TexasCHLforum.com

Truce?

On the condition those mugs are filled with Shiner Bock.

I know nothing about this other than what has been presented in the media. Hasan's records have been sealed, and it is not possible to define, in the media, much less this message board, the timeline of any discharge requests at this point. It is likely Hasan was denied discharge due to an obligation of service or that a deployment was pending. However it went down, and perhaps my earlier statements were overreaching, Hasan remained on active duty and had time to foment the details of this terrible act against his fellow soldiers. If the U.S. Army wants my help in figuring all this out, I'd be more than willing to furnish them with my military service I.D. number and lend an hand. God knows the Army and that chain of command need some help in this respect, because I don't think from their statements that some of the people currently in position fully understand what they're dealing with, and I'm talking about all the way to the top.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 9111127361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/ ... 257485260/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

57 coastie,

Allow me to be more specific. First, you obviously aren't in the chain of command I referred to, and my post was no personal attack on you.

Secondly, Hasan attempted to leave military service some years ago, and was refused. But after his twenty years were in, he decided to linger, and one must ask, why? The answer is that by that time, Hasan had suckered for the radical Islamic dogma and desired to stay in the service until he could effect some jihad event, which he did on Nov. 5, 2009, killing 13 people and wounding thirty.

Again, this was no personal attack, and I remain at a loss as to how you construed it as such.

the FBI learned late last year of Hasan's repeated contact with a radical Muslim cleric who encouraged Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Iraq

Hasan wasn't in Iraq, but he was in a unique position to kill U.S. troops on their native soil. He may have simply hung around in the Army waiting for the right opportunity, and connected last week. This guy was sane, he attacked on behalf of radical Islam, and he had a battle plan developed under the broad umbrella of Al Qaeda. I think people who believe Hasan acted alone and just flipped out mentally are fooling themselves. And that includes the U.S. Army, the Dept. of Defense, specifically Robert Gates and every other gutless wonderment up the chain of command all the way up to the Oval Office. How long it is before the next similar event here in the U.S.? The clock is ticking, and time is running out if they don't clean the house.

Was the Army afraid to say, "He is not qualified for advancement" for some particular reason?

The Army is hedging. Could be there are enough Muslims in the ranks now to cause big problems with manpower and stability if they become agitated on duty, or get discharged en mass. For those reasons, the military has to make Fort Hood out to be a non-terrorist event attributable to one man in order maintain the status quo.

I personally wouldn't blame Islam for this incident anymore than I would blame Christianity for the actions of the guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart.

Not all of Islam is at fault here, but some long running factions most assuredly are. Perhaps you missed this when I posted it earlier. It lays the religious link right out:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... pub822.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this, my favorite, written no long after 911 and published in the NY Times before it turned a blind eye to the problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/magaz ... s-war.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This wasn't...Islam's fault

As I noted before, it's only Islamic terrorism when it happens in foreign countries. Here, it's just a "cowardly act." Right

Coming to yuor neighborhood: http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2009/1535/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday in Central Texas, President Obama paid homage to each deceased Ft. Hood soldier while placing a small, coin-like object from a bag near his waist on each memorial. Were they the Purple Heart?

If so, it conflicts directly with the DOD's published opinion Ft. Hood was not a terrorist attack due to the narrow window of qualification for the medal:

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/PH1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Criteria: a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force who, while serving with the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded;

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States;

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged;

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party;

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces;

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force;

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States[/b] or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the department concerned, or jointly by the Secretaries of the departments concerned if persons from more than one department are wounded in the attack; or,

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations, while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

(8) After 7 December 1941, by weapon fire while directly engaged in armed conflict, regardless of the fire causing the wound.

(9) While held as a prisoner of war or while being taken captive.


And it they were not Purple Hearts Obama was presenting, then the subsequent tragedy of Ft. Hood is that thirteen U.S. soldiers killed and thirty wounded on the eve of this Veterans Day today are disrespected by their country for the misguided sake of political correctness and religious cowtowing.

New challenger to Al Qaeda sets new rules for Jihad. Hasan suckered a week too soon.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/11 ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe it has been firmly established on this board that gun control does not work.

Baseball bats would have been an excellent instrumentality to put Hasan down with.

Coverup of lax personnel policies.

To have trained soldiers gunned down because they don't have access to their weapons is criminal

Just finished watching Ft. Hood Commandant Lt. Gen Cone at a press conference on base via FOX network. From what he said, he isn't getting it. But he doesn't sound stupid, and he looked and acted a little tight lipped.

Argue the fine points all you want to. When he finally made his move, Hasan fell back on the role espoused for sleeper cells by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, acknowledged terrorists. I defer to Sen. Lieberman to pin the tail on this donkey.

It's virtually a given there is a connection between Hasan and radical Islam. He has performed exactly as individual sleeper cells are charged to do by Al Qaeda, independent of a central command structure and support. This is guerrilla warfare at it's best, and certainly was an act of the type of random terrorism espoused by Osama Bin Laden after 911. Perhaps Hasan was the last of them, or more likely, a forerunner of more to come. Pray the idiots inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway who let this problem develop both in and outside of the U.S. military handle it appropriately rather than in a politically correct manner.