS.

Watching Fox news @ 6:33 pm. They did your first three in a row. The 4th is a given, 5 was spot on.

 

[depicts]

I'm not sure what to make of this but I have been reading posts on some other military rifle and surplus boards I frequent. Guys who I know to be current duty Army and on site at Hood have descretly disputed the single shooter story. No wild stories but remarks that "the whole story isn't availible" and such.
These are career guys who were near the event and have made statements early on that were later confirmed.
Even back when I was in I saw military command bow to civilian political power. I'd hate to think political correctness is going to do here what it did in Oklahoma City.

Crossfrire, you're right about that. Once something this big happens somewhere the "officials" can "contain" the story, the people never find out the real truth on these things.

Our grandchildren wll learn the truth when we are all gone.

 

[Bill Nance]

Your waffling like a blade of grass in the wind.

Which is it?

If it were white skinheads out there, there would be a hundred jackboots lining the streets with armored cars.

When islamic fanatics call for jihad against Americans openly in public everyone folds........F#$%^& cowards.!!!!!

And if they rounded up the skinheads for saying what the article quotes, all of which stops short of advocating direct action, it would be wrong.

Your fear of the other is letting you consent to government authority to quash protected, if vile speech. Again, There is nothing in that CNN article which I haven't seen espoused on this board, just the choice of targets/victims is a little different. Calls for genocide against millions ("nuke em all") is made here all the time.

You're falling into the same BS trap that was laid after 911 and the patriot act. Next you'll be ok with forced loyalty oaths? Or only if people are Muslims? how about if they are Jews? How about people who think the federal government has gotten out of control? Where does your list of people it's ok to round up for disgusting speech end?

ETA: My 1st amendment rights are no more "negotiable" than my second amendment rights.

 

[flintoid]

I think others have said what I was going to say here.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

And if they rounded up the skinheads for saying what the article quotes, all of which stops short of advocating direct action, it would be wrong.

Your fear of the other is letting you consent to government authority to quash protected, if vile speech. Again, There is nothing in that CNN article which I haven't seen espoused on this board, just the choice of targets/victims is a little different. Calls for genocide against millions ("nuke em all") is made here all the time.

You're falling into the same BS trap that was laid after 911 and the patriot act. Next you'll be ok with forced loyalty oaths? Or only if people are Muslims? how about if they are Jews? How about people who think the federal government has gotten out of control? Where does your list of people it's ok to round up for disgusting speech end?
ETA: My 1st amendment rights are no more "negotiable" than my second amendment rights.

It ends where the threats end.

I acknowledge your point of view. The calls for "nuke em all" made on this board are rhetorical at best. The calls for jihad by islamic extremists are NOT and are actively being carried out on a daily basis, not only here in this country but around the globe.
When you have troops in the field fighting an enemy, is it ok to let that same self avowed enemy gather, plan and carry out actions on that troops doorstep? I think not.
We'll see eventually how very incompatible Islam is with America.

 

[machocheese]

Fox news just reported that his legally bought FN 5.7 is a "very powerful 9mm handgun with a twenty round clip. Often referred to as a cop killer, because when loaded with a certain type of bullet can pierce bullet proof vests." Great. So much for Fair and Balanced.

 

[Dench]

Fox news just reported that his legally bought FN 5.7 is a "very powerful 9mm handgun with a twenty round clip. Often referred to as a cop killer, because when loaded with a certain type of bullet can pierce bullet proof vests." Great. So much for Fair and Balanced.

some interesting fact checking going on over at fox news i see

 

[Garys]

Fox news just reported that his legally bought FN 5.7 is a "very powerful 9mm handgun with a twenty round clip. Often referred to as a cop killer, because when loaded with a certain type of bullet can pierce bullet proof vests." Great. So much for Fair and Balanced.

Oh, that's the ever dangerous 9mm 5.7mm projectile. Now we know why it was so effective. Seriously, Fox News (especially Shemp Smith) is as useless as CNN or MSNBC.

On a different note, I've read two, from two different sources, that there really were three shooters and that two of them are unaccounted for. I don't know if there is any validity to that, it is interesting though.

 

[Baystatesuks]

Oh, that's the ever dangerous 9mm 5.7mm projectile. Now we know why it was so effective. Seriously, Fox News (especially Shemp Smith) is as useless as CNN or MSNBC.

On a different note, I've read two, from two different sources, that there really were three shooters and that two of them are unaccounted for. I don't know if there is any validity to that, it is interesting though.

I saw on the CBS news that the 5.7 was known as a "Cop Killer" I learn something new everyday.

 

[Garys]

I saw on the CBS news that the 5.7 was known as a "Cop Killer" I learn something new everyday.

See? The Lame Stream Media isn't completely useless.

 

[economist]

some interesting fact checking going on over at fox news i see

The idiots in media are all over the [STRIKE].22 magnum[/STRIKE] Five-seveN angle. From ABC News:

The gun thought to be used in the Fort Hood massacre packs so much firepower, it's known as 'the Cop Killer,' federal law enforcement officials said.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly packed a FN Herstal Five-seveN tactical pistol, which according to federal law enforcement officials, was legally purchased from the "Guns Galore" shop in Killeen, Texas in Aug. 2009.

On FN Herstal's webpage, the benefits of the Five-seveN pistol note that it can "defeat the enemy in all close combat situations in urban areas, jungle conditions, night missions and any self defense action."

Hasan may have used an expanded clip in the shooting.

The second gun he had with him was a .357 S&W Magnum revolver, federal law enforcement officials tell ABC News. Ballistics are still being run to determine if he used the revolver in the shooting.

 

[wolf223]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/fort.hood.munley/index.html

 

[Garys]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/fort.hood.munley/index.html

Wait a second! She's a cop. He shot her with the 5.7mm. She's not dead (which is a very good thing). How could that be?

 

[vellnueve]

Ok. See its easier once you take a stand.

Now, what about the incitement part of it? Why is there ALWAYS a double standard applied as far as on scene law enforcement participation goes,when the color of the participants skin is pigmented or their religion is other than Christian? This is what has me puzzled.

Huh? They watch white supremacists and Christian extremists just as closely as they do anyone else. These groups simply aren't as loud or extreme in their public rantings and thus don't make the news headlines.

 

[theGringo]

I carry a weapon at my home. Even if I am sitting here in my underwear.

Prove it. Pictures.

 

[wolf223]

Wait a second! She's a cop. He shot her with the 5.7mm. She's not dead (which is a very good thing). How could that be?

we can start a caliber war

but yep, still alive and LEO. although it doesn't specify wether she was Provost Marshall, DoD Police or a rent-a-cop...... *not that it matters.....

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Huh? They watch white supremacists and Christian extremists just as closely as they do anyone else. These groups simply aren't as loud or extreme in their public rantings and thus don't make the news headlines.

Maybe we are sailing past eachother here........

Why when a white Christian group protests or gathers, is there a hundred cops on scene and mobs of angry onlookers condemming them, but when radical muslim extremists or hispanic La Raza/Reconquesta extremists gather there is little if any law enforcement activity or response??

Clear?