| Author | Post |
|---|
Gator5713
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 04:05 am |
|
Muslims DO share a common belief, just the same way that Christians share a common belief. There are divisions among Muslims, just as there are divisions among Christians. My point was that instead of 'race' lines based on 'visual' cues such as color, you can better 'classify' people based on their beliefs/shared values. Christians share a set of beliefs based on the Bible; Muslims based on the Quoran.
Now that my point has been clarified, another one can be made that I think is the other side of what you (Marshaul) are trying to say: While not all Muslims are radical terrorists; MOST of the terrorist that have been attacking us ARE Muslim!
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 04:12 am |
|
Absolutely correct.
This is where my parallels with Japanese internment apply.
Most of the people bombing pearl harbor in 1941 were Japanese (all of them, in fact).
Obviously, rounding up Japanese didn't affect our real enemy, the Empire of Japan.
Now, I know you are talking about belief and not race, but consider this.
The "belief" you articulated was faith in Islam. Clearly, we could attack every muslim we saw and still leave the majority of muslim terrorists alive and well.
So, what good does this common belief do us? Not much.
A common belief shared by terrorists is the belief that violence against the US is justified or will solve their problems.
I say, our enemies are nothing more and nothing less than the individuals who share that belief. Obviously, not all of them will be muslims, nor will all muslims be one of them.
So, as much as I myself find islam (and all religion) to be parasitic and barbaric, I don't think that focusing on muslims, however "statistically significant" they may be, is going to help us in our war on terror.
Much better, I believe, is a policy of noninterventionism. This will do more than all the lumping into groups ever could.
Interesting discussion w/regards to the Swiss:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/33439-2.htmlLast edited on Sun Nov 8th, 2009 04:14 am by marshaul
|
The Donkey
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 519 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 01:27 pm |
|
Citizen wrote: marshaul wrote: SNIP I believe that's the problem Donkey was trying to address.
Donkey's problem is his little penchant for thought control. Remember, earlier he said he found negative words for Muslims offensive.
So, he's offended. Now he's got an impulse to make others think his way. Rather than just an impulse to help others aspire to a higher level of understanding by explaining with facts and highlighting the danger of generalizations by way of respectful persuasion.
I really couldn't tell you easily which is worse. Somebody who hates a group for the crimes of a small part of the group, or somebody who is offended by the hate, rather than just understanding that it is part of the human condition, a part that can be changed and requires no looking-down on the hater or being offended by him.
Donkey has a good idea. He's just proceeding from an elitist viewpoint, and undermining his own efforts.
I do find it offensive that moslem's were being referred to as "Muzzles" and "Muzzoids." Language that is used to objectify and demean adherents to a faith is inherently offensive.
I do not find it offensive that Rebel believes that Islam is a violent religion. I think that he is wrong and strive to make that point over the din.
|
Repeater
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 05:10 pm |
|
As the one who originated this post, I now learn it's worse than I thought.
Hasan’s hidden militancy:
The alleged Fort Hood gunman had revealed a hard-line Islamist streak to acquaintances in the Muslim Community Center that he made his mosque.
Not long ago, inside the quiet library of the Muslim Community Center here in Silver Spring, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C., Golam Akhter, a local Bangladeshi-American civil engineer, 67, got into a fierce debate with a young Muslim doctor over how to interpret the concept of “jihad” within Islam. Akhter argued, “Jihad means an inner struggle, fighting against corruption and injustice.”
The young doctor responded. “That’s not a correct interpretation. Jihad means holy war. When your religion isn’t safe, you have to fight for it. If someone attacks you, you must fight them. That is jihad. You can kill someone who is harming you.”
The conversation would be just another theological debate, interesting but irrelevant, except that the doctor was Maj. Nidal Hasan, 39, the gunman in the tragic Fort Hood rampage. After being posted to Walter Reed Hospital as a psychiatrist, Hasan called the Muslim Community Center his local mosque. It’s just a short drive away from Walter Reed.
|
Repeater
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 05:16 pm |
|
Michelle Malkin is angry. She wonders Why do we have to read British papers to get Ft. Hood jihadist news:
The London Telegraph has the bombshell report on Ft. Hood jihadist Nidal Hassan’s ties to the September 11 terrorists.
Read and re-read here for the full investigative piece.
Allahpundit has a full round-up and commentary on the Telegraph’s revelations here.
Question: Why is it that we have to read British papers to get the unvarnished truths about the Ft. Hood Muslim mass murderer?
Doug Giles says “We need an ask and tell policy for jihadists in the military.”
Yes, yes we do.
|
Sealgar
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 05:44 pm |
|
I do find it offensive that moslem's were being referred to as "Muzzles" and "Muzzoids." Language that is used to objectify and demean adherents to a faith is inherently offensive.
I do not find it offensive that Rebel believes that Islam is a violent religion. I think that he is wrong and strive to make that point over the din.
Your view because you refuse to see the facts.
"There is none so blind as those that won't see."
|
heliopolissolutions
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 80 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 05:47 pm |
|
Oh good gracious me.
Looks like American intelligence were aware of his attempts to contact al-Qaeda linked groups.
This @#$% just in:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/11/09/2009-11-09_fort_hood_gunman_nidal_malik_hasan_tried_to_contact_al_qaeda_and_us_intelligence.html
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 06:40 pm |
|
Sealgar wrote:
I do find it offensive that moslem's were being referred to as "Muzzles" and "Muzzoids." Language that is used to objectify and demean adherents to a faith is inherently offensive.
I do not find it offensive that Rebel believes that Islam is a violent religion. I think that he is wrong and strive to make that point over the din.
Your view because you refuse to see the facts.
"There is none so blind as those that won't see."
'Stuck on stupid, 'more like it. Islam is a failed religion with a false prophet... 'n I'm not even religious by any stretch... but I 'am' a student of history.
I think sawing the heads off of people of a different religion on video while hollering Allahu Akabar is inherently offensive. I think strapping on a belt bomb and blowing yourself up in a crowded pizza joint is inherentlyoffensive. I think flying hijacked passenger planes full of people into office buildings full of people is inherently offensive. I think that Islamic mullahs who have no problems issuing fatwah's against people they disagree with to be murdered is inherently offensive. I think that honor killings are inherently offensive. I think that the idea of Dhimmmitude for unbelievers is inherently offensive. I believe that a Medical Officer of the United States Army who violates his oath as a soldier and a doctor who indiscriminatly kills and wounds his defenseless fellow soldiers in the name of Allah is inherently offensive. In fact... I think people like Donkey and those apologists/enablers of his ilk are inherently offensive.
When I was in Israel... an Israeli girl told me: "You can trust the Arab when he has been in the ground forty years dead." That was nearly 30 years ago... and I had no idea how right she was at the time.
|
Sealgar
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:01 pm |
|
| Mega Dittos Reb.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:14 pm |
|
Just got this:
 Updated: Fri., Nov. 6, 2009, 2:50 PM
Fort Hood's 9/11
By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 2:50 PM, November 6, 2009
Posted: 1:36 PM, November 6, 2009
On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.
What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.
This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.
When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."
But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.
And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."
And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.
Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn’t killed on the spot.
Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There’ll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn’t dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.
Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he’ll have the last laugh.
But Hasan isn’t the sole guilty party. The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood.
Given the myriad warning signs, it’s appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.
Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone with the simoon. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.
Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.
There’s another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who’ve been assigned to his care? And he’s not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?
For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I’m ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.
Get ready for the apologias. We’ve already heard from the terrorist’s family that "he’s a good American." In their world, maybe he is.
But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?
A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she’s becoming too Westernized.
Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we’re assured that "Islam’s a religion of peace."
I guarantee you that the Obama administration’s non-response to the Ft. Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.
Ralph Peters’ latest novel is "The War After Armageddon."
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
More:
I received this today from a friend with well-placed military connections. I can't verify either the original source of this e-mail (purportedly a US Army captain who was an eyewitness), or its veracity/accuracy, but to me it has a certain ring of truth. Judge for yourself.
Subject: What happened at Fort Hood
Since I don't know when I'll sleep (it's 4 a.m. now) I'll write what happened (the abbreviated version...the long one is already part of the investigation with more to come). I'll not write about any part of the investigation that I've learned about since (as a witness I know more than I should, since inevitably my JAG brothers and sisters are deeply involved in the investigation). Don't assume that the current media accounts are accurate. For the most part, they're not. They'll improve with time. Only those of us who were there really know what went down. But as they collate our statements, they'll eventually get it right.
I did my SRP (Soldier Readiness Processing) last week, but you're supposed to come back a week later to have them look at the smallpox vaccination site (it's this big itchy growth on your shoulder). I am probably alive because I pulled a boner and entered the wrong building first (the main SRP building). The Medical SRP building is off to the side. Realizing my mistake, I left the main building and walked down the sidewalk to the medical SRP building. As I'm walking up to it, the gunfire start. Slow and methodical. But continuous. Two ambulatory wounded came out. Then two soldiers dragging a third who was covered in blood. Hearing the shots, but not seeing the shooter, I stood in the street along with a couple of other soldiers and yelled at everyone who came running that it was clear but to "RUN!". I kept motioning people fast.
About 5 minutes later (the shooting continuous) two cops ran up. One male, one female. We pointed in the direction of the shots. They headed that way (the medical SRP building was about 50 meters away). Then a lot more gunfire. A short while later a balding man in ACUs came around the building carrying a pistol and holding it tactically. He started shooting at us and we all dived back to the cars behind us. I don't think he hit the couple other guys who were there. I did see the bullet holes later in the cars. First I went behind a tire and then looked under the body of the car. I've been trained how to respond to gunfire...but with my own weapon. To have no weapon, I don't know how to explain what that felt like. I hadn't run away, and stayed, because I had thought about the consequences or anything like that. I wasn't thinking anything through. Please understand, there was no intention. I was just staying there because I didn't think about running. It never occurred to me that he might shoot me. Until he started shooting in my direction and I realized I was unarmed.
Then the female cop came around the corner. He shoots her. (According to the news accounts, she got a round into him. I believe it, I just didn't see it. But he obviously hadn't gone down.) Then she goes down. The shooter starts reloading. He's fiddling with his mags. Weirdly, he hasn't dropped the one that was in his weapon. He's holding the fresh one and the old one (you do that on the range when time is not of the essence but in combat you would just let the old mag go). I see the male cop around the left corner of the building. (I'm about 15-20 meters from the shooter.) I yell at the cop, "He's reloading, he's reloading. Shoot him! Shoot him!") You have to understand, everything was quiet at this point. The cop appears to hear me and comes around the corner and shoots the shooter. He goes down. The cop kicks his weapon further away.
I sprint up to the downed female cop. Another captain (I think he was with me behind the cars) comes up as well. She's bleeding profusely out of her thigh. We take our belts off and tourniquet her just like we've been trained (I hope we did it right...we didn't have any CLS (combat lifesaver) bags with their awesome tourniquets on us, so we worked with what we had). Meanwhile, in the most bizarre moment of the day, a photographer was standing over us taking pictures. I suppose I'll be seeing those tomorrow. Then a soldier came up and identified himself as a medic. I then realized her weapon was lying there unsecured (and on "fire"). I stood over it and when I saw a cop yelled for him to come over and secure her weapon (I would have done so but I was worried someone would mistake me for a bad guy). I then went over to the shooter. He was unconscious. A Lt. Colonel was there and had secured the shooter's primary weapon for the time being. The shooter also had a revolver. I couldn't believe he was one of ours. I didn't want to believe it. Then I saw his name and rank and realized this wasn't just some specialist with mental issues. At this point there was a guy there from CID and I asked him if he knew he was the shooter and had him secured. He said he did. I then went over to the "slaughter house." The medical SRP building. No human should ever have to see what that looked like. And I won't tell you. Just believe me. There was nothing to be done there. Someone then said there was someone critically wounded around the corner.
I ran around (while seeing this floor to ceiling window that someone had jumped through movie style) and saw a large African-American soldier lying on his back with two or three soldiers attending. I ran up and identified two entrance wounds on the right side of his stomach, one exit wound on the left side and one head wound. He was not bleeding externally from the stomach wounds (though almost certainly internally) but was bleeding from the head wound. A soldier was using a shirt to try and stop the head bleeding. He was conscious so I began talking to him to keep him so. He was 42, from North Carolina, he was named something Jr., his son was named something III and he had a daughter as well. His children lived with him. He was divorced. I told him the blubber on his stomach saved his life. He smiled. A young soldier in civvies showed up and identified himself as a combat medic. We debated whether to put him on the back of a pickup truck. A doctor (well, an audiologist) showed up and said you can't move him, he has a head wound. We finally sat tight.
I went back to the slaughterhouse. They weren't letting anyone in there. Not even medics. Finally, after about 45 minutes had elapsed, some cops showed up in tactical vests. Someone said the TBI building was unsecured. They headed into there. All of a sudden a couple more shots were fired. People shouted there was a second shooter. A half hour later the SWAT showed up. There was no second shooter. The new shots had been an impetuous cop apparently. But that confused things for awhile.
Meanwhile I went back to the shooter. The female cop had been taken away. A medic was pumping plasma into the shooter. I'm not proud of this but I went up to her and said, "This is the shooter...is there anyone else who needs attention...do them first." She indicated everyone else living was attended to. I still hadn't seen any EMTs or ambulances. I had so much blood on me that people kept asking me if I was ok. But that was all other people's blood. Eventually (an hour and a half to two hours after the shootings) they started landing choppers. They took out the big African American guy and the shooter. I guess the ambulatory wounded were all at the SRP building. Everyone else in my area was dead.
I suppose the emergency responders were told there were multiple shooters. I heard that was the delay with the choppers (they were all civilian helicopters). They needed a secure LZ. But other than the initial cops who did everything right, I didn't see a lot of them for a while. I did see many a soldier rush out to help their fellows/sisters. There was one female soldier -- I don't know her name or rank, but I would recognize her anywwy -- who was everywhere helping people. A couple people, mainly civilians, were hysterical, but only a couple. One civilian freaked out when I tried to comfort her when she saw my uniform. I guess she had seen the shooter up close. A lot of soldiers were rushing out to help even when we thought there was another gunman out there. This Army is not broken no matter what the pundits say. Not the Army I saw. And then they kept me for a long time to come. Oh, and perhaps the most surreal thing, at 1500 (the end of the workday on Thursdays), when the bugle sounded, we all came to attention and saluted the flag. In the middle of it all.
This is what I saw. It can't have been real. But this is my small corner of what happened.
|
Repeater
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:49 pm |
|
Hisan left his calling card prior to the massacre:
In addition to the fact that this educated MD can't spell, his telegraphed his true beliefs by ading SoA(SWT) -- a red flag.
Meanwhile, the person truly mentally ill is General George Casey, who said:
As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.
I would say patriotism is already a casualty. Does Casey care?
And it wasn't a 'tragedy' it was an act of war.
|
riverrat10k
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Bon Air, Va |
| Posts: | 394 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:10 pm |
|
Just a loud "THANK YOU" to police sergeant Munley.
Girls with guns. I may have a fetish.
Thanks again and good shootin' Sarge!
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 09:44 pm |
|
http://goldismoney.info/forums/newreply.php?s=b4ce99688b13a47d00151271a9d012f3&do=newreply&p=2014972
http://community.gadsdentimes.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3291074365/m/6621018739/r/5251009839
http://www.mbworld.org/forums/off-topic/324482-shooting-fort-hood-tx-3.html
http://abesauer.com/2009/11/09/rare-first-person-tale-from-fort-hood-shooting/
|
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 10:29 pm |
|
One thing about this whole thing stands out: (1) This is a terrorist attack on American soil (2) it happened on Obama's watch (3) and it was widely predicted that Obama would be so weak and clueless as to embolden this very thing. Now it has come to pass.
IMO this attack is probably a probe of sorts to see how Obama will react; which right now looks like what we would have expected him to do on 9-11 were he "President" then. AND note well Donkey and others those quotes I put around "President". Just the fact that Obama did not FIRE that General for saying the loss of "diversity" would be a greater tragedy is so very indicaative of his inherent unfitness as commander in chief.
Major Hasan didn't start to really go nuts with the radical business until Obama was sworn in; what does that tell you?? Then he felt free to berate wounded sodiers about fighting Muslims, and this at Walter Reed. If in WWII some guy in the Army named Funkengruven started bitching about fighting Hitler instead of the Soviets, there would have been severe consequenses the red-hot second somebody figured out he wasn't being a comedian. Consequenses involving Ft Leavenworth and quite possibly a rope. Not in today's Army; commanded as it is by a dithering incompetent booby - and I am being perhaps a bit too charitable.
And in some cave or some safe-house in the sketchy "tribal regions" where the Afghan/Pakistani border is culturally blurred; Osama binLaden looks, smiles, and strokes his beard. And starts making big plans. The voters should have listened to Biden before the election. The other shoe is gonna be a Mo'Fo.
|
ecocks
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | Meridian, Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 228 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 11:41 pm |
|
I would agree that this falls under the heading of terrorism due to the shooter's apparent intentions. So far though, it seems that he was acting on his own initiative. If one person acts alone then they still seem (at least to me) to be a terrorist. It seems a dangerous trap to assume that because he had no compatriots, this will remain an isolated incident. It is somewhat ironic to recall all those who screamed about invasion of privacy under the Patriot Act when we are now seeing increased questions about why the government didn't react to his reported earlier behaviors. All of the outcries against Big Brother watching our computer posts, emails, phone calls, religious attendance and the like should be seen in a different light now. Consider for a few moments what would be the impact if 2-3 individuals each day randomly undertake similar acts like this in malls, schools, offices, banks...
Understand, I am not saying sleeper agents or any such fanciful imaginings, but individuals who consciously reach a decision of conscience. If a formerly unassuming elementary school teacher in Wichita runs amok tomorrow, screaming "Allah Akbar!" while hacking down her students, followed by a bus driver in Sacramento ramming his bus full of passengers through a day care at full speed and, concurrently, an Ocala office worker gunning down co-workers, the response within communities across the nation will be easy to anticipate. Simply look at the reactions to Japanese after Pearl Harbor, our communist witch-hunts of the McCarthy period, the scattered acts of violence against Muslims (and others) after 9/11 or the lynch mob mentality against blacks in localized events.
As General Casey says (wisely), it will be a greater tragedy if this turns us against ourselves. Yes, Obama and others of his ilk will react with glee at the resulting chaos and social breakdowns. One of the glaring problems which many people tried to point out years ago was that this truly is a WAR. One vastly complicated due to being without a geographically defined battlefield or with completely identifiable political entities. Ideologies are extremely difficult to profile or otherwise detect. If that had been understood after the first WTC bombing or the realization of the growing list of terrorist acts then the bases, LEO's, citizens, government, etc. would be better prepared for these outbreaks. It's going to get worse as the focus diminishes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, few answers present themselves. Already we see rhetoric against muslims and those with even a vaguely mid-eastern appearance. After 9/11 there was the incident of the Sikh who was viciously beaten by a small group who thought he was "one of them". This is something we are going to have to live through. Weigh your responses carefully before you start throwing epithets and unjustified profiling around, you are becoming the enemy.
|
conservative85
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 12:01 am |
|
YES!, if the Prez won't say it I will...It was terrorism. I used to think that peaceful Muslims were the group that infiltrated the population, became involved in the community, then became politicians, then... Well you figure out the rest. As far as the Ft. Hood incident goes, The difference btw Peaceful, and radical...Peaceful take less lives but make more attempts. A tiger is a tiger is a tiger.
TRUST but VERIFY!! Ronald Reagan.
|
Repeater
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 11:28 pm |
|
Well, was it Jihad? Let Hasan's Powerpoint presentation speak for itself:
|
Bikenut
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 12:21 am |
|
The silent majority has been silent too long allowing the dreaded mind altering disease of "Political Correctness" to infect the whole nation.
Perhaps I have a simple mind... yet the solution to all this Jihad (and social violence) stuff is very simple...
When everyone has a gun and someone starts shooting at someone .. and they shoot back in self defense (civilian or military) the problem is solved regardless of the religious beliefs of either party. And it wouldn't matter if the one who starts it shouts "Allah Akbar" or "F you M F!"... the end result is the same... problem solved.
But then my mind used to be infected with "Political Correctness" only to be cured with an infusion of "common sense".
|
The Donkey
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 519 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 12:24 am |
|
One of Hasan's "Conclusions" is:
"Fighting to establish an Islamic State, to please God, even by force, is condoned by Islam."
His entire presentation seems to be rejecting the idea that one can be true to God in Islam and be "moderate" in matters of the "struggle" between believers and non-believers.
If this is what was on his mind when he pulled the trigger, then Hasan would have understood the shooting as an "Act of Jihad" and an act of treason against the United States.
|
Current time is 06:38 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|
|
