When John Wilkes Booth opened fire on President Abraham Lincoln in Ford’s Theatre in April 1865, the media was puzzled. “True, the actor was outspoken in his Confederate sympathies and viewed himself as a Southerner,” said someone who knew him, “but that was no reason he might want Lincoln to be dead.” The day before he went on his shooting spree, Booth hoisted a big Confederate flag outside his hotel room. After he leaped onto the stage he shouted, "Thus ever to tyrants!" the motto of the rebel state of Virginia.

The New York Times reported that Booth was psychologically unstable and was frightened of the Civil War coming to an end and having to face a peacetime actors’ surplus. “His political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts.

After Fritz Reichmark opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Dix in January 1942 the media was puzzled. “True, he used to go to German-American Bund meetings,” said one fellow soldier, “but he only wore the swastika armband in his off-hours.” Reichmark would regale other soldiers with diatribes against the Jews, Winston Churchill, and Communists. The day before he went on his shooting spree, Reichmark gave out copies of Mein Kampf to neighbors. Soldiers who survived reported he was shouting "Heil Hitler!" while firing at them.

The New York Times reported that Reichmark was psychologically unstable and was frightened of being shipped out to North Africa because he was a coward, though this doesn’t explain his making a suicide attack when his job wouldn’t have required him to go into combat. “His German ancestry and political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts. The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of this event was to fight more firmly against Germanophobia.

When Padraic O’Brian bombed a restaurant in London with massive loss of life, the media was puzzled. “True, he used to go to IRA rallies,” said a cousin, “and he would rant for hours about how the British invaders should be wiped out” but the media reported that this had nothing to do with this attack which was caused by his psychological problems. As he fired at pursuing police, O'Brian yelled: "Up the republic!"

The Guardian reported: “His Irish identity and political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act.” The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of this event was the need to fight more firmly to ensure that Northern Ireland was handed over to the Irish Republic and that Israel be wiped off the map.

When a group of 19 terrorists flew two planes into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and the fourth crashed on the way to the White House, the media was puzzled. “True, they wrote letters to Usama bin Ladin and expressed radical views but their act of violence must have been connected to their extreme poverty back in Saudi Arabia,” one expert was quoted as saying. When informed the young men all came from well-off families, he responded, “Oh.”

The New York Times reported that they were all psychologically unstable and had difficult times in forming stable relationships with women. “The fact that they were Arabs and Muslims or their political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it explained. The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of the attack was the need to fight against Islamophobia and Arabophobia as well as for the United States to make more concessions in the Middle East and to impeach President George W. Bush.

The point of the above exercise is to make the following points:

--Individuals who commit terrorist acts often have psychological problems but the thing that justified, organized, and ensured that violence would be committed were political ideas.

--Whenever an individual who belongs to any group commits a crime, it is possible that some will stigmatize the entire group. Most Americans or Westerners today, however, will not do so. The most important issue is to identify why the terrorist act happened and what to look for (including which type of individuals) to prevent future attacks.

--When there is clear evidence that danger signs were ignored because people were afraid of being stigmatized for doing their job of protecting their fellows, that is a dangerous mistake that must be corrected.

--Someone who is "afraid" of being sent into a war zone is not likely to handle that cowardice by standing up with a gun in a suicide attack and shooting people until he falls to the ground with about four bullet wounds.
--The media can often be stupid but when it censors reporting for political or social engineering reasons, freedom is jeopardized. The correct phrase is: The public's right to know. It is not: The public has to be guided into drawing the proper conclusions by slanting and limiting information even if the conclusions being pressed on them are lies and nonsense.

RubinReports: Great Moments in "Psychologically Disturbed" Gunmen Committing Mass Murder (http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/11/great-moments-in-psychologically.html)


President Obama has cautioned us against jumping to conclusions . That would be the same President who was compelled to host a beer summit because of his own prejudging the actions of a police officer.

In this case;the evidence is clear that Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to get in touch with al-Qaeda;that he worshipped at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia... the same mosque that two of the 9-11 hijackers went to ;and that the prayer leader, Anwar al-Awlaki ,who is also the AQ person Hasan had contacted;was also the spiritual adviser of the two 9-11 hijackers.He is now in Yemen and has praised Hasan’s actions.

Hasan’s behavior at Walter Reed was the subject of conversation by his colleagues. What is yet to be determined is how much of that filtered up to decision makers;and whether it political correctness that prevented the decision makers from taking the actions necessary to prevent Hassan's jihadist terrorism ?

The pre-9/11 mentality is back in full force... just 8 years after that fateful day. At least it is in force within our government and our military leadership. And the consequence is going to be awful.

I showed in a recent post just how often the USA was attacked by foreign terrorists before 9/11. It was roughly once per year, on average, over a 30-year period. That's 30 attacks or so to which we never responded out of a misguided fear or being non-PC or offensive to those who would attack us. And the result of each incident we ignored was another incident.

For 8 years we have lived attack-free because George W. Bush, the most hated man in America, took action against our enemies instead of hiding his head ion the sand. And in that short time, we forgot what it was like to be attacked.

The Fort Hood attack will be relatively ignored by our government. No action will be taken. What action is there to take, after all? And in doing so, we will forget to call this act of terrorism by its right name. This will send a signal that we are once again prepared to ignore attacks against our homeland as long as they are small enough to not rouse a public reaction or can be chalked up to a "lone crazy gunman" as opposed to an organized group.

We are opening ourselves up to new attacks because we are too stupid to remember recent history.

The difference in attitude between the Bush administration and the Obama administration (and their respecctive military leaders) is what sends the signal. The return to PC-ism over security is what sends the signal. And the enemy is very good at reading the signals.

Elliot

I heard that don't rush to judgment remark yesterday and thought the same thing, white cop arrests black professor and the cops "acted stupidly." Maybe I should do as you on the administration's Honduras policy and hope Obama is teachable. Nah, I agree with Ralph Peters who had to the guts to call it what it was, Islamic terrorism.

Obama can't be bothered by Islamic terrorism (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_can_be_bothered_by_islamic_loKKYSELYC4rtNFCD tot9M)


In the wake of the terrorist strike on our soldiers at Fort Hood, one individual's still missing in action: Our commander in chief. The massacre's 51 casualties, including 13 dead, were insufficient to drag President Obama away from the White House Happy Hour.

We just saw the worst terror attack on America since 9/11. And Obama couldn't adjust his schedule to support our grieving troops.

Instead, we got his subtle defense of the perp: Unwilling to use the word “terror,” let alone the phrase “Islamist terror,” Obama warned us not to “rush to judgment.”

A Muslim fanatic, known to the FBI as a fan of suicide bombers and to colleagues as an opponent of our government, coolly buys weapons, heads to a military facilityhe knows will be packed with unsuspecting soldiers, waits for the crowd to thicken, then shouts, “Allah is great!” and guns down 51 patriots, calmly reloading among the dead and dying.

But don't rush to judgment.

Imagine if, instead of Fort Hood, the massacre had gone down at a mosque in Detroit — carried out by a maddened Christian or Jew. Obama would've been aboard Air Force One before the pilots had time to file a flight plan and he would've been on site before the gun smoke cleared, hugging and boo-hooing and dispensing stirring rhetoric for the evening news.

But go out of his way to rally our butchered troops? Not a chance. It's not like they're real human beings with Ivy League degrees. When Obama got word of the attack, he didn't even lose his fabled cool.

Obama may be shamed into visiting Ft. Hood at some point, but his priority since Thursday has remained socializing American medicine. What happens in Texas, stays in Texas.

Move on? Yes we can!

Of course, this act of Islamist terrorism has been an inconvenience to a president whose administration insists there's no such thing. Those dead and wounded soldiers are such an embarrassment. If only a Baptist or Lutheran had been the shooter, things would've been so much tidier.

What's next? The White House is going to bring heavy pressure on the FBI, through Attorney General Eric Holder, to play down investigative results confirming that Maj. Nidal Hasan was motivated by his Muslim beliefs.

Instead, we'll hear even more about the “harassment” Hasan suffered as the media toe the line laid down by the vile lead editorial in Saturday's New York Times and how this calculating terrorist contracted PTSD from his patients.

Let me kill the harassment myth right now: Political correctness rules in today's Army. We even protect our enemies these days. Had any soldier harassed Hasan because of his Islamist nuttiness, that soldier would've disappeared faster than a Franklin on a Times Square sidewalk.

Any snarky remarks directed toward Hasan — if there were any — would've come in reaction to his railing against our government, our military's mission and the monstrous injustice that, after grabbing an education in psychiatry worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from our military, he might have had to do his duty.

Far from being harassed himself, this creep was allowed to harass the soldiers he treated for stress disorders. According to colleagues, Hasan not only argued with his patients about our wars, but preached Islam to those under his care. (Just what troubled vets needed, no doubt.)

Prejudice? You bet. In this terrorist's favor. Nobody in Hasan's chain of command had the sense of duty to weed this pervert out. Why? Hasan would've accused them of discrimination. And the officer who brought charges against Hasan would've been the one whose career suffered.

Since writing on this travesty in the Post and speaking out on Fox News, I've been deluged with supportive messages — many from soldiers outraged at the politically correct treatment of this terrorist by the media, by senior military leaders — and by the president.

How many more Americans have to die, at home and in war, before our president admits that there is, indeed, such a thing as Islamist terror? Will he ever admit that it played a role in the tragedy at Fort Hood?

Not a chance. Islam's a religion of peace. America's the problem. And don't you forget it.

This will send a signal that we are once again prepared to ignore attacks against our homeland as long as they are small enough to not rouse a public reaction or can be chalked up to a "lone crazy gunman" as opposed to an organized group.
Nah, I agree with Ralph Peters who had to the guts to call it what it was, Islamic terrorism.Hello tom:

I agree that political correctness is, was, and is ALWAYS going to cause us problems... But, I have trouble understanding what the real difference is between a nut, and a terrorist.. Oh, I guess if he's a terrorist, we can ship him off to Gitmo for a little water boarding. But, if he's a nut, he's stuck inside federal custody.

Is THAT what you guys want? A little torture? A little retribution? Maybe some Christian wrath. Come on. You can tell me.

Yeah. That's going on. Otherwise, there actually wouldn't BE a difference unless you wanted to BLAME some group for it. Elliot clearly is looking for a bad guy, but he doesn't identify who we should retaliate against. Unless it would be Muslims in general, and that's what I think it is.

What do you think? Is the attack just more evidence of Islams war against us? Would that be like the Evangelical Christian war against America because some Christians kill abortion doctors?? What's your answer? Purge the military of Muslims, as some wingers have proposed? Or may just fire the dufus's in the Army and/or the FBI for dropping the ball. Maybe we should bomb Iran. That'll show 'em.

excon

Ex

Cleary that is not what I wrote . I will ask you ;do you have any issues at all with calling Tim McVey a terrorist ? Would you equate his actions with a "nut" like.. oh let's say... the Columbine murderers ? No ;you would call both McVey's and Hasan's actions terrorism because they are POLITICALLY motivated .

Make no mistake . I consider neither Muslim jihad or "Christian abortion bombers" as people performing religious acts.

But ; let's say a soldier who is also a Christian openly spoke of taking out an abortion clinic .Do you think the appropriate action would be to keep him under tight survaillance or perhaps even escorting him out of the military ? I think you would call that appropriate.

Cleary that is not what I wrote . I will ask you ;do you have any issues at all with calling Tim McVey a terrorist ? Hello again, tom:

Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us. Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam. Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.

excon

It doesn't have to be one or the other. He can be a nut job whose political views affected the way in which he cracked. I am surprised that I haven't seen anyone make anything of the fact that he was a psychiatrist, either. I think a lot of them are nuts. I know that's a tired cliché, but I can be politically incorrect here, too!

Personally, it would be a hard choice between waterboarding and entering a mental health facility. This guy sounded generally dysfunctional. Apparently, he could have got out of the military if he'd wanted to but didn't hire a lawyer to help him do it. He just sat there festering and brooding. What's his problem? Why so passive? A neighbor keyed his car and he did nothing and didn't even express any anger about it. That's weird. This is a person who doesn't know how to deal with adversity and emotion.

I'd love to hear what his patients had to say about him. He sounds like a disaster as a psychiatrist.

I think we should purge the militaryof psychiatrists.

Hello again, tom:

Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us. Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam. Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.


Through the years I have made a consistent point on this subject . Radical jihadism is a political philosophy that yes,we are at war against.

Are all Muslims radical jihadists ? Nope . Should the Army purge their ranks of radical jihadists ? Yes they should because radical jihadists are at war with the US military and thus represent an enemy 5th column.

Hello again, tom:

Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.


So what you are saying is that it's OK to for YOU to call such a person a terrorist, but if anyone else does, it's because we want "christian retribution".

More anti-religious bigotry.

Not to mention that you know quite well that I'm Jewish.


I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us.

Correction... FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM's war against us.

Are you saying that such acts by fundamentalist Muslims ISN'T evidence of such a war?


Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam.

Correction... our war against FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM.

Are you saying that such acts by fundamentalist Muslims don't justify a war against fundamentalist Islam?


Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.

Excon

Actually, it is factually correct to deny that we are at war with Islam. We are, in fact, at war with fundamentalist Islam. We're trying to kill Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist followers, not Ahmed and Ibrahim the two brothers selling shoes in Bahgdad.

Or do you say that we're targeting the Muslim on the street?

Of course you do... you still think we're in Vietnam, and that we targeted the Vietnamese women and children that John Kerry lied about us killing. You can never accept the fact that the American soldier might not be the bad guy.

Elliot

Excon,

Just for a clarification, whether we call this guy a nut or a terrorist has a direct effect on what actions we take to prevent another such event in the future.

A nut is a once-in-a-lifetime thing that can't be prevented except by the people who know him best.

Someone with a terrorist ideology can be detected ahead of time if the military is prepared to seek him out.

What action the military takes will be a result of what the government is willing to call this guy.

If he's a nut, we can go back to burying our heads in the sand. If he's a terrorist, we need to take action to prevent similar acts in the future.

That's the difference.

But you probably can't see that.

Elliot

Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

I was going to simplify it for you and furnish a link to the definitions, but apparently Merriam-Webster is too PC to define terrorist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorist). And just to show I didn't really search for "narco-terrorism" read the last word of the link:

Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorist


I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us. Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam. Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.

I'm not tom, but a guy who's sympathies were divided between his Muslim brethren we were fighting and the nation he was sworn to serve is a huge red flag. Did the army do justice to all those Muslims serving in our military that they themselves feared might feel the backlash if they had targeted this guy for some serious intervention? We need to start calling things like they are and stop this dithering and tiptoeing about.

How about we get the White House to open a web page for soldiers to report suspicious behavior enountered amongst their peers?
Recall this: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected]."

Or, suppose the perp at Fort Hood was a white guy from Alabama, who attended meetings of the KKK, the facts of which were generally known to his peers, and evidence was in the hands of high-up government officials of his racist tendencies. Can we just imagine the hue and cry, the headlines of the NY Times, the response of the White House.

Fort Hood Memorial Service

You know Obama can't call it terrorism because then he can't say he's kept us safe.

I think you hit on it Steve .

excon,

Just for a clarification, whether we call this guy a nut or a terrorist has a direct effect on what actions we take to prevent another such event in the future.

A nut is a once-in-a-lifetime thing that can't be prevented except by the people who know him best.

Someone with a terrorist ideology can be detected ahead of time if the military is prepared to seek him out.

What action the military takes will be a result of what the government is willing to call this guy.

If he's a nut, we can go back to burying our heads in the sand. If he's a terrorist, we need to take action to prevent similar acts in the future.

That's the difference.

But you probably can't see that.

Elliot
This has confirmed my contention Muslims are a fifth column, I read in one article it was suggested he was a Palestinian, so that would make him fairly mixed up. You can say he is a nut if you like but obviously a terrorist nut and infiltrator and how many more exist in the military, sleepers waiting for the moment. How many did this guy certify as OK? Why didn't you take action to prevent these acts before they happened, that is proper exercise of duty of care

... Why didn't you take action to prevent these acts before they happened, that is proper exercise of duty of care

This has been the 'conservative' position on terrorism, as well as illegal immigration, for years; but the progressives stand with their foot in the door.

Remember when this admins new head of homeland security warned of returning soldiers as potential terrorists? PC idiots are sticking there head in the sand, ignoring the real ongoing threat of Islamic jihadists.

If I was a muslim, and believed that my religion was being hijacked by these terrorist, I would be ashamed. That is what I am waiting on the MSM to report on, major muslim groups repudiating the acts Nidal and his fellow jihadists.


G&P

If I was a muslim, and believed that my religion was being hijacked by these terrorist, I would be ashamed. That is what I am waiting on the MSM to report on, major muslim groups repudiating the acts Nidal and his fellow jihadists.

Exactly, I've been asking that for years. I heard somewhere from some Muslim talking head that is exactly what was happening but of course there were no specifics. So who among the Islamic world will stand up and take back their 'peaceful' religion?

So who among the Islamic world will stand up and take back their 'peaceful' religion?Hello again, Steve:

I thought the idea of proclaiming him a terrorist was to BLAME somebody else. I can see that I was right... You think some Muslim - ANY Muslim - owes you an apology, or needs to make some statement or something to make YOU happy.

WHEN, as a Christian, are you going to apologize for the abortion doctor killing, done by a CHRISTIAN based upon CHRISTIAN ideas and morals?

excon

Ex Steve and other Christians here have and continue to condemn the actions of killers proclaiming a mandate from God as justification for their actions.

The left seems very confused about this . Here is Chris Matthews as an example.
“apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, 'This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?”

Why is that even an issue ? AQ is a self professed enemy of the United States. Would Chris have had the same pause of confusion if a soldier during WWII had attempted to contact the German or Japanese ? Ridiculous display of PC if you ask me.

Oh wait... that's right... it's no longer a "war".

Senior federal investigators confirmed Tuesday night that since last December, the FBI monitored from 10 to 20 “communications” between suspected Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan and an overseas terror suspect known for preaching violence and expressing sympathy for Al Qaeda.
But although an FBI-led task force undertook an “assessment” of the Army psychiatrist as a result of those contacts, counter-terror officials concluded earlier this year that Hasan's communications with the terror suspect were “protected” by “free speech” and did not warrant opening up a criminal investigation of him, the investigators said.


FBI Counter-Terror Officials Were Never Told About Hasan's Gun Purchase - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/09/fbi-counter-terror-officials-were-never-told-about-hasan-s-gun-purchase.aspx)

Hello tom:

So, the FBI can VIOLATE our rights by SNOOPING in on our conversations, but they can't USE anything they hear because it VIOLATES our rights??

That's as bizzaro as you get. I thought you misprinted it. You didn't. That isn't political correctness - that's just plain nuts.

excon

What is even more bizarre is that you think his contacting an enemy during war is a protected right.

Hello again, tom:

Do YOU think that YOUR side is above political correctness? Why do you use phrases like "enhanced interrogation technique" instead of torture.. Why don't you call "rendition" what it really is, which is kidnapping?

Is it because you want to soften those words? Isn't that the bane of political correctness in the first place? Or, do you just deny that the above example IS political correctness, simply because it's YOUR side who uses those phrases? I'll bet you do.

excon

What is even more bizzare is that you think his contacting an enemy during war is a protected right.Hello again, tom:

In fact, it is. Actually, I read the Fourth Amendment. It says that if the government wants to listen, it needs to get a warrant. It really DOES say that.

That isn't bizarre. The fact that you THINK it's bizarre, IS what's bizarre. That's because the Fourth Amendment is the CORNERSTONE of our legal system. I know, you wingers don't like that, but that's the way it here in this great country of ours. Bummer for you, huh?

It's true, the only Amendment you'll support is the Second. However, I warned you before about cherry picking - not because I think you should LIKE those other pesky rights we have. You never will. But, you should support those rights, so that you'll have a good argument to use when they come for your guns.

excon

Ex;
The funny thing is I too have read the Constitution.

Here is the part I find pertinent .

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

And I'm sure the Uniform Code of Conduct has much more to say on the issue.

Here is the part I find pertinent .

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

And I'm sure the Uniform Code of Conduct has much more to say on the issue.Hello tom:

As you can see, we are speaking about TWO different issues. I don't disagree with you on the issue you raise above. He's a treasonous bastard. But, if they want to use the phone or his emails to CATCH him, they need a warrant.

That kind of stuff shouldn't be news to you. If you retort by saying that the need to get a warrant hamstrings the government, I'd retort by saying the government can't be TOO hamstrung, or we wouldn't BE the worlds LARGEST jailer - and we ARE.

excon

You are presuming that they did not have a warrant . I don't know that to be the case . But do I think he needed one ? Nope . FISA provides for the authorization by the President to listen in on conversations with the enemy .

You are presuming that they did not have a warrant. FISA provides for the authorization by the President to listen in on conversations with the enemy ..Hello again, tom:

Nope. I'm relying on the article you linked us to. It said they couldn't use the information because it would violate his rights... IF they had a warrant, using the information WOULDN'T have violated his rights...

Plus, if what you say is true, they (1) didn't need a warrant and therefore, COULD use the information, or (2) the FBI screwed up royally...

But, if we went back to the good old days where a warrant WAS required, he COULD have been stopped before he went on his rampage. Lots of soldiers would be alive. It turns out that all the rights the dufus violated in order to keep us safe, didn't do that at all.

excon

That's a leap. The Holder Justice dept incorrectly concluded his free speech rights would be violated by using the information gathered against him. Nothing in the article suggests the means of obtaining the information was suspect.

Again ;there was never a provision that monitoring enemy correspondents required a court order.

The Holder Justice dept incorrectly concluded his free speech rights would be violated by using the information gathered against him. Nothing in the article suggests the means of obtaining the information was suspect. Hello again, tom:

Dude! Nothing OTHER than their admission that they collected it ILLEGALLY. Otherwise, they COULD have used it, and they said they couldn't. I don't know what could be more plain.

You say the Holder Justice Department, but the intercepted communications go back into the dufus administration. They didn't do anything WITH the information they had to keep us safe, either.

excon

I just reread the article to see if I missed anything... I didn't . NOTHING in the article suggests there was any problem in the means the information was obtained.

I thought the idea of proclaiming him a terrorist was to BLAME somebody else.

I thought the idea of calling him an Islamic terrorist was to call it what it is, stop making excuses and quit dancing around the issue of Islamic terrorism. Obama's DHS had no problem concerning itself with "rightwing extremists" like "disgruntled military veterans" such as neo-Nazis, skinheads and other white supremacists," and terrorists like Timothy McVeigh who was executed 8 years ago, using terms like "violent radicalization."

It had no problem stating more than once that the election of the first African-American president and his stance on abortion was likely to encourage more violence. The press had a field day over a nutjob named James von Brunn that killed a black security officer, and yet this guy is being portrayed as suffering from PTSD even though he'd spent his career in an office. We're supposed to not rush to judgment or blame Islam yet he told his neighbor "I'm going to do good work for God (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110703449.html)."

So what should we call it?


I can see that I was right... You think some Muslim - ANY Muslim - owes you an apology, or needs to make some statement or something to make YOU happy.


No, I just hate political correctness and the double standard that comes with it. The same day Dr. Tiller was killed Obama issued this statement (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/05/67484015/1):


I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Two days - TWO DAYS - after the murder of Private William Long by a Muslim convert Obama issued this statement:


“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”

When it's a Muslim he's "deeply saddened" by a "senseless act of violence." When it's an abortion killer he's "shocked and outraged" by "heinous acts of violence."


WHEN, as a Christian, are you going to apologize for the abortion doctor killing, done by a CHRISTIAN based upon CHRISTIAN ideas and morals?

I'm not looking for an apology from anyone and I have none to offer. I have always condemned such violence and every mainstream Christian church and organization I'm aware of does as well. Yet no one seems to have a problem calling us to account and attaching all manner of labels to us for the violence of one wacko.

Ironically ;the week this happened the Democrats were taking steps to let the "Lone Wolf " provisions of the Patriot Act expire.

This as the MO of AQ appears to be shifting away from centrally planned and managed operations to individual acts of jihad coordinated via web sites .

A senior government official tells ABC News that investigators have found that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI" than just radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki.

Official: Nidal Hasan Had "Unexplained Connections" - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/official-nidal-hasan-unexplained-connections/story?id=9048590)

They were just too busy looking for all those other rightwing extremists to see the huge red flags from Hasan.

Nope. I'm relying on the article you linked us to. It said they couldn't use the information because it would violate his rights... IF they had a warrant, using the information WOULDN'T have violated his rights...

My question is were the intercepted emails from a private account of Hasan's or were they from a military account? You do know that you have no expectation of privacy with an email account owned by your employer don't you? Does anyone know whose account was intercepted?

Even if you throw everything else aside this justifies intercepting emails between Hasan and the Imam. The 9/11 Commission twice mentioned this guy in their report and suspect he had an operational role in the death of 3000 Americans. From page 230 of the report:


At the Dar al Hijra mosque, Hazmi and Hanjour met a Jordanian named Eyad al Rababah. Rababah says he had gone to the mosque to speak to the imam, Aulaqi, about finding work. At the conclusion of services, which normally had 400 to 500 attendees, Rababah says he happened to meet Hazmi and Hanjour. They were looking for an apartment; Rababah referred them to a friend who had one to rent. Hazmi and Hanjour moved into the apartment, which was in Alexandria.75

Some FBI investigators doubt Rababah’s story. Some agents suspect that Aulaqi may have tasked Rababah to help Hazmi and Hanjour. We share that suspicion, given the remarkable coincidence of Aulaqi’s prior relationship with Hazmi. As noted above, the Commission was unable to locate and interview Aulaqi. Rababah has been deported to Jordan, having been convicted after 9/11 in a fraudulent driver’s license scheme

And no one thought communicating with this man that the commission couldn't find that likely had a role in the worst terrorist attack ever was worth a closer look?

If I was a muslim, and believed that my religion was being hijacked by these terrorist, I would be ashamed. That is what I am waiting on the MSM to report on, major muslim groups repudiating the acts Nidal and his fellow jihadists.


G&P

You will wait a long time, whilst they might not agree with the terrorists actions you won't get very many repudiating the acts of fellow Muslims and in this latest attack is this fellow seen as a terrorist, a jihadist or simply as disturbed? The fact that he is a Muslim has been played down, the fact that he is a Palestinian has been played down, both of these factors should have been a red light, the fact that he was unhappy in his military role should have been a major signal

Ex Steve and other Christians here have and continue to condemn the actions of killers proclaiming a mandate from God as justification for their actions.

The left seems very confused about this . Here is Chris Matthews as an example.
“apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?’ That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?”

Why is that even an issue ? AQ is a self professed enemy of the United States. Would Chris have had the same pause of confusion if a soldier during WWII had attempted to contact the German or Japanese ? Rediculous display of pc if you ask me.

Oh wait .....that's right ......it's no longer a "war".

Actually, as I understand it, contacting AQ is indeed a crime. So, as usual, Matthews is wrong.

You think some Muslim - ANY Muslim - owes you an apology, or needs to make some statement or something to make YOU happy.

excon

Ex,
I was going to say that, but you mentioned it first.

I am not going to apologize for a crime someone committed on his own free will and him being a muslim does not make it a crime of Islam.

It is a sorry state of affairs to have those you pay to protect your own turn against you and commit murder.

I wonder what this means in the bigger picture.Would all muslims within the military and/or security departments be targets of a witch hunt?
Which has been happening at different levels even now-
Italian court finds CIA agents guilty of kidnapping terrorism suspect | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/cia-guilty-rendition-abu-omar)

Will I be harassed just because I have a muslim name, or will it be considered political correctness if I was left alone.

If all the red flags were present for Hasan Nidal leading up to something like this, why does the military not take responsibility,why does it have to be muslims who apologize.
And if he was such a lousy psychiatrist, why was he allowed to practice?



.

If all the red flags were present for Hasan Nidal leading upto something like this, why does the military not take responsibility,why does it have to be muslims who apologize.
And if he was such a lousy psychiatrist, why was he allowed to practice?

Great questions!

If anyone is responsible for him, it's the psychiatrists who trained him. I understand that psychiatry is not the military's core mission, but they need to get better at it than this.

Even if Hasan had not cracked, he was clearly not a suitable person to be counseling soldiers in emotional distress.

Will I be harassed just because I have a muslim name, or will it be considered political correctness if I was left alone.


People have been predicting this big backlash against Muslims since 9-11. It hasn't happened and it won't .

Hello again, tom:

Do YOU think that YOUR side is above political correctness? Why do you use phrases like "enhanced interrogation technique" instead of torture.. Why don't you call "rendition" what it really is, which is kidnapping?

Is it because you want to soften those words? Isn't that the bane of political correctness in the first place? Or, do you just deny that the above example IS political correctness, simply because it's YOUR side who uses those phrases? I'll bet you do.

excon

Ex :

What do you say to the loved ones of those that died? 9/11 was a surprise, after 8 years, after all the information that was on hand on this terrorist, and yet innocent Americans are still being killed because you and the MSM and Obama want to be sensitive to the needs and the rights of these jihadists. Bush did not have 8 years after 9/11 to keep this country secure. This attack happened during Obama's watch, he has failed.



G&P

Will I be harassed just because I have a muslim name, or will it be considered political correctness if I was left alone.

Were you previously harassed because you have a Muslim name? I don't know about anyone else but I tend to treat people like people regardless, the PC crowd are the ones who tiptoe around making a$$es out themselves in the process.

I don't know what qualifies as a "big backlash," but certainly muslims are harassed for being muslims. That's well documented. The question is not if but how much.

So what ? There are still plenty of places in the country where my being a Catholic subjects me to forms of harassment and ridicule .(in fact Catholic bashing is as American as apple pie) .

so what ? There are still plenty of places in the country where my being a Catholic subjects me to forms of harrassment and ridicule .(in fact Catholic bashing is as American as apple pie) .Hello again, tom:

Comparing how tough it is for you, a Catholic, to rampant racism just shows how out of tune you righty's are on the subject. I'm sure you made the same argument when black people were being hosed down by the cops in Alabama.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Comparing how tough it is for you, a Catholic, to rampant racism just shows how out of tune you righty's are on the subject. I'm sure you made the same argument when black people were being hosed down by the cops in Alabama.

excon

The fact that you see racism where there is none just shows how far out of touch you lefties are on the subject. Calling terrorist acts by their true name does not constitute racism. Likening the calling of terrorist acts by their true name to hosing down blacks in Alabama is a clear sign of tone deafness on YOUR part, not ours.

Elliot

I did not say it was tough . Please show me where Muslims are being hosed down here ? You can't because it isn't happening . My point was that in many ways it's still PC to bash Catholics where no one in popular culture would dare bash Muslims in the same manner.

My point was that in many ways it's still pc to bash Catholics where no one in popular culture would dare bash Muslims in the same manner.Hello again, tom:

I'm not going to be my usual flippant self with you. I believe you believe what you are saying. I even believe the Wolverine believes what he's saying...

I don't have any contrary proof to offer, either, other than what's happening all around you, yet you fail to see. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

excon

My point was that in many ways it's still pc to bash Catholics where no one in popular culture would dare bash Muslims in the same manner.

Tom, every subgroup feels as you do, that people say things to and about them that they would never say about another group. In fact, all of them are right to some extent. People bash Catholics, women, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, and even, increasingly, white males.

But that doesn't make it right. It's wrong to speak disparagingly of Catholics and it's wrong to speak disparaging of Muslims. All these groups include both good people and bad.

And when a member of a subgroup commits a crime, that doesn't necessarily make it terrorism. By analogy, some men talk to one another about raping and torturing women as a way of exciting themselves sexually. They share violent pornography and generally talk the idea up. Is it terrorism if one of their group puts all this fantasy into action? Or is he just a violent criminal?

I guess the question I'm raising is, do you want to expand the definition of terrorism to include people formerly considered criminals? If so, then I think you have to use that new definition in every case where it applies.

Lets get back to reality . This guy contacted via the net an AQ recruiter . His wasn't the actions of a "criminal " .It was the action of a jihadist terrorist. Why ? Because he was making political statements consistent with a jihadists before his act. And if he is honest about it he will say that he considered his act the equivalent of the actions of a suicide/homicide bomber .

Also ;when I see Muslim clerics mocked in the popular culture the way Catholic priests and nuns are then I'll believe the culture is treating each equally.
There was world wide demonstrations ;some of them violent over the publishing of cartoons of Mohammed . Did you see Catholics and Christians simularily rioting when a movie depicting Jesus on a cross having sexual thoughts about Mary Magdellan was in circulation ?

I guess the question I'm raising is, do you want to expand the definition of terrorism to include people formerly considered criminals? If so, then I think you have to use that new definition in every case where it applies.

lets get back to reality . This guy contacted via the net an AQ recruiter . His wasn't the actions of a "criminal " .It was the action of a jihadist terrorist.Hello again, tom:

Frankly, trying to put the label "terrorist" on him, is political correctness in reverse.

I still want to know what material difference calling him a terrorist makes, unless you want to blame somebody else for what he did... That, or you want him sent to gitmo for a little torture...

Really, I don't know what the significance the word "terrorist" has. Do you have in mind a specific action, or punishment, or SOMETHING we should DO because he's a terrorist as opposed to just being a criminal??

Asking is right. What crime could you NOT consider terrorist? I have the same problem with the term "hate crime". I don't know what significant difference that makes either, except the establishment agrees that a hate crime criminal will serve MORE time than a guy who did the same thing but DIDN'T hate. If THAT'S what you want by calling him a terrorist, I'm cool with it. Well, I'm not cool with it, but at least I understand WHY you're calling him that.

The above is NOT to diminish or deny what he did, what his religion is, what he THOUGHT he was doing, what he SAID when he was doing it, who he told about what he was doing, or who he tried to get support from for what he was doing.

Given, however, the same identical set of circumstances, once could correctly label the killing of the abortion doctor, a terrorist act.. If one is terrorism, so is the other.

excon

I don't have any contrary proof to offer, either, other than what's happening all around you, yet you fail to see. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Ah, so the lack of the proof is the proof. Been smoking early, ex?

Sorry Ex terrorism is a political act of war. It is not the same as every other crime.

Given, however, the same identical set of circumstances, once could correctly label the killing of the abortion doctor, a terrorist act.. If one is terrorism, so is the other.

Did I dispute that ? Here's another "criminal " that was a terrorist... Ted Kaczynski . He also attacked individuals for a political purpose . His cause was basically neo- Ludditism. Want to know another terrorist ? Obama's buddy William Ayers. He and the Weather Underground attacked targets for political reasons.

Get it yet ?

Evidenty the President thinks simularly . He is bringing the mastermind of the attacks on 9-11 to stand trial in Federal Court in Manhattan ;just a few city blocks from where 20,000 bones of their attack were dug up . I guess that was just another criminal act also .

Ah, so the lack of the proof is the proof. Been smoking early, ex?Hello again, Steve:

What I'm saying is that Muslim backlash is ALL around you, yet you don't see it. So, there's NO proof that I can offer that'll be stronger than that which you already don't see.

excon

By analogy, some men talk to one another about raping and torturing women as a way of exciting themselves sexually. They share violent pornography and generally talk the idea up. Is it terrorism if one of their group puts all this fantasy into action? Or is he just a violent criminal?

This IS reality, Tom. You may not want to think about it because it makes you uncomfortable, but it's an everyday reality that men stalk, rape, torture and murder women. Murdering 13 women one at a time is not less important than murdering 13 people in 7 minutes.

Sorry Ex terrorism is a political act of war. It is not the same as every other crime. Hello again, tom:

I got it. He committed an act of war. Cool. So, who are we going to bomb because he did it? What nation are we going to invade because he did it. Will he be any deader because we executed him as a criminal and NOT a terrorist? What are we going to DO about his terrorist act of war?

I don't have a problem calling him a terrorist. I have nothing invested either way. But, if it's just applying the WORD terrorist, who cares? I say again, what MATERIAL difference does it make?

I've asked that same question several times and nobody can give me an answer. That's because there IS no answer.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

What I'm saying is that Muslim backlash is ALL around you, yet you don't see it. So, there's NO proof that I can offer that'll be stronger than that which you already don't see.

And I'm telling you I can't see what isn't there. There is no "Muslim backlash" around me.

Remember how we've said that history will be kinder to Bush than you think it will? Read this blog from some avid Hillary supporters:


Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush (http://hillbuzz.org/2009/11/10/thank-you-former-president-george-w-bush-and-former-first-lady-laura-bush/)

We know absolutely no one in Bush family circles and have never met former President George W. Bush or his wife Laura.

If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.

Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000…and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day.

We were convinced that ANYONE who was president would have done what Bush did, and would have set that right tone of leadership in the wake of that disaster. President Gore, President Perot, President Nader, you name it. ANYONE, we assumed, would have filled that role perfectly.

Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.

Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day. The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.

As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack (http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=hillbuzz.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2009 %2F11%2F07%2Fgeorge-w-bush-secretly-visits-fort-hood-victims%2F).

FOR HOURS.

The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.

If there are any of you out there with any connection at all to the Bushes, we implore you to give them our thanks…you tell them that a bunch of gay Hillary guys in Boystown, Chicago were wrong about the Bushes…and are deeply, deeply sorry for any jokes we told about them in the past, any bad thoughts we had about these good, good people.

You may be as surprised by this as we are ourselves, but from this day forward George W. and Laura Bush are now on the same list for us as the Clintons, Geraldine Ferraro, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and the other political figures we keep in our hearts and never allow anyone to badmouth.

Criticize their policies academically and intelligently and discuss the Bush presidency in historical and political terms…but you mess with the Bushes personally and, from this day forward, you’ll answer to us.

We hope someday to be able to thank George W. and Laura in person for all they’ve done, and continue to do. They didn’t have to head to Ft. Hood. That was not their responsibility.

The Obamas should have done that.

But didn’t.

Wouldn’t.

Thank goodness George W. is still on his watch, with wonderful Laura at his side.

We are blessed as a nation to have these two out there…just as we are blessed to have the Clintons on the job, traveling the world doing the good they do.

And we are blessed to have Cheney, wherever he is, keeping tabs on all that’s going on and speaking out when the current administration does anything too reckless and dangerous.

Cheney’s someone else we villainized and maligned in the past who we were also wrong about. There has never been a Vice President, including Gore, Biden, or Mondale, who was more supportive of gay rights than “Darth Cheney”. There has never been a Vice President more spot-on right about the dangers facing this country from Islamic terrorism.

We live in strange, strange times indeed.

We are now officially committed fans of George W. and Laura Bush. We are fans of Cheney. Our gratitude for them makes us newly protective of them, and the continued role they play in this country.

After the primary battle of 2008, we never thought we’d go back to Texas for anything, but sometime in 2010 we want to find some event in Dallas the Bushes will be at so at least one of us can go up to them, tell them we are deeply sorry for ever thinking ill of them, and thank them from the bottom of our hearts for their service to America.

We’re sure they will just stare at us and wonder why these gay Chicagoans are crying, but we don’t think we can get through a meeting with them without being emotional.

What they did at Ft. Hood for those families humbles us. Every day, the Bushes are most likely doing something just like it behind the scenes.

We hope if any of you encounter them you will let them know this is deeply appreciated beyond partisan lines.

We will never look at the Bushes, the Bush presidencies, or their legacies the same again…and someday when his presidential library is built, we will be so proud to visit there and tell anyone will listen about November 10th, 2009, the day we finally appreciated former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura.

Thank you for your service, Mr. President. We’re sorry we didn’t appreciate you while you were in office, but we thank Heaven we’ve wised up and can see the good you are out there doing, under the radar, today.

And thank you for your honesty...

Remember how we've said that history will be kinder to Bush than you think it will? Read this blog from some avid Hillary supporters:Hello again, Steve:

Couple things...

You got this right wing comic named Miller, who USED to be a flaming lib... He's on with O'Reilly. Anyone who truly believed a liberal philosophy couldn't just change up at the drop of a hat, and adopt a conservative one. That is exactly what Miller did. Consequently, I don't believe he EVER believed in liberalism, any more than I now believe he believes in conservatism..

Having said that, I read what these people wrote. They were actually GUSHING, spilling over with admiration, not only for Bush, but for vice as well. Anybody who opposed Bush like they said they did, absolutely would not GUSH - certainly not about vice. Therefore, I can't believe they ever opposed him in the first place...

But, don't go away mad... I have softened in my stance. It was VICE who was the bad dude, and all HIS crony's Rummy, Wolfie and the rest who were running things. That wasn't good...

But, to Bush's credit, he disowned them in his second term, and it realllllly pissed vice off. THAT was pretty good. Whatever wrongs he did, he wound up being his own man.

But, the writers of that screed?? Puleez!

excon

You are mistaken in that flaming libs can't see the light and change, but no one said it had to be at the drop of a hat. You're just repeating the same old tripe I've heard time and again, no TRUE liberal could EVER abandon liberalism, if they do they just never believed it in the first place. What a crock.

I don't find it all that odd for someone to be able to have praise for both Bush and the Clintons, especially considering the amateur boob in the White House now.

Evidenty the President thinks simularly . He is bringing the mastermind of the attacks on 9-11 to stand trial in Federal Court in Manhattan ;just a few city blocks from where 20,000 bones of their attack were dug up . I guess that was just another criminal act also .

The big show in NYC is about criminalizing our counter-terrorism efforts. It's a back door way to get all those government secrets out, rile the leftists over America's sins and bring light to all those Bush "crimes."

Originally Posted by inthebox https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/fort-hood-mass-murder-political-correctness-414650-post2079329.html#post2079329)

If I was a muslim, and believed that my religion was being hijacked by these terrorist, I would be ashamed. That is what I am waiting on the MSM to report on, major muslim groups repudiating the acts Nidal and his fellow jihadists.


G&P


Found one on the Huffpos by Salam Al Marayati; executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.I don't agree with everything he says ;but I have no doubt about his sentiments.

Salam Al Marayati: Fort Hood: A Defining Moment for Muslim Americans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salam-al-marayati/fort-hood-a-defining-mome_b_353977.html)

Thanks Tom for providing some proof that there are sane voices for American Muslim's.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ex


Hasan on Islam - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html)


This is Hassan's grand rounds presentation at Walter Reed
Grand rounds is a MEDICAL presentation for teaching usuallly involving interesting, or difficult, or rare, cases in order to educate colleagues.

If there truly was a "backlash," how was Hassan allowed to present this?
Note page 18, 43, 44, 49.

You can't have a moment of silence for prayer at a public school, yet at a military hospital they can teach about Islam?



G&P

You can't have a moment of silence for prayer at a public school, yet at a military hospital they can teach about Islam?Where does it say that Islam is taught in military hospitals?

Where does it say that Islam is taught in military hospitals?

Please try to keep up.

ITB posted a copy of a presentation that Hassan, the terrorist of Ft. Hood, gave at Walter Reed Army Hospital, which amounted to a screed about radical Islam and the evils of America.

That would constitute teaching about Islam in military hospitals, done in an official capacity.

Elliot

Please try to keep up.

ITB posted a copy of a presentation that Hassan, the terrorist of Ft. Hood, gave at Walter Reed Army Hospital, which amounted to a screed about radical Islam and the evils of America.

That would constitute teaching about Islam in military hospitals, done in an official capacity.

ElliotHow many other teachings of Islam in an official capacity have occurred at military hospitals? There must be many since you and inthebox say they can teach this.

How many other teachings of Islam in an official capacity have occured at military hospitals? There must be many since you and inthebox say they can teach this.

Once isn't enough?

Again, ITB's comment is correct... it is forbidden to have silent prayer in public schools, yet this speech about radical Islam was permitted.

Why? Because it was politically correct to permit it.

Are you saying that in order for it to have been wrong it must have happened more than once?

What a silly argument. By that standard, Hassan's act of terrorist mass murder wasn't wrong because it only happened once.

Elliot

Once isn't enough?So anything that has been done once in any environment is enough to say that that environment expressly allows it? That's your argument?

So anything that has been done once in any environment is enough to say that that environment expressly allows it? That's your argument?

It would seem to me that if a speech is permitted in an official venue and in an official capacity, it IS policy and that that environment DID expressly allow it.

Despite the fact that Hassan was surrounded by military and medical superiors, he was permitted to FINISH the speech and was not sanctioned for GIVING the speech. Ergo, it was allowed.

Are you trying to argue that it wasn't allowed when it clearly was? I don't see the point of your argument. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Elliot

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
I've been watching you do it for years. ;)

It would seem to me that if a speech is permitted in an official venue and in an official capacity, it IS policy and that that environment DID expressly allow it.Hello again, Elliot:

In other words, in order to protect against nuts from misrepresenting their policy, the Army needs to have somebody watching every presentation the Army makes...

You really don't listen to yourself...

excon

Mark Steyn wrote a great article about this in Maclean's. This guy wrote soldier of allah on his business cards, was reprimanded for encouraging patients to convert to Islam and praised suicide bombers yet amazingly, no one was willing to file a complaint against him because the army was afraid it would send a bad message to dismiss one of the few Muslims in the army. Political correctness killed 14 people, and they army brass should be ashamed. If he had been a Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski neo-nazi/militia, type they would have fired him immediately.

Get ready to be pi$$ed...


Somebody at Fort Hood Should Be Walking the Plank (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2QxNWFlZDM5MDQ0NzM4MDg3ZjA3MDE5ZjNmYzBjYzU) [Andy McCarthy]

Prepare to be infuriated.

It's been brought to my attention by several reliable sources that the Defense Department has brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor, and that he has been lecturing on Islam to our troops in Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Worse, last evening, Safi was apparently permitted to present a check (evidently on behalf of ISNA) to the families of the victims of last month's Fort Hood massacre. A military source told the blogger Barbarossa at the Jawa Report: "This is nothing short of blood money. This is criminal and the Ft. Hood base commander should be fired right now."

ISNA was identified by the Justice Department at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing conspiracy trial as an unindicted co-conspirator. The defendants at that trial were convicted of funding Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars. This should have come as no surprise. ISNA is the Muslim Brotherhood's umbrella entity for Islamist organizations in the United States. It was established in 1981 to enable Muslims in North America "to adopt Islam as a complete way of life" — i.e., to further the Brotherhood's strategy of establishing enclaves in the West that are governed by sharia. As I detailed in an essay for the April 20 edition of NR, the Brotherhood's rally-cry remains, to this day, "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The Brotherhood's spiritual guide, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a fatwa in 2004 calling for attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, openly declares that Islam will "conquer America" and "conquer Europe."

Also established in 1981, the IIIT is a Saudi funded think-tank dedicated, it says, to the "Islamicization of knowledge" — which, Zeyno Baran (in Volume 6 of the Hudson Institute's excellent series, "Current Trends in Islamist Ideology") has aptly observed, "could be a euphemism for the rewriting of history to support Islamist narratives." Years ago, the Saudis convinced the United States that the IIIT should be the military's go-to authority on Islam. One result was the placement of Abdurrahman Alamoudi to select Muslim chaplains for the armed forces. Alamoudi has since been convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 23 years in federal prison.

As noted in this 2003 Frontpage report, 2002 search warrant links Safi to an entity called the "Safa Group." The Safa Group has never been charged with a crime, but the affidavit allegest its involvement in moving large sums of money to terrorist fronts. Safi was also caught on an FBI wiretap of Sami al-Arian, a former leader in the murderous Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). The year was 1995, and the topic of the discussion between Safi and al-Arian was Safi's concern that President Clinton's executive order prohibiting financial transactions with terrorist organizations would negatively affect al-Arian. More recently, al-Arian has been convicted of conspiring to provide material support to terrorism.

At Human Events a couple of months back, Rowan Scarborough had a disturbing report about the FBI's "partnering" efforts with Islamist groups — including the very same ISNA that the Justice Department had cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing conspiracy. A prominent figure in the report was Louay Jafi:


Safi is a Syrian-born author who advocates Muslim American rights through his directorship of ISNA's Leadership Development Center. He advocates direct talks between Washington and Iran's leaders. He has spoken out against various law enforcement raids on Islamic centers.

In a 2003 publication, "Peace and the Limits of War," Safi wrote, "The war against the apostates [non-believers of Islam] is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order."

He also wrote, "It is up to the Muslim leadership to assess the situation and weigh the circumstances as well as the capacity of the Muslim community before deciding the appropriate type of jihad. At one stage, Muslims may find that jihad, through persuasion or peaceful resistance, is the best and most effective method to achieve just peace." [ACM: Implicitly, this concedes there is a time for violent jihad, too.]

At ISNA's annual convention in Washington in July, one speaker, Imam Warith Deen Umar, criticized Obama for having two Jewish people — Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod — in the White House. "Why do this small number of people have control of the world?" he said, according to a IPT transcript. He said the Holocast was punishment for Jews "because they were serially disobedient to Allah."

[Steven] Emerson's group [the Investigative Project on Terrorism] collected literature at the convention approved for distribution by ISNA. It said the pamphlets and books featured "numerous attempts to portray U.S. prosecution of terrorists and terror supporters as anti-Muslim bigotry; dramatic revisionist history that denied attacks by Arab nations and Palestinian terrorists against Israel; anti-Semitic tracts and hyperbolic rants about a genocide and holocaust of Palestinians."

Asked if the FBI should sever ties with ISNA, Emerson said, "ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator. It's a Muslim Brotherhood group. I think in terms of legitimacy there should be certain expectations of what the group says publicly. If it continues to espouse jihad and anti-Semitism, I think it nullifies it right to have the FBI recognize it."

If you want to get a sense of the garbage our troops are being forced to endure in Fort Hood's classrooms, check out Jihad Watch, where my friend Bob Spencer has more on this episode and on his prior jousts with Safi, here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/dhimmitude-and-stealth-jihad-at-fort-hood.html), here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/12/cherry-picking.html), and here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/louay-safi-islamophobia-and-unintentional-irony.html).

What on earth is this government doing, and will Congress please do something about it?

Good question, what the hell is our government doing? This is insane.

General Casey has proven time and again he is not up to being Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Hello again,

I'm not into Jihadi's being on base. I'm not into Jihadi's at all. But, this is the second time in recent days, where the suspect Muslim group was an "unindicted co-conspirators".

Those words are very troubling to me. You guys, of course, think if the government designated them that, then they must BE that. Me, being the guy who DOESN'T trust the government, I'm not so sure... I also wonder why the government DIDN'T indict them? You don't think they gave 'em a pass just because they were being nice that day, do you? I certainly don't.

Plus, I don't think the simple fact of having a Muslim lecture to the troops is, in and of itself, a bad thing. That would be, of course, unless he was preaching Jihad, which you seem to think they were, and I somehow doubt.

Would you be happy with ANY Muslim group lecturing the troops before they deployed? I don't think you would.

excon

Depends on the group I guess.ISNA is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has previously admitted to having ties to Hamas .To that group I'd say hell no .

Edit
Coincidently I mentioned a group on response #69 that I would welcome.

I'm not into Jihadi's being on base. I'm not into Jihadi's at all. But, this is the second time in recent days, where the suspect Muslim group were "unindicted co-conspirators".

Those words are very troubling to me. You guys, of course, think if the government designated them that, then they must BE that.

No, I figure there's a good reason, especially considering their calls to Jihad in "the war against the apostates."


Me, being the guy who DOESN'T trust the government, I'm not so sure...

Every time you say that I have to wonder why you're so gung ho on Obamacare, but that's another discussion. I distrust the government, too, but I especially distrust Islamic groups dedicated to (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/dhimmitude-and-stealth-jihad-at-fort-hood.html) "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house."


Plus, I don't think the simple fact of having a Muslim lecture to the troops is, in and of itself, a bad thing. That would be, of course, unless he was preaching Jihad, which you seem to think they were, and I somehow doubt.

As of yet, they're not so dumb as to come right out and preach such things to our troops. You really need to get a better understanding of the myriad ways they go about this jihad thing.


Would you be happy with ANY Muslim group lecturing the troops before they deployed? I don't think you would.

A more thorough vetting of just who it is they're allowing to lecture our troops is the least they can do.