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:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

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?



.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

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) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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 .