Joe,
Here is an article by Chuck Baldwin about the Fort Hood shooting. He raises some very good points in the article:
How can our government protect us from "terror" if it can't even protect the military ON A BASE!
How could this guy go unnoticed for so long when we have been told of all his "terror" communications?
Also, why aren't the soldiers armed, and then, why didn't they protect themselves from this guy?
I have thought the story was fishy from the beginning with news of multiple shooters and then, we thought the shooter was dead for 8 hours before being told he lived.
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin549.htm
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
14 comments:
Obama , how do you like it now guys . Isn't he doing a great job.
Homeland Security at it's best.
Soldiers are not armed on military bases. The sole exception are the MPs, who are responsible for protecting the people on the base, enforcing laws, etc.
Seriously - do you think that soldiers carry around their assault rifles and pistols to the base grocery store?
The soldiers in that facility were disarmed, just like what Democrats want every American to be.
They don't protest us from "terror" it is all smoke and mirrors.
Make the general public feel safer, making them take their shoes off at at the airport. It is a psych game to make you feel the government is doing something.
Reality is anyone could take a row boat up a river and blow up a nuclear reactor, no problem. But as long as you take your shoes off you feel safer.
Works for elctions too "he made us safer"
Great article.
I believe it was Clinton that disarmed soldiers on their bases.
However, I've always wondered WHY a small group did not rush the Muslin terrorist killer and subdue him.
Thanks Baldwin for asking that question.
Baldwin does an excellent job pointing out the problems with this story. It just doesn't make any sense.
The government cannot have it both ways. If these types of incidents are unavoidable, then, OK - it is unavoidable. But don't tell us you will protect us only if we give up more of our liberty. That is ridiculous! They have clearly deomonstrated they cannot protect us from "terror".
The real question of course is this: What is terror? Who is afraid? What makes one incident terror, and another a crime? Why is the word terror used? Is it because it is so difficult to define, that the government can claim there are boogey men everywhere?
Fort Hood is an example of our government lying to us (with the media being complicit). They clearly led us to believe the shooters were dead. Then there was suddenly only one shooter. Then he was still alive. Why all the secrecy?
Our government is evil. It is the problem. How do we know what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan?
So many questions.
I thought all along, how does one guy shoot that many SOLDIERS? Were they cowering in the corner? Were they running away? How did he prevent them from rushing him and subdueing him? How did he get away with this?
Why didn't the soldiers react quickly to kill him?
If there had actually been several "terrorists" in this incident imagine how many soldiers would have been killed!
Are they not trained to protect themselves?
Do they choose not to arm themselves on base, or is it illegal for them to arm themselves?
In other words, were they sitting ducks?
Pathetic. If I were the general, or whoever is in charge, I would resign.
I have a close friend that recently did a tour of duty with the Army Reserve in Iraq and now works with the FBI. He said that both organizations had information about the shooter that should have alerted all agencies...but the military and government were too afraid about being politically correct and nothing was done! One of the promised changes after 9/11 was improving the communication between government agencies and the miltitary about suspected terrorists, but it's obvious that they have failed again.
I know during peace time when my husband was in the Army the personnel on base were not armed. Only the MPs were armed. With our country being at war, the soldiers should at least be issued a side arm at all times on the base.
I guess we won't know the real story until Michael Moore comes out with the documentary. Haha! What a joke! Hasan is the only one that can tell us his real motives. He is torn right now between claiming the shooting for religious benefit or trying to beat the charge with an insanity plea. If he goes with insanity he probably won't get the radical islamic support that he originally got. If he claims a religious motive, we really need to take it serious.
1:39
Our government and the media want us to believe it is about political correctness. It is not.
They allowed this to happen because it serves their purpose of continuing the "war of terror".
These same agencies knew about 911 also - and did nothing. Then said, Oh we knew, but one agency wasn't communicating with the other agency, etc. BS. They allowed it to happen because it serves their purpose.
The Japanese code had been broken also prior to Pearl Harbor. Americans did not want any part of the War in Europe. So they allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. There was prior knowledge.
Think for yourself. Do the research. Our government and the media are lying to us.
Brian,
Part of the issue here is whether or not the guy was a patsy - CIA psyops, mind control victim. Like Sirhan Sirhan who killed Robert Kennedy - he appeared to be in a trance. There was no purpose for him to kill Kennedy. He appeared not to be politcally active at all. He never confessed or discussed the murder.
Possibly the Major was a mind control subject of the U.S. Military or CIA. His family and friends say they are absolutely shocked by his actions (if true). Why was it not reported that he was alive? Was he being tortured? Had they not made a decision yet about whether or not to kill him? Was he going to talk? Or, could they erase his memory of the event?
This subject matter is fascinating and can be easily researched over the internet.
Thanks
It does not fascinate me. This idiot killed Americans; he should have been taken out.
And most murderers' family and friends are "shocked" when they find out about it---that isn't a new one.
Post a Comment