Confederate Yankee: Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.

November 18, 2009

Broken Minds

This observation from Tom Maguire has haunted me since last night.

As he told us last Friday, Eric Holder wants to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian courts because he (mostly) attacked civilians, while the attackers of the USS Cole will be sent to a military tribunal. The Dallas Morning News explained:

There is no contradiction here: military courts for attacks on the military, civilian courts for attacks on civilians.

OMG. And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?
How bizarre is Holder's logic? First, why give more rights and more protections to a terrorists who targets civilians? Secondly, the court ought to be determined by the nature of the defendant, not the nature of the victims - if KSM is an enemy combatant he deserves a military tribunal regardless of who he was crafty enough to target.

I've long disagreed with the underlying ideology of the Obama Administration, which is based upon the philosophies of those men who replaced his father in his life. Radical left-wing ideologies like those the President learned from his mentors—Frank Marshall Davis (communist), Bill Ayers (Marxist), Jeremiah Wright (racist black liberation theology, Marxism), etc—have never led to anything other than misery for the wretches that survive it.

But Obama and his subordinates compound the errors of these diseased ideologies by adopting another failed ideology, one that acts as if the open warfare of Islamic fascism is a civilian law enforcement problem. That flawed thinking already led to horrors of 9/11. Why are our President and Attorney General so dimwitted that they desire to repeat those mistakes and put the lives of Americans at greater risk?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:35 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

1 It is obvious that Holder has not bounced this idea of anyone with any intelligence.This is up there with the decision to NOT prosecute the black panthers on the voting station steps in Pa. If this insanity actually leads to a trial in NYC and a bomb goes off there, it will be the end of the era of Hope and Change. Holder is way over his head in this and there in no good that can come from it. Like my Dad used to tell me when I was a teenage hoodlum with bad ideas, "What is the best and worst thing that this will produce".

Posted by: inspectorudy at November 18, 2009 11:04 AM (Vo1wX)

2 But at the same time, KSM isn't a soldier, he's a murderer. His attack wasn't an act of war it was a cowardly crime. To me that means he should be treated as a criminal, and the Brits and Spanish had the same reaction after the London and Madrid bombings. They tried those guys in the cities that had been bombed, and they tried them in civilian courts, and they got convictions for murder, not war crimes or some crap like that. If we turn terrorists like KSM into soldiers, or enemy combatants, or any legal fudge other than criminal then any attack by those guys that targets our military -- like the Pentagon -- would be a simple act of war in an ongoing war, and the civilian deaths would be collateral damage, which is pure BS. These guys aren't fighting a war, they're terrorists plain and simple.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 02:33 PM (KD9e1)

3 I wonder if Jim would feel the same way if it was his relatives that died in those buildings on 9/11.

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 18, 2009 03:09 PM (T4ASz)

4 WTF is that supposed to mean Michael, did you even read what I wrote? KSM isn't a soldier, he's a criminal. His actions weren't attacks upon an enemy nation during a time of war, they were murders. When we bomb cities during a war it's an act of war, not an act of murder. Do you want KSM to be able to claim he was doing the same thing? Of course not.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 03:56 PM (KD9e1)

5 And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack a pig farm ? Will they be tried by a court of pigs ?

Posted by: Neo at November 19, 2009 08:43 AM (tE8FB)

6 So does this mean that the Holocaust was a military operation ? 6 million military deaths ? Nuremberg was a military tribunal. Would a nuclear attack be a military or civilian operation ? Do they count the number of eviscerated and wounded military vs civilians ?

Posted by: Neo at November 19, 2009 08:51 AM (tE8FB)

7 You are free to disagree, but you are being willfully blind of the facts in this matter. So by your definition, since Al Qaeda is not a formalized fighting force (aka Army), then ALL trials of Al Qaeda detainees should be held in civilian court. Is that what you are really espousing?

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 19, 2009 09:04 AM (T4ASz)

8 Neo, Nuremberg is tricky for a number of reasons, the court was a mix of civilian and military, the defendants were a mix of civilian and military persons, and they were accused of a whole array of different crimes from waging illegal aggressive war to hate speech. Throw in a multinational set of prosecutors and judges and there's pretty much something for everyone there. This is just us. Mike, I'm talking about KSM a guy who was captured far from the battlefield, not every potential defendant, different circumstances warrant different approaches. Here's what I worry about, you can tell me if it's a valid concern. The first shot we fired in the Iraq War was a cruise missile or missiles fired to try and kill Saddam. We had declared war, he was the head of state and the commander of the Iraqi military making him a valid target. If some group like Al Qaeda "declares war" on us, would it then be legal in your eyes for them to attempt to blow up the President? I don't. I don't want to invest individual terrorists with the privileges of nations.

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 09:30 AM (KD9e1)

9 I think the pushback on Jim is a bit gratuitous. But there is a third designation of less than ancient vintage but still with a long track record. In the Geneva Conventions this demo of asshole is called an "unlawful combatant" and as I understand it this concept loomed large in the legal underpinnings (yes, there were such) of the Bushies detention policies. It seems unclear if it is still the case and it is clearly NOT the case if other international accords are considered but in their original form the Geneva Conventions took a rather stern line on unlawful combatants; summary battlefield execution. If that is allowed then any lesser harshness in their detention is discretionary. The real indictment of the Obama KWM policy is that he has already confessed in military tribunals and no, this was not swirlied out of him. He is, as one would expect, quite a proud jihadi. As far as "justice" goes, before the recent decisions of OHolder, execution was a matter of procedure. These procedures were not yet pursued for the obvious intelligence value of KSM and who knows what other political factors. This amounts not to a delivery of justice unless a reprieve of the condemned man and a new trial is warrented. It is a perversion not of justice merely but of the justice system because rather than introducing decent jurisprudence into the GWOT it is importing Jihad into our courtrooms. So, what will be the results? I predict that KSM will walk. Holder declares that he has sufficient evidence for a CAPITAL conviction that is of sufficient provenance to be admitted. Well, maybe he thinks he does but it is the DUTY of the other side to argue otherwise. This "other" evidence must be absolutely underived from any non-Mirandized and evidence-chained information from ANY source. Needless to say this is a high bar and Holder's declared confidence is just braggadoccio. But will any of that ever become an issue? How will they seat a jury? That is a year's process at least, and then only if the defense team is not intentionally delaying. Other tactical possibilities abound that make Mr. Holder's "evidence" moot. Only two outcomes are possible. One, KSM will walk or two, he will be returned to his former state of detention. And it will not really take some Leftwing nutcase judge or plant in the jury, merely a rigorous application of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and if that doesn't happen at trial, it will happen at appeal, which is of course automatic and gub financed in capital cases. No, KSM is NOT in for speedy trial and execution. Nope. Holder promises the impossible, declaring it inevitable and in so doing reveals that he knows nothing in his supposed area of expertise OR he was instructed to make this decision. In that case he is indeed The Holder. He is holding the bag and it is ticking.

Posted by: megapotamus at November 19, 2009 09:41 AM (Z1yVV)

10 Jim believes that the Nanking Massacre wasn't murder because it was part of War. Jim, all good people in the world disagree with you, as does the US Military. UCMJ - Article 118 - Murder

Posted by: brando at November 19, 2009 02:47 PM (IPGju)

11 You have it completely backwards as usual Brando. A better analogy for what I actually wrote above would be; I don't think a Chinese man who shot a Japanese woman in Tokyo a month after Nanking should be treated as though he was a soldier at war on the battlefield. You can murder while in uniform, no one disputes that. I do not believe a person can declare war on a nation and then 5 years later kill civilians and call that an act of war. KSM was not a soldier in a war, he was a simple criminal and should be tried as such.

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 03:36 PM (3GzXA)

12 Jim - Your argument is so specious that I don't know where to start. The US did not specifically target Saddam at the beginning of hostilities. They concentrated on command, control and communication facilities. That's the first move any aggressor makes in a war. The US may have a lobbed a missle or two after Saddam, and if they got him in the process, so much the better. But as I recall, lots of munitions fell that night, and not all of them were aimed at Saddam. And do you really believe that Al Qaeda would hesitate, even for a second, to eliminate Bush if they had the chance? You do understand what a PR coup that would be for Al Qaeda, right? Further, except for the heroic actions of some on flight 83, Al Qaeda WOULD have destroyed the Capital. But, if I understand your argument correctly, had the terrorists succeeded, and politicians (as opposed to civilians) died, then we could try KSM in a military court? You may not want to "invest individual terrorists with privileges of nations", but Al Qaeda doesn't really care what you think. They have already taken those "privileges", whether granted or not.

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 19, 2009 05:47 PM (T4ASz)

13 BAGHDAD, Iraq Â— The United States launched its opening attack against Iraq Thursday morning, aiming at "targets of military opportunity" in a pre-dawn "decapitation" strike after President Bush's deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave the country passed unheeded. The "decapitation" attack targeted Saddam personally, U.S. officials told Fox News, and the barrage of cruise missiles and bombs was a prelude to a major invasion of Iraq. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81607,00.html Of course Al Qaeda would target our President, my question to you is, if we and Al Qaeda are at war, and you can legally target a leader in a "decapitation" strike while at war, would you call an attack by Al Qaeda on our President a valid act of war or a crime. I would call it a crime because I don't treat Al Qaeda as an entity that can wage war. If you say they can and have, then why would their decapitation strike be illegal and ours legal?

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 06:24 PM (3GzXA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 12, 2009

The Convictions of a Coward: Obama Fails to Choose and Chooses to Fail on Afghanistan

Barack Obama knows nothing of military strategy or tactics, doesn't understand counterinsurgency, and holds a barely-disguised contempt for the military. I guess it shouldn't be surprising, then, that the President has rejected all options for winning the war in Afghanistan presented to him:

After months of deliberating, President Obama opted not to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The Obama Administration sat silently by and enabled what most believe to be a fraudulent reelection of Karzai, and now wants to use his reelection as an excuse? That's like watching an arsonist douse a house in gasoline, only to complain later about the smoldering rubble being a blight on the neighborhood.

Karzai is a starwman, and a pathetic one at that. On two separate occasions in recent we've noted a remarkable counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan that bypasses Karzai's corrupt central government altogether, and works with the real arbiters of power in Afghani society, the tribes. One Tribe at a Time (PDF) is a blueprint for winning the Afghan war, and with a smaller footprint to boot.

The Administration could easily adopt this plan, but refuses to consider it an an option. Considering it removes their self-inflicted strawman of an ineffectual and corrupt central government that largely doesn't exist outside of Kabul.

Jim Hanson, retired SF operator and Director of the Warrior Legacy Institute, notes:

He has already had the advice of his entire military chain of command with a near unanimous call for for reinforcements to move to the strategy that won in Iraq. We have watched as he has heard from the deep wisdom of Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel. We have seen him dither and quibble and show a completely ineffectual and uncommitted face to our enemies and the rest of the world. Now months after his hand-picked commander has told him the situation is bad and getting worse, our troops in the field fight and die without the support of their Commander in Chief. He sent 21,000 more brave men and women there and now they are flappin' in the breeze. How can a squad leader look his men in the eyes and tell them to saddle up and head out on a patrol, perhaps to be the last to die for a cause their President no longer believes in?

Quite clearly, Barack Obama has decided against winning the war in Afghanistan, showing his long history of claiming that the Afghan war is the right war, and the war we must win, to be a bald-faced lie he repeated to get into office.

He is steeling himself for surrender, hunting for excuses to fail. And the rubes that believed he was anything other than a self-loathing defeatist have nobody but themselves to blame for electing him.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:08 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Damn Bob, how do you really feel? Ever thought of running for public office? You've got my vote! I couldn't agree with you more and after that pussy Colin Powell told Obama to take as much time as he needs to make the right decision, we can tell who he is listening to.

Posted by: inspectorudy at November 12, 2009 11:41 AM (Vo1wX)

2 I guess the mantra "The president needs to listen to the commanders in the field" ended on January 20, 2009. Tarheel Repub Out!

Posted by: Tarheel Repub at November 12, 2009 12:08 PM (+LRPE)

3 You can tell that Obama has never played sports at a competitive level...because he doesn't know how much losing sucks. I grieve for the brave men and women who have been lost in Afghanistan and those who are still there fighting the good fight.

Posted by: favill at November 12, 2009 02:21 PM (fzLjW)

4 As his approval ratings sink, especially among independents, he becomes more dependent on the left wing to fund his campaign in 2012. The left hates the war in Afghanistan because it eats up their cash for social "progress" and because they failed to get their way in Iraq. Besides, most Muslims vote for the left everywhere in the world and their votes might count in 2012. Perhaps Obama thinks he can hold off defeat in Afgahnistan long enough to keep the left with him on health care and get him reelected. He has always gotten farther in his life by avoiding concrete decisions for which he alone has to be responsible . This war is only another example of this general theme. Also Afghanistan is not like Iraq which has oil wealth to support compromise among its factions and build a social infrastructure with some liberalizing elements in it. It has no uniformed enemy to quickly defeat, as the Russians found out. A very long term commitment is in the offing. Yet he would be better off to commit the troops the generals want and let them fight it how they want. If they fail he will be blamed but not as much as for a loss by doing too little.But the left has always distrusted the military, and Obama is a child of the left. Probably the Bay of Pigs and Tet are ringing in his ears.

Posted by: mytralman at November 12, 2009 02:35 PM (26p91)

5 As I wrote at least a year ago, the man is setting up a total pullout of Afghanistan, to be coupled with the draw-down of troops in Iraq and then there will be "no reason" to have such a costly defense department budget. You can rest assured the far left influence on him will prevail on this one. He's lost them on just about everything else and can't afford the political fallout in 2010. He HAS to take the gamble that pulling out of Afghanistan will save his bacon (along with Dems far and wide) in the mid-terms. However, I strongly suspect that "it's the economy, stupid" will override any such terrible decision. The man is a total fraud.

Posted by: Dell at November 12, 2009 04:48 PM (tS5n6)

6 What constantly amazes me is that these fools think that they can lie and lie and then lie about their lies, and we are too stupid to catch on. Just listening to these congressfools you can catch one lie built on top of another, and so forth. When will this house of cards fall? Man I sure hope soon, but unfortunately, the people out there are stupid enough to believe the lies. Who would have thought.

Posted by: TimothyJ at November 12, 2009 05:13 PM (IKKIf)

7 showing his long history of claiming that the Afghan war is the right war, and the war we must win, to be a bald-faced lie he repeated to get into office. Along with all the other lies Obama spouted in order to get into office. This sort of lying is as acceptable in Marxism as it is in Islam (Hudaibiya). It only matters if people remember. And it is hard to remember when the media constantly rewrites history (with the willing help of the left).

Posted by: iconoclast at November 12, 2009 05:42 PM (FGCRY)

8 Ugh! Speak NOT the name Powell! Is this auto-erotic reacharound not explicitly a repudiation of the alleged Powell Doctrine? What happened to going in fastest with the mostest, achieving a clear goal and going on home? Can anyone dispute at this point that Powell's persistent support of Obama in public divergence from his own long spouted views is anything more, anything other than racial solidarity? Powell always was an opportunist politically. He jumped on the O-wagon for no reason he is willing to burp up, he latched onto Desert Storm as its alleged architect and claimed the mantle of genius. It did not harm him that the Reps, quite wrongly, were seeking a Great Black Hope. Now, fifteen years later, we engage in the nation building Powell counseled was counter-productive... and maybe that was so, but he holds no brief against it now that it is being conducted by his Presidential preference; coincidentally a brutha. The man is without identifiable principle even in his field of "expertise". That is warfare, in case you were wondering. As far as I know, Powell has been portrayed only once in film, as the media driven bufoon of a general in Mars Attacks. Most gratifyingly, he is deathrayed at the first alien encounter and looks mighty shocked by that turn of events. I have to think he wears that expression frequently in his private moments, given the political deathrays buzzing past our ears these days.

Posted by: megapotamus at November 13, 2009 08:52 AM (eILON)

9 McChrystal asked for 2 divisions, 40,000 men. We do not have them available. 1 week ago the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Obama this that they would not recommend any soldiers being sent to Afghanistan that had not had 1 full year back in the USA from a combat deployment. You freakin armchair generals always think you know better. Go back to playing Risk. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125720469173424023.html The Joint Chiefs says we have no troops available until next summer, but you think that they should go now.

Posted by: John ryan at November 13, 2009 12:20 PM (m0Q2u)

10 John, I don't speak for anyone else here I suspect but I am not reflexively for the McChrystal plan but McChrystal is Barack's handpicked man and as I recall his appointment, he was saying the same thing then. It could well be that Afghanistan is a fool's errand but that is not what Obama ran on, he ran on a more vigorous prosecution of the Afghan campaign than that doofus Bush. This was his claim to seriousness on foreign policy matters. Has anything changed? Sure. And maybe it is time to bug out. Maybe it is time to ramp up. Maybe it is time to dig in. What it is NOT time to do is to PUBLICLY fiddle-fart around. Bush made good decisions and he made bad decisions but he was, truly, The Decider. We have replaced him with The Denier. What the decision may be, yes I can defer to Obama which is more than the Democrats were ever willing to allow W. Whether a decision is warranted; that I declare as a citizen is a closed question.

Posted by: megapotamus at November 13, 2009 01:53 PM (eILON)

11 Obama is proving that the Bush strategy for Afghanistan was Â“spot on.Â”

Posted by: Neo at November 14, 2009 02:05 AM (tE8FB)

12 Neo, time does seem to be endorsing that view. I think we are not far from the day when Barack publicly embraces not just Bushism on foreign policy as he quietly has done on domestic surveillance for example. He will publicly embrace Bush the man. Sadly, what potential Surge II has for success is largely time dependent. Each day of dither the jihadis maneuver freely, gain ground and resources. Whether you like it or not, Barry. YOU are The Decider now. If you don't do it, it don't get done. This and other wisdoms Bush may gently communicate.

Posted by: megapotamus at November 14, 2009 07:19 AM (Uu2CW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 05, 2009

Fort Hood Shooter ID'd

With the release of two other possible suspects, it is now starting to look like the shooting at Fort Hood today was the work of a single man, armed with two handguns. He was named as Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who ironically specialized in treating traumatic stress, and who was angry about having to deploy to Iraq at the end of November.

Like another mass murder who targeted young adults, Hasan went to Virginia Tech.

Figures.

Update: Breaking news as of 10:00 PM is that Hasan did not die, and is in custody in stable condition.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:16 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'm a UVA grad who pretends to hate VT, especially every November when you smoke us in football, but I have to agree with you on this one kaceala. Assuming someone is a likely mass murderer because they attend VT, join the Army, practice Islam, or have slanted eyes is offensive. College attendance, military service, religion, and epicanthic folds don't kill people, people kill people.

Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:15 PM (KD9e1)

2 Assuming someone is a likely mass murderer because they attend VT, join the Army, practice Islam, or have slanted eyes is offensive. Let us know when someone does that. Meanwhile, it seems that people are assuming Hasan is a likely mass murderer because of all the people he appears to have killed.

Posted by: Pablo at November 05, 2009 11:37 PM (yTndK)

3 There are, at the moment, some things relating to this murderous attack (not a "tragedy" as VP Biden said) that we know with certainty: (1) Terrorists and criminals do not obey gun control laws. (2) Gun free zones--surprisingly, this includes military installations--are among the least safe places in America. (3) The police cannot protect any given citizen and have no legal do duty to do so. (4) The only thing that can potentially deter terrorists is the knowledge that there are no gun free zones and that when they attack, there will likely be armed citizens ready to resist. (5) When a lunatic starts shooting, the only thing that can stop him is armed, capable citizens who immediately return fire. (6) In gun free zones, even the most rapid police response will mean nothing to the victims and their loved ones, in this case, 12 dead and 31 wounded at last count. (7) Liberals and Obamites will surely use this situation to clamor for more gun control. (

Liberal and Obamites will suppress any information relating to the shooter that might seem negative toward Islam or any other favored victim groups or nation. (9) Anyone expressing anger toward the shooter will be branded a racist by the press. (10) Should it turn out that the shooter had foreign, jihadist connections, particularly any Iran-related connections, they will be ruthless suppressed by the Obamites so as not to harm "engagement" with those who seek to destroy western civilization.

Posted by: Mike McDaniel at November 05, 2009 11:41 PM (DJR56)

4 Kaceala and Jim, ConYank gave us an interesting tidbit of information and a useful reminder of an instance of another mass murder of people within the murderers daily sphere. Of all the things in the world to get offended about to pick this one is well...picky. On the other hand, Steve had a straight to the core of the matter comment.

Posted by: Jayne at November 05, 2009 11:43 PM (dwIL0)

5 Hi Pablo, Yeah, CY made no comments at all about this guys time at VT having any influence on his crime. Three different times. And capt26thga didn't say anything about muslims being the enemy and that they should not be trusted just like people with slanted eyes were not to be trusted in the Nam (which oddly includes every single Vietnamese person we were fighting to protect, I'm not exactly sure what he thinks we were doing over there). Nope, no one said anything like that here at all.

Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:48 PM (KD9e1)

6 Yeah, Pablo's right. The assumption that he's a mass murderer is pretty much a result of 12 dead, and 31 wounded. Um, so when you look at this whole situation, the thing you're offended about is that CY pointed out that two mass murderers went to the same college, and not the mass murder itself. Murder is what I find offensive, especially against servicemen, but that's just me. Agree to disagree I guess. I went to DU right away, and of course, they're yucking it up pretty good, and making up lies. Today's a pretty awesome day for Liberals, but a pretty terrible day for America.

Posted by: brando at November 05, 2009 11:49 PM (LjEkE)

7 Jim's just here to gloat.

Posted by: brando at November 05, 2009 11:50 PM (LjEkE)

8 Take your spluttering indignant outrage and direct it at the man who just murdered a bunch of people, Jim.

Posted by: Steve at November 05, 2009 11:53 PM (xdvz0)

9 Gloat Brando? You are one sick person. Get well. Jayne, CY didn't point out a tidbit that the two mass murderers went to the same school, he said, and I quote "frankly wonder if Hasan might have been influenced by the university massacre...Not influenced as it "he made me do it" but more inspired to carry out the same sort of attack." CY says "Went to Tech = more likely to commit mass murder", which is stupid and offensive.

Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:55 PM (KD9e1)

10 Take your anger and direct it at the man who pulled the trigger, not everyone who happens to practice the same religion, Steve.

Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:58 PM (KD9e1)

11 >>"Take your anger and direct it at the man who pulled the trigger, not everyone who happens to practice the same religion, Steve." Like you, huh? Run along, you nasty little turd.

Posted by: Steve at November 06, 2009 12:05 AM (xdvz0)

12 Nope, I'm a Baptist. As for the rest you sound like you're full of rage yourself Steve, I wonder if it's due to your religion or race? Or maybe you're just a jerk.

Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 12:11 AM (KD9e1)

13 CY says "Went to Tech = more likely to commit mass murder", which is stupid and offensive. I was noting that they both used roughly the same MO of using handguns at point blank range against massed unarmed young adults with little chance of escaping a campus-like environment, but whatever floats your boat.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 06, 2009 12:28 AM (WjpSC)

14 CY you said "more inspired to carry out the same kind of attack". The attack was a mass murder, 'more inspired' is the same thing as 'more likely', If there is another meaning for the words "more inspired" I'm all ears.

Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 12:42 AM (KD9e1)

15 I shouldn't be sniping at you over this today CY, I apologize. I think your statement was over the top, but, I agree with some others here that this isn't the time or place for an argument, it's a time to think about the families of the victims. I'd appreciate it if you could delete my last post to Steve (the one at 12:11). You deleted his, for obvious reasons, and it would probably be for the best if you deleted my response to the now missing post. That was for sure an exchange that didn't need to happen!

Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 12:55 AM (KD9e1)

16 "More inspired" meaning "hey, that guy killed a bunch of people in a place they couldn't defend themselves so maybe I should hit the same sort of target." Oh wait, that doesn't let you get any remarks full of mightily faux outrage at CY so you probably discarded it, if you bothered to think much about it at all.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 06, 2009 12:59 AM (RezbN)

17 Patrick, You're leaving out the part where CY said it "figures" that Hasan went to Tech. OK, I'm out, please direct all future comments about faux outrage to the tech grad and vet kaceala.

Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 01:09 AM (KD9e1)

18 "I agree with some others here that this isn't the time or place for an argument, it's a time to think about the families of the victims." You expect that to be believed after that show you just put on? I'm against mass murder, and you think I'm sick? What in the world is wrong with you? When you think of what that monster did to those servicemen and their families, you come here to yuck it up, and throw insults? Wow. You really do have negative value.

Posted by: brando at November 06, 2009 01:29 AM (LjEkE)

19 Brando, project much? Quote me gloating and yucking it up or go play somewhere else. As for throwing insults, what's your excuse?

Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 01:56 AM (KD9e1)

20 Play? This isn't the time for your Liberal sarcasm and snark, you goon. They. Were. Murdered. Don't ask CY to cover-up your comments again.

Posted by: brando at November 06, 2009 02:15 AM (LjEkE)

21 And yet another follower of the cult of islam murders. Here in Seattle, we are following the trial of the scumbag who shot up the Jewish Federation killing one woman. He apparently was mad at Israel. When will we have had enough of this filthy, violent, expansionist cult?

Posted by: iconoclast at November 06, 2009 02:26 AM (O8ebz)

22 The attack was a mass murder, 'more inspired' is the same thing as 'more likely', If there is another meaning for the words "more inspired" I'm all ears. *facepalm* Jim, put those goalposts down anywhere you like. Just let us know where, k? Then you can Superior Dance your butt on out.

Posted by: Pablo at November 06, 2009 08:10 AM (yTndK)

23 Pablo, let me know what college you attended and I'll get back to you on what awful crime it "figures" you'll be more inspired to one day commit. Of course he wasn't exactly taking a cheap shot at VT. Sorta.

Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 09:08 AM (KD9e1)

24 I have to sort of agree with Jim a bit here, though CY did put in some clarifying statements in the comments. As written it is a bit of a shot at VT. "Like another mass murder who targeted young adults, Hasan went to Virginia Tech." There is nothing wrong with that statement by it self. However when you combine it with the following it does imply that there is a link between mass murders and attending VT. "Figures." That being said the murder's religion or mental state probably had a lot more to do with his attack than his college. In typical Muslim/Leftist fashion the man's family is playing the "religion/race card" by saying he was the victim of harassment due to his religion. Disgusting. They need to behead him, IIRC Muslims believe that is a dishonorable and shaming death which is why they do it to infidels. I could be wrong about that though.

Posted by: Scott at November 06, 2009 10:26 AM (6yHgW)

25 >>"I agree with some others here that this isn't the time or place for an argument" And yet you seem to be determined to have one, one in which you focus your anger at we racist intolerant bigots who object to Islamic terrorism.

Posted by: Steve at November 06, 2009 11:35 AM (E/z/c)

26 Back when the Communists were a threat, there were useful idiots like Jim around who saw it as their mission in life to stand up for the poor persecuted Commies. They were "anti-anti-communist". The circumstances may change but the fundamental mindset of the left never does.

Posted by: Steve at November 06, 2009 11:40 AM (E/z/c)

27 Islam has nothing to do with this, if he attacked fellow people of the book then he is not following the religion of peace,

Posted by: MAModerate at November 07, 2009 09:45 PM (SVD0U)

28 MAModerate you are incorrect, "People of the Book" are only protected if they have submitted and have accepted their role as dhimmis. Any resistance or failure to pay the jizya removes that protection and they are often subject to all kinds of brutality. Even if it is only one person the entire community is often punished. Just ask the Christians living in Muslim majority nations.

Posted by: Scott at November 09, 2009 11:28 AM (6yHgW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Terrorist Attack on Fort Hood

There is breaking news of what sounds like a terrorist attack on Fort Hood.

Early reports are citing 7 dead, 12 wounded, and one shooter taken into custody and another still possibly on base. Some accounts claim there is a third suspect.

While there is no word yet on who is responsible, this sounds very similar to various plots by homegrown Islamic terrorist cells, such as the Willow Springs cell arrested in North Carolina in July.

One gunman may have been killed

Updates as they come in:

Number of wounded revised to 15, and perhaps as many as 20.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram says suspects were armed with M-16s. that could just as easily mean civilian AR-15s, as well.

The shooters are possibly soldiers?

Two suspects captured, four SWAT team members wounded.

FBI rules out terrorism. I think what they meant to claim is that this wasn't the work of an Islamic terrorist cell or an attack by domestic extremists. By any measure, this was a terror attack, no matter who the shooters or victims were.

Casualty figures have grown to 9 dead and 30 wounded.

12 KIA, 31 WIA, shooters confirmed as soldiers, at least one of which had a "Arabic-sounding name".

Briefing:

Twelve people were killed and 31 wounded in a shooting at Fort Hood on Thursday, officials confirmed.
Ford Hood spokesman Sgt. Tim Volkert said the shooting occurred at 1:30 p.m. A military briefing at 4 p.m. said three assailants, all soldiers, fired shots at the Soldiers Readiness Processing Center and the Howze Theater next to it.

The facts of the story have solidified. Thee was one shooter, an American Major who used two handguns. Details here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:41 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You're an idiot.

Posted by: Gen. Hood at November 05, 2009 03:48 PM (tUCgZ)

2 I second that - clearly an idiot. Not nearly enough info to feed into your paranoid fantasies.

Posted by: Fed up with idiots at November 05, 2009 03:53 PM (lJSp8)

3 Hey buddy. Im stationed in Camp Liberty, Baghdad with 1CD, which is based out of Ft. Hood. Some of these shootings happened right down the street from where I used to live. Unsuprisingly, everyone here is talking about it. From what I have gathered, the security restrictions were unusually lax today, because of some graduation ceremony. This would lend support to the theory of a terrorist attack, since deranged soldiers would not need to infiltrate the base to start with. Theres also the multiple shooters angle: Technically, I suppose its possible two crazy Army gunmen would plan something like this, but it would be hard to co-ordinate. I mean, you ask your barracks mate if he wants to go on a killing spree; he responds by turning you in and you go to jail. Its hard to break that ice, although it is possible. Again, this is all just idle speculation.

Posted by: Neal Murray at November 05, 2009 04:36 PM (CjwiL)

4 Why is ATF on the scene? The FBI I can understand, though with their record I doubt they would be able to find even the shooter who was killed. I wonder how long it will be before they start calling for gun control. Ironic that it occured on a military base where guns are all over the place, but locked up.

Posted by: David at November 05, 2009 05:56 PM (PpoBw)

5 Shooter identified as Major Malik Nadel Hasan, a Muslim convert. What a surprise...not! http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938

Posted by: Here you go at November 05, 2009 06:05 PM (dW44H)

6 ATF is on the scene because of the firearms hence, "alcohol tobacco and firearms (ATF)"

Posted by: deployed at November 05, 2009 06:56 PM (2bfgE)

7 This has home grown terrorism written all over it. There is no way a Major would just go postal on his fellow soldiers unless there was some sort of extremist motive. A Officer is taught from day 1 to take care of his or her troops at all cost. I'm not sure if this is official, but I've been told that this Major has not actually even been shipped once. If that is true, that would definitely rule out post traumatic stress. Even if he was shipped, it's still hard for me to believe that a Major would start to kill his fellow soldiers on a military base. Something tells me that this will not be reported as a terrorist attack though. Either because people don't understand that terrorism can be committed by people in the U.S., or just because it looks bad on someones political resume to have a terrorist attack happen on his or her watch. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.

Posted by: Scooby at November 05, 2009 07:03 PM (xF9MC)

8 This sucks.

Posted by: brando at November 06, 2009 02:20 AM (LjEkE)

9 Bob, you should update this post. The shooter used 2 handguns. At least that's the story from every outlet I've heard, including NPR news this morning (Friday, Nov. 6) as of 8:30 CST

Posted by: eric at November 06, 2009 09:55 AM (p7VhC)

10 Oh gee, haven't you heard that the poor Major suffered from PTSD by osmosis? I believe this was a terrorist act and O-ball-less needs to call it like it is. Mmm-mmm-mmm . . .

Posted by: Jill at November 06, 2009 02:37 PM (RwMPP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

66kb generated in CPU 0.018, elapsed 0.0924 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.0804 seconds, 214 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 257
Files: 11
Bytes: 5.7M
CPU Time: 14.008s
Queries: 14360

Content

Posts: 3653
Comments: 35960

Feeds

November 18, 2009

November 12, 2009

November 05, 2009

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds