Our Military Is Being Killed On American Soil

L

Lon

Well-known Member
Location
Central California
It is one thing for our military to be killed fighting abroad in Middle East Hot Spots, but to be killed on American soil by a Isis inspired Muslim radical is unacceptable. At least they are armed in the Middle East and can defend themselves. In the absence of any one else being able to protect them on American soil, let them carry their arms an at least be able to try and protect themselves.
 

We are far too generous in our admitting people from the middle East as long as the present mindset exists there. This guy was born in Kuwait.
 
I absolutely agree Lon, all these shooting take place in gun-free zones. There is no reason whatsoever that our military cannot carry a firearm, and take action against these radicals before so many lives are lost. Seems like they never learn, not the first shooting to take place here at military facilities.
 

The jihadist had been here since 1996. Naturalized citizen. Dad work for the City of Chattanoga. Seemed like a pretty well grounded young man.... until..... Apparently he was recruited/turned against the U.S. through on-line Islamic terrorist organizations. We continue to read of seemingly good kids recruited to fight with ISIS in the Mid-East or to commit acts of terror on American soil.

This is a tough issue that faces every citizen of free countries today. How can you stop these kids from accessing the internet? You can't. How can you stop radical jihadists from creating blogs and recruitment sites? I assume therein lies the answer. How to effectively accomplish that is a challenge free world governments need to commit whatever resources are needed to solve.
 
The FBI was all concerned about an attack on the 4th of July. When that date passed uneventfully, I suspect they let down their guard. These Jihadists are cunning, and will attack when and where least expected. The government is making a good effort to track the Internet traffic to try to spot these fanatics, but their efforts seem to be marginally effective. There may be a better answer already in place to spot these lunatics before they act. Google, for example, has set up massive data centers where virtually every key stroke made on the Internet is tracked. Perhaps the government should enlist the aid of Google to spot key words and phrases being used, and better key in on these idiots that are being influenced by ISIS and other radical Muslim groups.

At some point, Political Correctness is going to have to become a secondary consideration if our people are going to be rid of this Pestilence.
 
I keep hearing that there are more good mid-Easterners than there are bad ones. But, how many times now have these people caused havoc and taken lives of Americans and American soldiers? Enough is enough. I am a Marine and take exception to the fact when Marines are killed, especially by supposedly friendly fire. How do we stop this from continuing? Maybe we should put a moratorium on allowing mid-Easterners to enter the military, but I guess that would be a violation of their civil rights.
 
oldman said:
I keep hearing that there are more good mid-Easterners than there are bad ones. But, how many times now have these people caused havoc and taken lives of Americans and American soldiers? Enough is enough. I am a Marine and take exception to the fact when Marines are killed, especially by supposedly friendly fire. How do we stop this from continuing? Maybe we should put a moratorium on allowing mid-Easterners to enter the military, but I guess that would be a violation of their civil rights.
Click to expand...

Seriously? There are so many Americans of Middle Eastern descent.. just like all of us who can trace our ancestors back to foreign countries.. How can you say they should not serve their country? That would be like telling my father he could not serve in WWII because his parents were born in Germany.. Not sure how that can be justified..

Although I must say that Radical Islam has been able to influence many young Americans of ME heritage.. How to stop that? I have no clue... Better surveillance and monitoring of telephones and social media? Then we have those who will be screaming about government overreach and violation of the constitution and yada yada yada.. I say.. listen to my phone calls and read my emails if you feel there is reason to suspect me of anything.. I don't mind that loss of privacy if it will stop those that really are involved in doing harm
 
QuickSilver said:
Seriously? There are so many Americans of Middle Eastern descent.. just like all of us who can trace our ancestors back to foreign countries.. How can you say they should not serve their country? That would be like telling my father he could not serve in WWII because his parents were born in Germany.. Not sure how that can be justified..

Although I must say that Radical Islam has been able to influence many young Americans of ME heritage.. How to stop that? I have no clue... Better surveillance and monitoring of telephones and social media? Then we have those who will be screaming about government overreach and violation of the constitution and yada yada yada.. I say.. listen to my phone calls and read my emails if you feel there is reason to suspect me of anything.. I don't mind that loss of privacy if it will stop those that really are involved in doing harm
Click to expand...

I agree. Privacy Must take a back seat when we are under constant threat from these Radical Idiots. The government can monitor my phone calls and Internet activity all they want. The Only ones who have anything to fear about such surveillance are those who have something to hide...and They Need to be monitored, if we are ever going to stop this kind of violence. The internet providers and cell phone companies have access to this type of information, and they should be working with the FBI, etc., to intercept this activity. Heck, even This Forum is being tracked....according to my Anti-tracking software.
 
Perhaps imposing a Moratorium on Immigration of ANY MUSLIMS should be considered. This would not affect any Muslims that are already in the U.S. and are American citizens unless it can be proved that they are involved in subversive activities,
 
AZ Jim said:
We are far too generous in our admitting people from the middle East as long as the present mindset exists there. This guy was born in Kuwait.
Click to expand...

We are admitting people from ANYWHERE in this world....Welcome To America....
What do we do about the bad ones? Absolutely nothing.
 
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Colorado Theater, Oklahoma City, Charleston church... how many more plus daily 'drive by shooting' taking innocent lives. How many of those were at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists?
Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, and now these Marines... what others by radical jihadists?

It does appear the current culture of a growing segment of those who adhere to the religion of Islam are being radicalized. Yes, we MUST employ every means possible to find the threats and mitigate them before more lives are taken. So, some are suggesting prohibiting firearm ownership for Muslims. How would that have stopped the Boston bombers?? How would taking arms away from Islamic citizens have prevented Sandy Hook, the recent Southern Church massacre, or have prevented the deranged idiot found guilty in the Colorado theater shootings?

Today in America we cannot initiate a conversation about how to keep firearms and explosives out of the hands of those intent on taking innocent lives. The far right continues to dump millions of dollars in the lap of the NRA in order to prevent such discussion. How many more lives will be taken here on American soil before we have the courage to stand up to those whose wealth is sustained by keeping the citizenry agitated against common sense. Those who continue to shout "2nd Amendment Rights" close their eyes and refuse to read "a WELL REGULATED militia".

The Colorado theater killer is a redhead. Do we add a restriction to firearm ownership that prohibits redheads from owning guns? Makes just about as much sense as attempting to disarm every law-abiding citizen of the United States who professes to be a Muslim.
 
Some years back our military could have fire arms and wear uniforms. But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff. I think we should put the arms back into the hands of the military when in their work stations. Then they would have a defense against these run in and shoot people. No reason to not allow military to have weapons, they are trained and should be able to defend themselves when at work. The occasional wild active military person would be up against his fellow military folks that are also armed. The big shoot out in the army mess would not have been so abusive if the others were already armed.

When I was in the service I carried a 45. But it was not allowed to be loaded. I never did but I know that many would load after they started to work and unload before the end of shift weapons inspections.

I just think we have gone too far with this no guns stuff.
 
I'm old enough to remember the trouble the IRA caused the English.
This was real and very effective terrorism that had its causes in Irish history and in UK policy/policing in Ulster.


These guys were real terrorists but they had their supporters and financial backers in many countries, including the USA. Counter terrorists were just as bloody in their oppression of the IRA and their families.

The supporters were drawn from the ranks of catholics who saw their cause as just, ignoring all of the teachings of Christ who did not endorse violence, much less murder of innocents. Am I the only one who sees this comparison with the problem of the Middle East and jihadi terrorists?

Perhaps we should learn from the history of the road to peace in Ireland. It began with Ulster women, catholic and protestant, calling for peace and gradually adding more voices to their cause. Then the protagonists began to talk. Ceasefires were begun and failed and were attempted again. Slowly, painfully but eventually a fragile peace was established, then consolidated. This process took decades but the Queen and Prince Charles have now been to Ireland to demonstrate that peace and forgiveness can triumph over terror and hate.

There is no quick solution. All the surveillance of the population will be but a bandaid unless something happens in the troubled Middle East countries to bring the warring elements face to face in a common desire for an end to the carnage. Only then will countries like the US and Australia be free from jihadi attacks.
 
BobF said:
Some years back our military could have fire arms and wear uniforms. But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff. I think we should put the arms back into the hands of the military when in their work stations. Then they would have a defense against these run in and shoot people. No reason to not allow military to have weapons, they are trained and should be able to defend themselves when at work. The occasional wild active military person would be up against his fellow military folks that are also armed. The big shoot out in the army mess would not have been so abusive if the others were already armed.

When I was in the service I carried a 45. But it was not allowed to be loaded. I never did but I know that many would load after they started to work and unload before the end of shift weapons inspections.

I just think we have gone too far with this no guns stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd like to be "educated" by you as to what government put an end to military personnel carrying firearms while performing desk duty, doing maintenance work, etc... or off duty while still in uniform. I've been around military installations for almost 70 years. I don't ever remember military personnel in recruiting offices being armed or anyone except MPs and CID people carrying off base. On base the only time personnel were armed was on range or in the field. Did this change and I missed seeing the open carry of military issue firearms by recruiters? Maybe during the Reagan administration carrying was banned after his agreement/treaty with the USSR and the Berlin Wall came down.
I'm waiting in anticipation of this history lesson.......
 
Grumpy Ol' Man said:
Yes, I'd like to be "educated" by you as to what government put an end to military personnel carrying firearms while performing desk duty, doing maintenance work, etc... or off duty while still in uniform. I've been around military installations for almost 70 years. I don't ever remember military personnel in recruiting offices being armed or anyone except MPs and CID people carrying off base. On base the only time personnel were armed was on range or in the field. Did this change and I missed seeing the open carry of military issue firearms by recruiters? Maybe during the Reagan administration carrying was banned after his agreement/treaty with the USSR and the Berlin Wall came down.
I'm waiting in anticipation of this history lesson.......
Click to expand...

I believe you to be generally correct on the lack of arms to the off duty service people. I was in the military police and then we could have our 45's but technically we could not load the clip while on duty. Which I always thought was not so smart at all. In case of a sudden showdown you lose. It takes time to open you clip case, get the gun raised so you can insert the clip, and then point and pull trigger. A lot of bullets from the challenger would have gone through you before you could get the clip out. Really some strange things do happen to our military. Unless you discount basic training where we always had our rifles with us most of the time. But ammo issue was only done on the range.

My response to what is happening today is to change some of these strange rules and allow all military to have loaded weapons with them when on duty, especially those inviting outsiders into their work space. And why not on military bases too? Like it or not, we are at war with a lot of sneaky and nasty folks these days. The US is no longer a threat free nation as it was for many years.

My comment about a certain government that hated military was the Clinton years. Hillary just did not want all those parties and meetings and what ever the had in the White House filled with military folks in uniform. So formal was not military it meant formal citizens attire. I do expect some nasty responses to that comment is why I chose to speak of a certain government to avoid all the possible challenges to my comment. I try to be discreet but likely not allowed as you are the second that wanted to know what I meant.
 
"I try to be discreet but likely not allowed as you are the second that wanted to know what I meant." Bob discreet would be to post facts, not fiction. If you want to be really discreet, don't post it at all.
 
"Don't post at all" ? I once got reprimanded for taking posters to task for ignoring the distress of a poster who had recently lost her son in very painful circumstances. I used the :stop1: icon and was told that only the mods have that authority. After that I sentenced myself to 2 weeks in Coventry to get my balance back.

Think about that, Jim, before the next time you respond to Bob. We don't have the right or the authority to attempt to silence any member of the forum. Nor they us.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
"Don't post at all" ? I once got reprimanded for taking posters to task for ignoring the distress of a poster who had recently lost her son in very painful circumstances. I used the :stop1: icon and was told that only the mods have that authority. After that I sentenced myself to 2 weeks in Coventry to get my balance back.

Think about that, Jim, before the next time you respond to Bob. We don't have the right or the authority to attempt to silence any member of the forum. Nor they us.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand. Bob made some references and said he was trying to be discreet about who he meant. I posted in part "If you want to be really discreet, don't post it at all." I did not suggest he not post at all. I merely said he should either tell us who he refers to or not post IT at all.
 
Thanks for the clarification. It's a subtle point though and obviously can pass over the heads of people reading your post.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top