Washington shootings

MonaPizza · 16-09-2013 05:56PM

old hippy wrote: »

I reckon (although it's really too early) it's a disgruntled ex employee gone postal. If it is terrorism, it's a rather cynical attack during some very testing times.

Could be a false flag. The clumsy attempts to drum up support for the invasion of Syria aren't working so maybe if the gunmen happen to be "linked" somehow to Assad, then that should sway public opinion nicely in favour of yet another jolly little war.

MadsL · 16-09-2013 05:56PM

apollo8 wrote: »

Maybe the cynicism in this thread is due to so many incidents like this that are quickly forgotten and no gun legislastion passed
Shame on America's gun laws

I think we are trying very hard not to turn this into a gun thread.
What legislation being passed would prevent this?

MadsL · 16-09-2013 05:57PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

Could be a false flag.

CT

>

Honestly...time to set up that "Bash the US here" thread.

I am pie · 16-09-2013 05:58PM

Given it was a military facility I am thinking that the gun debate is maybe best saved for another place. I reckon they weren't the only ones armed...

Karl Stein · 16-09-2013 05:58PM

MadsL wrote: »

A bit of IRA style 'legitimate target' thinking, is that what you are arguing?

Presuming this is an attack carried out by Jihadists are you saying that a US naval installation is not a legitimate target?

I'd very interested to hear how a US military installation that is part of the meat grinder 'global war on terror' is not a legitimate target for people engaged in this fucked up war.

MadsL · 16-09-2013 05:59PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

Look, it's no secret that Americans feel they deserve special treatment over others. They feel that everyone should love them and worship them and want to be like them and when anyone expresses an alternate view they get all indignant and if someone expresses apathy or lack of interest they [Americans] bristle and trot out the "if it wasn't for us you'd be living in a labour camp or speaking German" or some crap.

And a lot of people go along with this fawning because they're afraid of being called "anti-American" if they don't.

At the risk of repeating myself. Really?

MadsL · 16-09-2013 06:01PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Presuming this is an attack carried out by Jihadists are you saying that a US naval installation is not a legitimate target?

I'd very interested to hear how a us military installation that is part of the meat grinder 'global war on terror' is not a legitimate target for people engaged in this fucked up war.

So attacking it on US soil would not be "terrorism" in your book. OK, Freedom Fighters it is so.

MadsL · 16-09-2013 06:02PM

I am pie wrote: »

Given it was a military facility I am thinking that the gun debate is maybe best saved for another place. I reckon they weren't the only ones armed...

Bases rarely have people armed. Only those on guard duty.

I am pie · 16-09-2013 06:02PM

Hahaha, whilst i have no great desire to travel to or live in the US, I have yet to be asked to worship any of them yet?

Polemic? Much?

minidazzler · 16-09-2013 06:03PM

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

It may shock you, but a lot of people, myself included, don't care what happens in America, land of freedom. It's not the center of the world. I'm still musing on the miracle that was the 4200 odd people being saved from the Costa Concordia without any evacuation plan back in 2012 and the raising of it today.

So there were more murders in America today then on an average day, Why should that bother me? Seriously?

If it doesn't bother you no one is making you post or read about it, You could just skip over it and not come out with a comment that makes you look like a cnut. Not that you are a cnut, just your comment is very cnutish.

danniemcq · 16-09-2013 06:04PM

apollo8 wrote: »

Maybe the cynicism in this thread is due to so many incidents like this that are quickly forgotten and no gun legislastion passed
Shame on America's gun laws

However, the ruling does not repeal all forms of gun control; laws requiring firearm registration remain in place, as does the city's assault weapon ban

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.#Gun_laws

also like i said above if the reports of burst fire are accurate these are not civilian weapons as they are only single fire

Automatic variants have a three-position rotating selective fire switch, allowing the operator to select between three modes: safe, semi-automatic, and either automatic or three-round burst, depending on model. Civilian Colt AR-15 models do not have three-round burst or automatic settings on the fire selector, though some other makers may mark that way for collectors and re-enactors, even though the guns will not fire in that mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR15#Variants

ruthloss · 16-09-2013 06:04PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

Could be a false flag. The clumsy attempts to drum up support for the invasion of Syria aren't working so maybe if the gunmen happen to be "linked" somehow to Assad, then that should sway public opinion nicely in favour of yet another jolly little war.

Oh Pleeeazzzeeee!!!!

MadsL · 16-09-2013 06:06PM

danniemcq wrote: »

also like i said above if the reports of burst fire are accurate these are not civilian weapons as they are only single fire

The press are useless when it comes to firearms. Anything black that looks vaguely military is an "assault rifle".

Any evidence that full auto was being used?

Karl Stein · 16-09-2013 06:06PM

MadsL wrote: »

So attacking it on US soil would not be "terrorism" in your book. OK, Freedom Fighters it is so.

You didn't answer my question.

Please help me understand what exempts US military installations from being caught up in the global war on terror. Last time I checked the US happened to be on that globe.

Kerrydude1981 · 16-09-2013 06:09PM

Sky reporting two more shooters are still at large.

*gets can of Pringles gets ready for manhunt

MadsL · 16-09-2013 06:11PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

You didn't answer my question.

Please help me understand what exempts US military installations from being caught up in the global war on terror. Last time I checked the US happened to be on that globe.

I did.

You want to classify people who conduct attacks such as this as "not terrorists". Clearly attacking both civilians and military on US soil constitutes what exactly, a blow for the "freedom fighters"?

Most reasonable people would determine this to be terrorism, even if politically motivated.

The IRA were terrorists, were they not? Regardless of the rights and wrongs, their actions would be clearly defined as "Terrorism" - or would you disagree?

IvySlayer · 16-09-2013 06:14PM

How long until GTA gets blamed?

Witcher · 16-09-2013 06:15PM

IvySlayer wrote: »

How long until GTA gets blamed?

Probably be blamed on the leaked copies of GTAV that got out over the past few days.

FTA69 · 16-09-2013 06:16PM

Terrorism is a pretty loaded term though. The dictionary describes it as violence used to further a political objective; which could be used to describe pretty much most military operations. In effect it's a term used to denigrate any armed action that takes place against a given state, no matter how justified it may be.

However, when some lone nutter like McVeigh or oddballs like the Woolwich attackers decide to carry out what they did I think " domestic terrorism" is a fair description.

wonderfullife · 16-09-2013 06:17PM

If the authorities responded to these incidents as quickly as MadsL gets to a mass-shooting thread on Boards, then a lot more lives will be saved

In all fairness, respect for standing up for what you believe in

These threads by their very nature always have a gun-debate inherent in them. Unavoidable. It'd be like responding to a Mass-Egging thread and trying to avoid mentioning eggs!

America bashing is pretty sad. I'd say most of us in our lifetime will go to the USA for a holiday or more (i certainly have) and as a country,a people and a destination found them to be top notch.

Sympathy and empathy for those dead or injured is what is needed here.

danniemcq · 16-09-2013 06:18PM

MadsL wrote: »

The press are useless when it comes to firearms. Anything black that looks vaguely military is an "assault rifle".

Any evidence that full auto was being used?

Many who managed to escape in the early minutes of the episode told of panic and fear after a shooter — described as a tall, African-American man with an AR-15 — opened fire.

"They sounded like 'pop, pop, pop,'" said Patricia Ward, a logistics management specialist who was in the cafeteria. "Everybody just panicked at first ... It was just people running, running, running.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/16/active-shooter-at-washington-navy-yard/?intcmp=latestnews

Patricia Ward, 53, a logistics specialist at the Navy, said she was in the canteen when the shooting took place on the fourth floor. "I heard the first three shots, pow pow pow. A few seconds later popopop – four more shots.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/16/washington-navy-yard-shooting

#NavyYard shooting suspect description issued from MPD: adult black male, bald head, dark top & pants,6ft tall, carrying AR15 assault rifle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10312816/Washington-Navy-yard-shooting-live.html

MadsL · 16-09-2013 06:18PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

If the authorities responded to these incidents as quickly as MadsL gets to a mass-shooting thread on Boards, then a lot more lives will be saved

Muise... · 16-09-2013 06:19PM

MadsL wrote: »

I did.

You want to classify people who conduct attacks such as this as "not terrorists". Clearly attacking both civilians and military on US soil constitutes what exactly, a blow for the "freedom fighters"?

Most reasonable people would determine this to be terrorism, even if politically motivated.

The IRA were terrorists, were they not? Regardless of the rights and wrongs, their actions would be clearly defined as "Terrorism" - or would you disagree?

I tend to agree with Brendan Behan's definition of a terrorist: "the one with the smaller bomb."

Karl Stein · 16-09-2013 06:20PM

MadsL wrote: »

I did.

Here's my question distilled.

How the hell is a US military installation that is involved in the 'global war on terror' not a legitimate target?

MadsL · 16-09-2013 06:22PM

Muise... wrote: »

I tend to agree with Brendan Behan's definition of a terrorist: "the one with the smaller bomb."

Given the descriptions so far; I think we are not looking at a terrorist attack.

Workplace shooting?

MadsL · 16-09-2013 06:23PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Here's my question distilled.

How the hell is a US military installation that is involved in the 'global war on terror' not a legitimate target?

Legitimate?

Define legitimate?

That include civilians on the base?

FTA69 · 16-09-2013 06:25PM

danniemcq wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/16/active-shooter-at-washington-navy-yard/?intcmp=latestnews

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/16/washington-navy-yard-shooting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10312816/Washington-Navy-yard-shooting-live.html

That could just as easily been a semi-automatic military rifle like the AR-15 etc.

Karl Stein · 16-09-2013 06:27PM

MadsL wrote: »

Legitimate?

Define legitimate?

That include civilians on the base?

How the hell is a US military installation that is involved in the 'global war on terror' not a legitimate target?

danniemcq · 16-09-2013 06:29PM

FTA69 wrote: »

That could just as easily been a semi-automatic military rifle like the AR-15 etc.

agreed, however the description of the shots doesn't leave a pause between shots and no single shots.

I'm not saying its proof or anything but the more info the better

Jimoslimos · 16-09-2013 06:30PM

MadsL wrote: »

Legitimate?

Define legitimate?

That include civilians on the base?

Responsibility for any civilians on the base lies solely with the US military.

Since you don't regard a military base as a legitimate target during a war, then could you please provide of list of acceptable alternative targets.

Washington shootings

Comments