Our Military Is Being Killed On American Soil

Ameriscot said:
BobF deserves no pity. Certainly won't get any from me.
Click to expand...

Nor from me... It's tiresome being accused of being "twisted" and "nasty" simply for disagreeing with him.. I find it better not engage him at all.. but sometimes one simply has to put the correct facts out there..
 

Unfortunately on this forum it makes no difference if I post facts or just imply facts. I get bashed by the one minded folks that think they do control this forum. I often use documents to back my comments and then the documents get pushed aside or ignored. Not really smart of those that ignore printed history or comments from the past. When I see 'facts' published in political driven documents I see biased information and often not facts as some claim.

I see often that I am called a liar but no proofs of what I said is a lie. Why not proofs of lies if you really think so? Just a tough forum to exist on these days. Facts don't mean anything so I tried to avoid any personal attacks. Now I am being challenged for not making direct charges.

Depending on which type of documents you choose, Hillary did argue about uniforms in the White House, or she did not. Take your pick, as I do remember seeing her on TV and saying things about uniforms should not be in the White House when her husband Bill Clinton first became President. I don't know if she ever got any rules set or not.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
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.
Click to expand...


The IRA is a perfect example of the time & persistence involved and needed on both sides of an issue. The IRA created & exploited a movement and cause. When determined these organizations are extremely dangerous because in their mind their tactics are the last and final option. Maybe the IRA wasn't willing to die for their cause/one mission but in the end they knew they were on a one way trip until they were caught or killed.

What puzzles me with the Boston bomber and the Tenn shooter they were young and experienced life in the US/much more modern world than relatives in the homeland. If nothing else you would figure they would try to get them back here rather than take up their cause. Even more frustrating was the Ft Hood shooter who not only had a lot of time here but was a medical professional so he had to violate a government and professional oath.
 
When one makes statements of a political nature here or elsewhere he must be prepared to be rebutted. Provocative post titles indicating the President is a communist is an example. In this post you suggest that some vague figure suddenly disarmed our military personnel, you suggested it was Clinton. Absolutely untrue. At no time have our military men and women walked our streets armed. Bob, I have no designs on controlling this forum and it is insulting that blow back on your posts here in the political arena results in your charges of that. If you don't want rebuttal to your posts, stick to the truth. BTW I never saw you called a liar. I even did an advanced search and still found no such thing.
 
AZ Jim said:
When one makes statements of a political nature here or elsewhere he must be prepared to be rebutted. Provocative post titles indicating the President is a communist is an example. In this post you suggest that some vague figure suddenly disarmed our military personnel, you suggested it was Clinton. Absolutely untrue. At no time have our military men and women walked our streets armed. Bob, I have no designs on controlling this forum and it is insulting that blow back on your posts here in the political arena results in your charges of that. If you don't want rebuttal to your posts, stick to the truth. BTW I never saw you called a liar. I even did an advanced search and still found no such thing.
Click to expand...

Jim, this post is a total distortion of what I have posted and that makes it a big LIE. Get honest for once.

I never said the President was a communist. In fact I actually said the opposite for the President. Go back and read my early on posts.

I did not say some vague person disarmed our military. Show some proof of that statement mister distorter.

I do stick to the truth and often post supporting articles.

I does not have to be the word liar as many insult get folded into the words presented.

Now I did use the word lie for this post you put up. As it is just more junk posting and not at all facts. Can you post facts for your claims? I don't think so.
 
BobF said:
Jim, this post is a total distortion of what I have posted and that makes it a big LIE. Get honest for once.

I never said the President was a communist. In fact I actually said the opposite for the President. Go back and read my early on posts.

I did not say some vague person disarmed our military. Show some proof of that statement mister distorter.

I do stick to the truth and often post supporting articles.

I does not have to be the word liar as many insult get folded into the words presented.

Now I did use the word lie for this post you put up. As it is just more junk posting and not at all facts. Can you post facts for your claims? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Bob, there is absolutely no point in debating with you.
 
AZ Jim said:
When one makes statements of a political nature here or elsewhere he must be prepared to be rebutted. Provocative post titles indicating the President is a communist is an example. In this post you suggest that some vague figure suddenly disarmed our military personnel, you suggested it was Clinton. Absolutely untrue. At no time have our military men and women walked our streets armed. Bob, I have no designs on controlling this forum and it is insulting that blow back on your posts here in the political arena results in your charges of that. If you don't want rebuttal to your posts, stick to the truth. BTW I never saw you called a liar. I even did an advanced search and still found no such thing.
Click to expand...

Jim, this post is a total distortion of what I have posted and that makes it a big LIE. Get honest for once.

Provocative post titles indicating the President is a communist is an example.

What I posted is:

Obama has never stood and called himself a communist that I know of, but the Communist Party United States America sure thinks he is fully a communist.

In this post you suggest that some vague figure suddenly disarmed our military personnel, you suggested it was Clinton.

What I posted:

"But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff." From a different thread entirely. So does not count in this thread. It has been discussed several times with several folks on that thread.

I did not want to post names and got chewed. So I post names and got chewed again. Apparently wrong about the weapons, but not about the uniforms in the White House. I remember seeing and hearing Hillary say that early in Bill Clinton's first term. I tried to verify this and got two responses. One said this never happened and one supported the idea. I think it will all depend on the political leanings of the authors. So believe as you wish.
 
I promised myself I wouldn't do this, but I will... just once. there seems to be a kind of "disconnect".
Bob-

#16 , you say:
Some years back our military could have fire arms and wear uniforms. But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff.

# 20, you say:
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.

Your comment in post # 16 was NOT about a certain government that hated the military and or military attire, #16 stated a particular government put an end to the firearms and wearing uniforms .

So, what particular government PUT AN END TO FIREARMS?
 
There is this cut & paste. There is also a long discussion about the myth of banning military uniforms in the White House on Snopes forum.

"However, the allegation that Hillary Clinton imposed a ban on the wearing of military uniforms in the White House was reported as early as April 1, 1993, in a Washington Post article (accessed through Nexis) that referred to "[a] whole series of apocryphal anecdotes [that] have made the rounds and fed military disaffection" with the Clinton administration. With regard to "the one about Hillary Rodham Clinton's ban on uniforms in the White House," the Post reported that it "didn't happen."
Similarly, Newsweek reported in December 2005 that "[t]here are still soldiers who swear by the myth that she [Clinton] banned uniforms at the White House."

According to the Snopes forum thread, there are about 2,200 active duty military who work in and around the White House. Many of these are assignments where the wearing of a military uniform would make them stand out and less able to blend in and perform the duty they are responsible for.

There seems to be no factual basis that I can find which would support the myth of Ms. Clinton banning the wearing of military uniforms in the White House. Even if that one facility... the White House... insisted on civilian attire in lieu of military uniforms I don't see where this had anything to do with the original topic of the 5, now, who lost their lives to another active shooter. There is no ban on the wearing of uniforms in recruiting stations.
Similar to somehow placing the blame for this tragedy on the Clinton administration for banning uniforms in the White House... even though an unproven myth... our son just returned from a 6-month deployment to the Mid-East. During that entire deployment, he wore his uniform ONE day. The rest of the time he was in civilian attire. His mission was a "psy-Ops" mission whereby he needed to blend in with the locals of that specific country and not call attention to himself. There most certainly are assignments and missions specific to our military where the wearing of a uniform could put them even more in harm's way.
I'm still having trouble understanding the relationship with the wearing of uniforms and a deranged jihadist intent on taking American lives in Tennessee.
 
Bob feels I pick on him because I demand that he stick to verifiable facts when he is pontificating. For that reason and because he can never be debated with without him coming up with convoluted diatribes that makes continuing futile, I have given up on him.
 
Will you 2 get a room or something and DROP the subject, you're both acting like a couple of nitwits.
Use private mail and yell all you want.....we don't need that here.
 
We can't discuss politics here Davey? Really? I guess you can't just ignore us, huh? Sorry but I intend to continue to answer inflammatory posts here until such time as it is ruled against forum rules.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Bob, I agree with you that the military should be allowed to carry firearms in their work stations if they prefer to. From what I understand, it wasn't any particular government, but it was directives issued by the Department of the Army in March of 1993, in conjunction with directives issued by the Department of Defense in April of 2011. I don't know much about these regulations, care to comment?


Army Regulation 1993:

http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r190_14/main.asp



Department of Defense Directive 2011:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf
 
RadishRose said:
I promised myself I wouldn't do this, but I will... just once. there seems to be a kind of "disconnect".
Bob-

#16 , you say:
Some years back our military could have fire arms and wear uniforms. But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff.

# 20, you say:
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.

Your comment in post # 16 was NOT about a certain government that hated the military and or military attire, #16 stated a particular government put an end to the firearms and wearing uniforms .

So, what particular government PUT AN END TO FIREARMS?
Click to expand...

Apparently you did not read my post just above your post. I admitted that I was wrong. Apparently wrong about the weapons Not good enough for some I guess. So now I am confused about what confused you.
 
AZ Jim said:
Bob feels I pick on him because I demand that he stick to verifiable facts when he is pontificating. For that reason and because he can never be debated with without him coming up with convoluted diatribes that makes continuing futile, I have given up on him.
Click to expand...

You don't even have the courage to post the facts as I challenged you to do. So I took the time to post how wrong you were in your claims that I was wrong. Some day you need to grow up as other posters have asked you to do. Some no longer post on here because of some very obnoxious posters. Only one truth in their view. But the far far left political stances will just take us to where the Greeks are today. Which means that I am more right than most on this forum. And that means I am able to vote for some Democrat ideas but not the far far left. I think that is why Hillary will do OK. She is left for sure but not as bad as Obama. I am allowed to have an opinion and do it without calling Obama to be a communist.
 
BobF said:
Apparently you did not read my post just above your post. I admitted that I was wrong. Apparently wrong about the weapons Not good enough for some I guess. So now I am confused about what confused you.
Click to expand...


Aha! Cool beans Bob, I now see that in your post where I did not previously. Thanks!
 
SeaBreeze said:
Bob, I agree with you that the military should be allowed to carry firearms in their work stations if they prefer to. From what I understand, it wasn't any particular government, but it was directives issued by the Department of the Army in March of 1993, in conjunction with directives issued by the Department of Defense in April of 2011. I don't know much about these regulations, care to comment?


Army Regulation 1993:

http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r190_14/main.asp



Department of Defense Directive 2011:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf
Click to expand...

I have copied off those two links. Lots of reading in these two papers. I guess I will need to get some rest and then go to view these articles. Both are well after I left as I was Korean material till the truce happened. So thanks for what will likely be educational to me.
 
SeaBreeze, I just finished browsing the two documents. I won't claim to have READ them as they sound too much like lawyer style of documents. Very boring, very repetitive, very detailed, etc. Anyway, they both sound much like the way it was when I was in the service.

But for me, all the background and concerns really need adjusted to our current situation of folks with guns threatening our military doing their jobs. More should be assigned with permission to have weapons at hand and ready to use. They would be protecting military personnel and property and guests into those premises. Those guests would be volunteers interested in joining the services, for example. Or contractors and businessmen and others needing to interface with military.

I restate my position that we are at war with these killers that have no problem with being killed. We should help them to reach their goal. But if they surrender then let them face the courts and punish them well, as we have with some already.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top