Question On Fatalities At Ft Hood

[carlie]

I am wondering if those on active duty at Ft Hood,

that were killed, will be viewed by DOD

(and/or VA, for benefits for their families)

and considered as a death due to a hostile enemy action.

I think it should be.

jmho,

carlie

[john999]

NPR released a report that the Major's fellow doctors thought he was psychotic. They said they would not want to share a foxhole with him. They thought he might try and kill fellow soldiers. This was at Walter Reed before Ft. Hood. The Army thought he was good enough since he signed that contract for med school. He was a psychotic, but good enough for the troops in Iraq. I think the hostile action comes from our own governments negligence. I don't think the dead and wounded at Ft Hood will be considered combat KIA and WIA. Who knows however, since this is a way to sweep incompetence and criminal neglect under the rug. They let a psychotic jihadist counsel troops and then blame some foreign terrorist group instead of themselves.

[sixthscents]

I hadn't considered this point, but it's a good one. I bet money they don't though. I bet they will just consider it ordinary danger, like working the deck of a carrier etc. There is too much political fallout otherwise. Also if the act is repeated or another incident occurs where do you draw the line? If this had been an organize plot involving other, well I think the would HAVE to call that a terrorist action. Yet since it was just one man, I think they will call it ordinary danger.

Further Clark really tiptoed around some question on the Maddow show the other day concerning PTSD as a whole. The simple fact is, the Army as an institution does the whole "suck it up" mentality, from commanders down. Not just for PTSD, any injury. You are "riding a profile", or just a whiner. You can see it in their eyes when you tell them. While I was and am deeply loyal to my Army, that same loyalty requires that I recognize what is a flaw that is being continually re-inforced from the top down.

To the Army and its commanders and senior NCO's... well PTSD is just an excuse. (or rather an out and out lie). I don't think for all their words that they believe a single soldier who states they have it. It leaves a black mark on the soldier. No matter what they say. Until they get a handle on this, its just going to get worse.

They also SHOULD have taken into account the soldiers faith and the conflict it was causing. I know we all signed up and knew the risks, But my religion (Im Catholic by the way) doesn't say I can't fight other Catholics (history proves rather the opposite in fact). It's a complicated issue that the command simply seems to be trying to ignore. (I'm talking about the Army here - no politics)

I just don't see them ADMITTING that this was a terrorist act, even though it fits the definition in my book. I mean wasnt Oklahoma City a terrorist attack, even if it was an American terrorist? There is too much possible fallout from them labeling this as a terrorist act. I think they will go with the "lone gunman" theory just like they did with the highway shooter they executed yesterday, or today. Yet wasn't that a terroist act?

(sigh)... nope they'll just deem it an "incident" and go on like normal, till it happens again. The thing is, as long as they keep denying that the soldiers are getting slammed with the back to back deployments and are suffering from the effects, this will keep happening. Makes me sick, but there it is. Now I have tried to stay away from political statements here... my opinion is concerning the Army and it's policies, not the politics... though they do play a role in formulating those policies and that cannot be denied.

[Stretch]

This was the first question that I had when I heard of this incident.

Yes, I think that this should be considered a hostile act on American soil. Many soldiers who fought on American soil and on American seas were given the purple hearts, in past wars. Just because this incident was on American soil does not mean any less.

Why is it so hard to consider the truth of what happened. Find the people responsible for allowing this guy infiltrate our army. Change policy to reflect correction of the problem so that this does not have to happen again.

I believe that our government has pushed the Politically Correct issue just a little too far, this time. To ignore this blunder is either ignorance or deliberate calculation.

Those that forget (or cover up) the past, are doomed to repeat it.

[Pete53]

Cab you even imagine how this man would have done harm to the people he had as patients? Why isn't the Army looking into that?

[Stretch]

Something very strange here.

Civilian cops from local town came on to a federal property, for which they had absolutely no authority, and shot a soldier. What happened to base security? Seems to me that base security could have responded immediately.

Could it be that no one on the base had a loaded gun and that only local cops heroes could come to the rescue of the US Army?

Could it be that lives would have been saved with first responders rather than waiting for local police?

No one seems to be asking these real questions.

These questions could point to whether this incident was a civil matter or a military service matter.

[Stretch]

Turns out that Ft. Hood has a civilian police and fire departments.