The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude

[BloodEclipse]

By Michelle Malkin • November 6, 2009 12:01 AM

I was traveling to Wichita for a speaking event/fundraiser (which I’ll tell you more about later) when news of the Fort Hood massacre broke. Please continue to pray for the 12 murder victims [update 11/6: now 13 dead] and their families, and the 30 wounded and their families.
Allahpundit at Hot Air has a massive, blow-by-blow post on all the latest developments. The Christian Science Monitor profiles Nidal Malik Hasan, the Muslim soldier identified by the military as the shooter:

Terry Lee, a retired Army colonel who knew Hasan, told Fox News about a story he heard secondhand. He said a fellow colleague had told him that Hasan had made “outlandish comments” about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and US involvement in them and that “Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“[He] made comments about how we shouldn’t be over there – you need to lock it up, Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor,” Lee added.
But the suspect’s cousin, Nader Hasan, gave Fox News a different picture. He said his cousin had never deployed but was affected by the war and had been concerned about his impending deployment.
“He would tell us how he would hear things, horrific things, things from war probably affecting him psychologically,” Nader Hasan said.

From AP:

His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.
There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive. But details of his life and mindset, emerging from official sources and personal acquaintances, are troubling.

“Troubling.” And familiar.

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

Here’s the Scribd comment of Nidal Hasan:

There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.

Those of you with long memories will remember all those who came before Hasan. Here is my column from March 2003 on Muslim soldiers with attitude:

Sgt. Asan Akbar, a Muslim American soldier with the 326th Engineer Battalion, had an “attitude problem.”
According to his superiors and acquaintances, Akbar’s attitude was bitterly anti-American and staunchly pro-Muslim. So how did this devout follower of the so-called Religion of Peace work out his attitudinal problems last weekend?
By lobbing hand grenades and aiming his M-4 automatic rifle into three tents filled with sleeping commanding officers at the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade operations center in Kuwait.
Akbar is the lone suspect being detained in the despicable attack, which left more than a dozen wounded and one dead. Surviving soldiers say Akbar, found cowering in a bunker with shrapnel injuries, was overheard ranting after the assault: “You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.”
“Our”? At least there’s no doubt about where this Religion of Peace practitioner’s true loyalties lie.
Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an “isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith.” But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly p.c.
Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA — Muslim soldier with attitude — suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:

– Ali A. Mohamed. Mohamed, a major in the Egyptian army, immigrated to the U.S. in 1986 and joined the U.S. Army while a resident alien. This despite being on a State Department terrorist watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, N.C., and obtained classified military documents. He was granted U.S. citizenship over the objections of the CIA.
A former classmate, Jason T. Fogg, recalled that Mohamed was openly critical of the American military. “To be in the U.S. military and have so much hate toward the U.S. was odd. He never referred to America as his country.”
Soon after he was honorably discharged from the Army in 1989, Mohamed hooked up with Osama bin Laden as an escort, trainer, bagman and messenger. Mohamed used his U.S. passport to conduct surveillance at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi; he later pled guilty to conspiring with bin Laden to “attack any Western target in the Middle East” and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.
Ain’t multiculturalism grand?

– Semi Osman. An ethnic Lebanese born in Sierra Leone and a Seattle-based Muslim cleric, Osman served in a naval reserve fueling unit based in Tacoma, Wash. He had access to fuel trucks similar to the type used by al Qaeda in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded nearly 400 other Americans.
Osman was arrested last May as part of a federal investigation into the establishment of a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon. Osman recently pleaded guilty to a weapons violation, and the feds dropped immigration charges against him in exchange for his testimony.
Ain’t open borders grand?

– John Muhammad. The accused Beltway sniper and Muslim convert was a member of the Army’s 84th Engineering Company. In an eerie parallel to the Akbar case, Muhammad is suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. Muhammad’s superior, Sgt. Kip Berentson, told both Newsweek and The Seattle Times that he immediately suspected Muhammad, who was “trouble from day one.”
Curiously, Muhammad was admitted to the Army despite being earlier court-martialed for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property, and being absent without leave while serving in the Louisiana National Guard.
Although Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and transferred to another company pending charges for the grenade attack, an indictment never materialized. Muhammad was honorably discharged from the Army in 1994. Eight years later, he was arrested in the 21-day Beltway shooting spree that left 10 dead and three wounded.
Ain’t tolerance grand?

– Jeffrey Leon Battle. A former Army reservist, Battle was indicted in October 2002 for conspiring to levy war against the United States and “enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America.” According to the Justice Department, he planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Ain’t diversity grand?
“It’s bad enough we have to worry about enemy forces, but now we have to worry about our own guys,” Spc. Autumn Simmer told the Los Angeles Times this week after the assault on the 101st Airborne. The Islamist infiltration of our troops is scandalous. Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders, and tolerance of the murderous “attitude” of Jihad.

FYI: Convicted Beltway sniper John Muhammad is scheduled to be executed next week. No doubt the families of the Muslim sniper victims are re-living the horror tonight.
FYI: Muslim US soldier Hasan Abujihaad was convicted last year on espionage and material terrorism support charges
after serving on serving aboard the USS Benfold and sharing classified info with al Qaeda financiers including movements of US ships just six months after al Qaeda operatives had killed 17 Americans aboard the USS Cole in the port of Yemen.
On Twitter, follow #fthood for news updates.
***
Clarice Feldman notes President Obama’s “odd” — to say the least — reaction to the attack on Fort Hood soldiers:

On Thursday, 11 soldiers and civilian police at Fort Hood were slaughtered execution-style at close range and over 30 others wounded, allegedly by a U.S. Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan. The President immediately addressed the nation concerning this horrific event.
However, his expression of grief was very odd. He spent the first two minutes of the four-and-a-half minute address in a light-hearted discussion of his earlier “Tribal Nations Conference” on Native American rights, including a “shout out” recognition of a conference attendee.
When he finally got around to the purpose for his public appearance, he gave an uninspired and rambling dissertation on the tragedy. Even then, he could not keep the topic focused on sympathy for the pain of others:

I want all of you to know that as Commander in Chief, that there’s no greater honor, but no greater responsibility for me (emphasis his) than to make sure that the extraordinary men and women in uniform are properly cared for…
Poor soul, it’s so saddening to know how this tragedy affects him. Listening to this address provides some insight into Obama’s character and how he ranks his priorities.

***
Business as usual: The whitewashing of jihad by the MSM. See here and here.

So now will the military do a review and make sure there are not more of these traitors, within the ranks of our honorable men and women in uniform?

[haldir]

More PC crap played a role in all this. The guy gets negative evals but gets promoted along just because he is a Muslim. He makes crazy comments about Muslims rising up against us in front of his colonel (I heard the col. talking about it last night), supposedly investigated but nothing happens. How can nothing happen with all that has been going on? All brought to you by the PC wackos in this country. How many more have to die people?

[Bill of Rights]

If he was promoted solely because he was Muslim, yes, I agree this was wrong. I have not reviewed his history well, however, and I have to wonder if he was promoted instead because he had just received his medical degree.

I have to ask as well: If this is a problem solely with his religion and the tenets of that religion, why are not ALL Muslim US military members picking up pistols or bombs and attacking those with whom they work every day? Why are not even most of them doing so? Let's even ask why not some? OK, yes, some have, but those who have qualify as individuals, not as a movement. The answer to providing for the safety of our servicemen and women lies not in excluding people from service based on religion, but in allowing our soldiers (inclusive of all branches) to be armed and able to protect themselves.

I'm no apologist for Islam, certainly not radical Islam. I have a large problem with making blanket accusations against all members of a group (any group) based on the actions of individuals who happen to be parts of that group.
Should the rest of the world hold all Americans responsible for Hillary and Barry Hussein?
Do we hold all Christians responsible for the actions of wayward pedophiliac priests?
Do we hold all Black people responsible for the actions of criminal gang members?
Do we hold all lawful gun owners responsible for the criminal actions of the few recently posted in the Indy Star?

Individuals. Not groups. To focus on the group is by definition prejudice.

There are millions around the world who follow Islam, just as there are millions who follow all mainstream religions. The micropercentages of their members who commit those crimes need to be dealt with swiftly and decisively.... and permanently.

Blessings,
Bill

[Annie]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Do we hold all Christians responsible for the actions of wayward pedophiliac priests?

The tenets of Christianity is not pedophilia.

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Do we hold all Black people responsible for the actions of criminal gang members?

Black history for centuries is not one based in gang activity. That's recent.

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Do we hold all lawful gun owners responsible for the criminal actions of the few recently posted in the Indy Star?

Gun ownership "creedo" is not based in crime.

However, it's been proven that the "religion of peace" is...well...not so much so!

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by Annie

The tenets of Christianity is not pedophilia.

Should I have used violence in re: Christianity instead?

Black history for centuries is not one based in gang activity. That's recent.

Gang activity is recent, too, and American involvement with radical Islam has been fairly recent as well.

Gun ownership "creedo" is not based in crime.

To those who stand against us (Bradys, VPC, etc.) your statement is untrue. I know the truth, as do all of us here, of course.

However, it's been proven that the "religion of peace" is...well...not so much so!

Has it? As I asked above (rhetorically), what of the long history of violence in the name of (our Judeo-Christian) God? What of even the recent actions of so-called Christians in the bombing of abortion clinics, or this year, a man entering a church and shooting a doctor (or "doctor", if you prefer) who performed abortions? The violence in the last case was specific and targeted, but the larger point is, I trust, clear.

It is not in any way my intention to demonize Christianity, Blacks, or gun owners. It is not my intention to demonize any group.

I have Fox news on as I type this. The question was just asked "Isn't it time for us to have special debriefings of Muslim soldiers?" And I would say no, it is not. For what are you debriefing them? A day at the office (in the case of an Army psychiatrist?) A night in the barracks? An evening's relaxation posting on the internet?

I've told the story several times on here about a poster on the old packing dot org site who accused me of being a "Left liberal Democrat socialist fascist". Those of you who've met me or read my posts probably have some vague idea of how ridiculous any one, let alone all, of those accusations are. Now, what would induce someone to think that diatribe in relation to me? Why, the fact that a hypothetical scenario he created in which there was a person of apparent Middle Eastern extraction in a doorway up the street from me, while I was out for a walk, and I did not immediately draw my pistol and kill him, solely on the basis of his being of Middle Eastern appearance. I said that if the person in question came around the corner with an AK and pointed it at me, I would have no reservations about drawing and firing to stop the threat, but it didn't matter. You see, they ALL believe that it is their duty from Allah to convert, enslave, or kill all of us. Oddly, I never got a reply to the question of why the other poster was not currently incarcerated for following his own advice and committing premeditated mass murder.

I don't think we need to treat any group differently based on such things as religious choices or background. If we do set that precedent, what is to keep those of our religious beliefs being so treated if/when the percentages change and indeed, we are in the minority? That's not even "slippery slope"; we're already there, we've just changed the names of the players.

I'll say again: I'm no apologist for anyone. I just don't agree with pre-determining people's guilt or danger to others based solely on his religion.

Blessings,
Bill

[haldir]

Bill, since your first remonstrance in this thread was after my post, I assume I am the one that you are talking about.

Let's use this example. Several prominent Presbyterian pastors preach that part of being a good Christian is to involve yourself in violent struggle against Methodists. They teach that Methodists are cattle and can be taken as desired as slaves. Several Presbyterians around the country follow up on this and begin shooting Methodists and blowing up their churches. The Presbyterians then begin to export this to other Presbys in other countries and it becomes very popular worldwide. Now to be clear there are many even most Presbyterians that don't kill any Methodists and seem against it. But at the same time they sort of look the other way. They don't involve themselves in rooting this out of their church. Now to avoid offending anyone, we should not at least take a hard look at Presbyterians to make sure they are not part of this group. I personally would welcome them taking a hard look at me. In fact I would willing to help root out these radical Presbyterians. I think this is what bothers some of us, that the moderate Muslims don't seem overly upset by these people that make them look bad. They aren't rising up to take back their religion. Why is that?

[2ADMNLOVER]

Originally Posted by haldir

I think this is what bothers some of us, that the moderate Muslims don't seem overly upset by these people that make them look bad. EXACTLY !

They aren't rising up to take back their religion. Why is that?

Probably cause their scared they'll end up on youtube getting their head cut off with a butter knife . Or , are they scared or lying in wait ?

If you're a member of whatever sect , group or religion here and you do something stupid , you get chastised by that group and persecuted .

Where is the public outcry from muslim community for these actions by the "micropercentage" ?

I don't like the idea of bashing all of them , but if they're not going to try to stop the crap coming from their own community then they deserve the flak they catch .

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by haldir

Bill, since your first remonstrance in this thread was after my post, I assume I am the one that you are talking about.

Let's use this example. Several prominent Presbyterian pastors preach that part of being a good Christian is to involve yourself in violent struggle against Methodists. They teach that Methodists are cattle and can be taken as desired as slaves. Several Presbyterians around the country follow up on this and begin shooting Methodists and blowing up their churches. The Presbyterians then begin to export this to other Presbys in other countries and it becomes very popular worldwide. Now to be clear there are many even most Presbyterians that don't kill any Methodists and seem against it. But at the same time they sort of look the other way. They don't involve themselves in rooting this out of their church. Now to avoid offending anyone, we should not at least take a hard look at Presbyterians to make sure they are not part of this group. I personally would welcome them taking a hard look at me. In fact I would willing to help root out these radical Presbyterians. I think this is what bothers some of us, that the moderate Muslims don't seem overly upset by these people that make them look bad. They aren't rising up to take back their religion. Why is that?

Haldir,

First, while you mentioned the promotion on the basis of religious belief and I commented on that point, no, I was not referring specifically to you, but rather to a general trend I see here on INGO and elsewhere. Hell, I have made a few verbal prejudicial comments of my own in my time, and no, I'm not proud of those. I also have no reason to believe I will never make one again, but I will try not to do so.

As for your later thoughts, yes, I would agree. I'd like to see the more moderate Muslims take the guilty to task, attempt to root out the "problem children" in their ranks.

Why are they not rising up to take back their religion? Apathy? Helplessness? Any number of reasons could apply. Here in America, that same question could be asked: Why do we not rise up and take our country back? Some Democrats think they either did or are doing so as of the election of a year ago.

Maybe that's where the focus should be, on encouraging them to do so.

I think it was Billy Graham who said that "when a man of principle takes a stand, the spines of others are strengthened". Could it be that Islam does not promote men of principle taking stands? Could it be that instead, the nail that stands up is the first one hammered down?

Not being a member, I don't know, but I do agree that that's a problem. Thanks for pointing it out.

Annie:

A BoR bobblehead? No, I'll not authorize that use of my image... people might not be able to tell the difference between the two.
I understand your standing by your principles and beliefs... it's one of the things about you I respect. We're not all going to always agree on everything, and I think that each person reading will see both sets of points and make his/her own decision. Thanks for your thoughts

That last sentence goes to everyone who posted thoughtfully and politely in this thread.... come to think of it, that's everyone (except ATM )

Blessings,
Bill

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Originally Posted by Annie

The tenets of Christianity is not pedophilia.

Black history for centuries is not one based in gang activity. That's recent.

Gun ownership "creedo" is not based in crime.

However, it's been proven that the "religion of peace" is...well...not so much so!

Christianity has had in its existence, just as violent a history as Islam has - but unlike Islam, Christianity had its reformation in the 1300s-1400s, and ever since, has become less violent, dramatically so, to the point in which the violence espoused in the Bible (and yes, it is there if you look for it) is glossed over by moderate Christians and most Evangelicals alike - very few Christians hold a worldview which is conductive to violence now, pure and simple... Sure, you do have Christians who commit violence (Timothy McVeigh's views on religion are conflicting and largely unknown, but he was at least raised Irish-Catholic; you have people who kill abortionists wholly convinced they're doing the work of their 'god,'), but you do NOT see the type of violence which is ENDEMIC AND CENTRAL to the belief system of Islam - because unlike Christianity, Islam has NOT undergone moderation or reformation, and it too is now 1300-1400 years old (the same age as Christianity when it downgraded itself into a more peaceful epistemology), and thus the Muslim world stands on a cusp: either Islam will moderate itself into a position in which violence shall be almost universally renounced and denunciated, as have Judaism and Christianity done in their developments, or it shall, I am afraid, degenerate into even further violence.

However, Islam is even more unlikely than those religions to do the former and far more likely to do the latter, and I'll tell you why - Muslims believe that their 'holy' book, one which I do not name on principle, is the INERRANT word of 'god,' 'allah' simply being arabic for the word 'god.' Christianity developed lots of sects throughout its development, and whatever part of the original dogma that sect disagreed with, it largely disavowed or ignored or re-interpreted. Non-literalism arose, and with the splintering of dogma came different, occasionally conflicting versions of their 'holy' book, the Holy Bible... at present, there is: The King James version, New International Version, Red Letter Version, etc, etc, etc...many slightly different texts.... there are the gnostic gospels, the apocrypha, etc, etc, etc.... there are minor differences between each sect of Christianity, most notably between the Catholic/Protestant split, but even amongst Catholics, there are Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Non-Orthodox, etc, etc, etc. With Protestants, one has Lutherans, Baptists, Anabaptists, Methodists (not too many Quakers anymore, though), United Methodists, etc, etc, etc.

With Islam, their book is unlikely to undergo any revisions at all, as it is already 'perfect' and thus unneeding of any human change anyone would make to it. Only interpretations differ, and where Christians largely ignore the violence espoused in the Bible, Muslims are FAR more likely to embrace it, as moderation has not really struck the Muslim world as it has with our nation, who are mostly Christian.

I'm not about to make excuses for their inexcusable violence, but understanding why they're so violent might be able to help us understand this one fact which everyone seems so hesitant to admit, and while I respect what Bill of Rights has said on this, and about being careful to avoid jumping to generalized conclusions, (Bill, you seem like a fair, nice, intelligent, well-reasoned, polite, thoughtful, and reasonable guy, but just I cannot agree with your stance on this one issue), Islam is NOT a peaceful religion, and it is perfectly valid to criticize one based on one's beliefs.

This is not a matter of unfair characterization based on skintone or gender or nationality - this is characterization based on one's propensity to commit violence - and more specifically, unprovoked violence against largely-civilian populations. It's one thing to join a fighting force and to strap on body armor, grab an M4A1, and to follow one's platoon into battle, knowing that you signed up to defend your country, which then owes you everything they have for your selfless sacrifice - it's quite another to strap on some TNT or RDX to one's chest and to then stroll into a crowd of civilians going about their day and to forever destroy their lives - and this is a problem solely specific to Islam - else where are the Tibetan-Buddhist suicide bombers? To paraphrase the stance issued by the anti-religionist (and particularly anti-Islamic) Sam Harris, where are they?

"If economic, political, social, or religious persecution alone or in tandem are enough to take otherwise normal, non-violent people and to turn them into mass murderers, then where are the Tibetan-Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered under the Chinese regime oppression that is every bit as brutal as American policy has EVER been in the Middle East, but you don't see it. Despite torture on a semi-regular basis, massacres, and generalized oppression, we still don't see that happening - and we are profoundly unlike to see it. Buddhists don't believe the sorts of things you have to believe to form a death cult that is brewing in the Muslim world."

They don't allow violence to constitute a part of their worldview, as it's not part of their religious beliefs - beliefs which lay bare our expected behavior and beliefs of how this world functions and our role in this world... and thus violence doesn't enter much into the mindset of a Buddhist, much less actually translate into behavior... the most violent Buddhist in the world in the most violent act ever committed due to their religious beliefs simply set himself aflame... Thich Quang Duc didn't have the hubris or religious beliefs which could justify doing harm to others, only himself... especially not beliefs which justify mass murder, unlike the rewards which Islam promises to the most devout (read: most willing to kill) awaiting them in the afterlife.

To keep shrugging this problem off as due to a few bad apples or extremists is to miss the point - Islam even at its mildest is still violently extreme, and Islam at its most violent.... well, we have all seen the enraging and unjust, and tragic results of that.

Hopefully as a nation, we will soon understand that fact, for all of our collective sake, and for our posterity. When our children grow up, hopefully we shall have had the courage to label this world honestly enough that they understand what they're getting themselves into... and continued notions that the unprovoked usage of violence against civilians is completely acceptable is just a minority view in the Muslim world are not only disingenuously untrue - but in a world of seemingly increasing violent religious behavior - also very dangerous. Muslims must renounce their religion, or by the free peoples of America, they shall be destroyed by it.

[2ADMNLOVER]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

There are millions around the world who follow Islam, just as there are millions who follow all mainstream religions. How many are waiting for the right time to pull some BS like this ?

The micropercentages of their members who commit those crimes need to be dealt with swiftly and decisively.... and permanently. IDK about a "micropercentage" man . Maybe it's propaganda but videos of hundreds of them dancing in the streets and burning our flag in the middle east seems like the norm .


Blessings,
Bill

.