Coincidentally, Muhammed was pronounced dead at 9:11pm est. Weird.

the conspiracy theorists are gonna love that :D

Originally Posted by YANK60

Originally Posted by DavidBOC

Originally Posted by YANK60

Sorry to go off-topic, but I just heard the DC sniper was executed at 8pm Tue. eastern time. Hopefully, we can do the same with Hasan and send him off to join his 72 virgins, or Virginians, or whatever it is.

And he has not seen the fine print on the deal. They have to STAY virgins for eternity.

Yeah, but that doesn't rule out blow jobs.

Yes-the new definition of "sex" from President William Clinton--what a legacy and something for which all US teenage boys will be forever thankful.

By way of full disclosure to our liberal and progressive friends, some of whom will no doubt immediately accuse him of being a bigot, cretin, pawn of the ever evil GWB etc., this is from conservative writer Andy McCarthy at National Review Online. While he may be all of the above, his post does at least raise the issues that we in the US have been avoiding even discussing--not just under the current administration but for many years even before 9/11 and under administrations from both parties.

Still Willfully Blind [Andy McCarthy]

President Obama at Fort Hood today: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know — no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor."

Really?

At his blog today, Andrew Bostom, a scholar of jihadism, cites the following passage from "Reliance of the Traveler," a widely distributed manual of Islamic law produced by al-Azhar University in Egypt, the most authoritative interpreters of theology and sharia jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, the dominant tradition among the world's Muslims:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216); “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89); “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah”; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

As Dr. Bostom points out, the first hadith referred to in the passage — the one in which Mohammed explains that Allah has commanded the Muslims to fight non-Muslims — was cited by Nidal Hasan in slide 43 of the June 7, 2007 presentation that Jonah discusses in his excellent column today.

Not to beat a dead horse on this, but in 2001, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an al-Azhar graduated doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who is the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood and the most influential Sunni cleric in the world, issued a fatwa approving suicide bombings against Israel. In 2003, with the male jihadists being caught too often before they could strike, Qaradawi expanded the fatwa to approve suicide bombings by women. In 2004, he issued a fatwa calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq, and later expanded this authorization to include the killing of American civilian support personnel. (As Qaradawi put it: "All of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers, and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately.")

In 2005, the State Department's director of public diplomacy in the region, Alberto Fernandez, pronounced that Qaradawi was an "intelligent and thoughtful voice from the region, . . . an important figure that deserves our attention." (Fernandez was speaking in an interview on Islam Online, Qaradawi's venture for spreading his interpretation of Islam via the Internet — a venture that enables him to reach millions of Muslims, beyond the millions who watch his weekly al-Jezeera televison program about sharia.)

In national security, we are supposed to put in charge adults who are capable of getting outside their own biases and childish fantasies. It doesn't matter what President Obama thinks about faith; his obligation is to acknowledge and act on what others understand their faith to compel — even if the president finds that horrifying to contemplate.

After the carnage we've seen for two decades, and the high religious authorities that have endorsed it, it is simply astounding that an American president — at a solemn memorial service for soldiers killed just days ago by a jihadist acting on his rational, broadly accepted understanding of his religious duty — could claim that "no faith justifies" sneak-attack murders, and that no religion teaches that "God looks upon them with favor." In fact, a widely held interpretation of Islam holds exactly these principles. No one is saying that all Muslims follow Hasan's construction of Islam, but hundreds of millions do and they have scriptures to back up their beliefs — scriptures we could all read if we'd just pull our heads out of the sand.

To deny that is to deny reality. A country can't be protected by people who lack the will to face reality.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzMjE0MmIwMWU=

Originally Posted by ctauch

And it will never happen, this is already being buried.

There is no willingness to classify this for what it was, a terrorist act.

As quick as Obama was to jump to conclusions with no evidence in the Cambridge incident which resulted in the infamous beer summit, he is very hesitant with piles of evidence to call this what it was.

Obama wants this to go away, he has tried to down play this from day one, where he had to first give a "shout out" during an event before he acknowledged the fact that something transpired at Ft Hood.

No heads will roll, other than those that come forward and expose the truth. First attack on US soil since 9/11, by all accounts the walls are up between the agencies, and all communication has been stopped.

Something tells me this isn't the last such event...there's something I remember being said by someone on the administration and I paraphrase "never let a good crisis go to waste". Call me paranoid but I feel something isn't right with how this is being handled, something really stinks of coverup, especially since it is being reported that the House Intel Committee can't get the DNI to brief them on "what they knew and when" wrt to this.

This point is also made by Rowan Scarborough:

Did Political Correctness Cause Oversight of Fort Hood Terrorist?
by Rowan Scarborough
11/10/2009


The FBI failed to intercede against Fort Hood terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a result of its politically correct strategy of reaching out to suspect Islamic groups and clerics instead of combating head-on the Muslim radicalization movement in the United States.

Hasan grew more radical -- and devout -- this decade, attending a Mosque where an al Qaeda-friendly cleric preached, posting extremist blogs and spreading anti-Americanism among Army soldiers.

"I have no doubt that he was a jihadist," Steve Emerson, a leading terrorism expert, told HUMAN EVENTS. "He fits in in terms of someone who hated America and was willing to carry out violence to further his cause. He doesn't follow the traditional route of somebody who grows up on a staple of anti-American propaganda ..... He definitely belongs as part of the spectrum of terrorism at one end of it."


Yet, to date, there is no evidence the FBI intervened.

Perhaps this is why:

The FBI launched a two-prong strategy after the September 11 attacks to deal with the U.S. Muslim community.

One: penetrate and stop planned terrorists attacks on the homeland.

Two: begin a comprehensive nation-wide program to reach out to Islamic groups, Mosques and individual Muslims with a message that the FBI respects their civil liberties and needs their input.

Critics says the FBI went overboard on No. 2.

For example, FBI field offices forged close ties with the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR is a self-styled civil liberties group that consistently criticized the Bush administration for arresting Islamic terror suspects -- even the guilty ones. CAIR officials appeared with FBI officials at conferences and tutored agents on understanding Islam.

Later, law enforcement agents raided a suspect's home in Northern Virginia and unearthed volumes of documents. They detailed the planning of the Muslim Brotherhood, a shadowy worldwide fraternity dedicated to methodically bringing down democratic governments and replacing them with Islamic Sharia law.

The Justice Department named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful prosecution last summer of a Dallas charity that acted as a front to funnel money to Hamas, a Palestinian terror group. Embarrassed, the FBI reluctantly severed its years of ties with CAIR.

The FBI outreach program goes a lot further than just CAIR. HUMAN EVENTS obtained an eight-page memo written by agents inside the Washington D.C. field office. The memo celebrated the "partnerships" cemented with Muslim Brotherhood groups.

"The FBI leadership is relying on the Muslim leaders, who are known Muslim Brotherhood, to give them direction on how to go after the enemy in the community," an ex-agent told Human Events. "These are the very people who have advocated overthrowing the American government."

The FBI memo stated, in part: "This relationship is designed to share cultural, linguistic and contextual expertise between the FBI and community members for the greater protection of our country and our civil liberties ...The collaboration between the Arab, Muslim and Sikh Advisory Council and the FBI Washington Field Office has developed into a meaningful relationship of mutual trust and understanding and has provided significant progress regarding local religious centers."

What does this have to do with intervening with Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 at Fort Hood after attending morning prayers?

The FBI community relations blitz is blinding agents to its real mission: identify radicalized Muslims in this country and stop them from killing.

Hasan attended a mosque in Falls Church also frequented by two of the 19 September 11 hijackers. Package that with his extreme writings and anti-American statements, and Hasan became a prime target for aggressive monitoring.

"He should have been monitored but I don't know whether he was being monitored," Emerson said. "If he wasn't being monitored for some of this stuff that he wrote, then there was a major derelection of duty by the FBI and by the Department of Defense."

He added, "There's debate going on [within the FBI] about who should and shouldn't be talked to. Though they severed their relationship with CAIR, they still talk to other Muslim Brotherhood groups and I don't think it is FBI policy yet that the Muslim Brotherhood is a bad group.

"I think that there is fear of offending, of appearing to be politically incorrect and so they adopt a politically correct approach in terms of outreach and in terms of making appearances at Muslim Brotherhood conventions ....Yet there are those in the FBI and counter-terrorism who totally recognize the dangers and counter-productivity of talking to and legitimizing Muslim Brotherhood groups. They are against it, but they haven't won the debate."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, yesterday put the Obama administration on notice about disclosing what it may have known about Hasan. After numerous conversations with National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, Hoekstra released a statement calling on all intelligence agencies to preserve any documents related to the killer.

"President Obama said people should not jump to conclusions about what happened at Fort Hood, but the administration is in possession of critical information related to the attack that they are refusing to release to Congress or the American people," Hoekstra said. "I intend to push for intense review of this and other issues related to the performance of the intelligence community and whether or not information necessary for military, state and local officials to provide for the security of the post was provided to them."

ABC News reported that intelligence officials knew months ago that Hasan was trying to make contacts with al Qaeda.

Like in the September 11 attacks, it now falls to Congress, and maybe a special commission, to determine who knew what, and why the FBI did not act.

Mr. Scarborough is a national security writer who has written books on Donald Rumsfeld and the CIA, including the New York Times bestseller Rumsfeld's War.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34345

Does Ali Mohammed ring any bells? Didn't the Army learn anything from that? Granted Ali just passed on secrets to AQ and helped set up training camps for AQ in Affers, and didn't brass up soldiers. But Hasan proves that there are serious issues and systemic problems in the Army that are a threat to our national security, something that even 9/11 has not forced a review or change.

Thanks for the Rowan Scarborough post Jarhead.

I seriously question whether there is not an effort afoot; to down play the obvious in such a brazen manner as to inflame even the limited intelligence of the shaved head knuckledraggers and incite them to a violent act. Just a thought have no direct evidence...but like I said something stinks with how this is being handled, and silly me to think there is a devious reason.

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

It certainly seems that this is a case of PC run amok.

C'mon jjh, there is no hard evidence yet in this case of PC run amok merely speculation. [Correct me if I'm wrong but no one involved--as opposed to those guessing--has yet stated "They/we were all afraid to act because he was Muslim."

I'm not saying PC doesn't happen but here the dude gave more than enough ammo for an investigation which was started. The evidence is of a lack of communication between gov't entities and a sense of urgency.

Anyone who's had a leadership position and reflects on their experience knows that things like EO classes are there because more than one PFC/CSM/MAJ/LTC Snuffy screwed up down the line.

Nothing worse for morale or military discipline than having to watch a CSM engaged in some suspected shady BS with a female E4 or an officer knocking up a female PFC. Both happened in Iraq. You put males and females together that's what f'ing happens, which is another thread. [The CSM and officer thingy also begs the question what the hell is it with the National Guard? Some units are squared away and some are soup sandwiches to a degree unheard of in the RA.]

Originally Posted by Virgil

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

It certainly seems that this is a case of PC run amok.

C'mon jjh, there is no hard evidence yet in this case of PC run amok merely speculation. [Correct me if I'm wrong but no one involved--as opposed to those guessing--has yet stated "They/we were all afraid to act because he was Muslim."

I'm not saying PC doesn't happen but here the dude gave more than enough ammo for an investigation which was started. The evidence is of a lack of communication between gov't entities and a sense of urgency.

Anyone who's had a leadership position and reflects on their experience knows that things like EO classes are there because more than one PFC/CSM/MAJ/LTC Snuffy screwed up down the line.

Nothing worse for morale or military discipline than having to watch a CSM engaged in some suspected shady BS with a female E4 or an officer knocking up a female PFC. Both happened in Iraq. You put males and females together that's what f'ing happens, which is another thread. [The CSM and officer thingy also begs the question what the hell is it with the National Guard? Some units are squared away and some are soup sandwiches to a degree unheard of in the RA.]

I have heard such reports of PC running amok, but as I have repeatedly also said, I await more facts before making any final conclusions on this situation. In talking with numerous active military members in recent years, however, I have heard that theme repeatedly, although I readily concede that is more anecdotal than empirical. I also readily agree that there are those who need to be dealt with in terms of their abusing their authority for personal reasons whether sexual or bigotry. This, however, still begs the question as to whether we have allowed things to go too far in the other direction.

I think it should not be surprising, however, if this is the case (again the degree of it is also an issue) given the 'atmosphere" in any governmental agency whether civilian or military that is often in my experience very intolerant of anyone who does not tow the "PC" line. That is certainly the case at the major uni where I am. Were the issues sometimes involved not so serious, I think it is quite laughable to see how intolerant the institutions actually are in enforcing "tolerance," "diversity," "inclusion," or whatever the code words are of the moment.

My concern about the tendency of government institutions to overreact was forged during a time in the US military I would rather forget. In the early to mid 1970s in the wake of Vietnam, we had horrible discipline problems, mainly manifested in race and drug problems due largely to the caustic effect of having lowered standards way too far to get the numbers needed for that war. In what I think is an immutable truth of the military culture in general, senior civilian and some uniformed leaders of our military over-reacted and mistakenly thought the desired changes of mind and attitude could be imposed from on high through mandatory "human relations" programs.

In fact, these efforts in many ways were counterproductive in that they exacerbated racial tensions and reinforced negative stereotypes. I will never forget the debilitating effect the mandatory "human relations sessions" (akin I imagine to those blaming sessions once in vogue in the communist countries) had on morale and discipline since they involved small group sessions where rank was ignored and they were often conducted by short-timers who were put there to get them out of the way until their discharge and who had "bones to pick" with the NCOs and officers.

Our fitness reports even had to have a specific statement included as to how we contributed to positive human relations. Needless to say these experiments were in my view disastrous and we eventually realized that the answer was in getting quality people that then allowed us to leverage off mutual respect rather than trey to impose things from on high.

Jihadica offers a different perspective:

...
Posters on Shumukh agree. If AQ were behind the attack, it would have been more spectacular. Other posters posit more individual attacks as American troops tire of the war.
...

Incidentally I agree with Virgil here. I don't think this is PC gone mad.

Perhaps there is an argument to be made about the pervasive affect of daft identity politics on US society. The fact that only one aspect of the culprits identity gets attention in the MSM speaks volumes.

What we have here is a massive failure of vigilance by a once institutionally racist army now largely reformed. It is increasingly casual about selection procedures and clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel for folks to deploy.

This guy actually stood up and did an hour long presentation to his colleagues saying sending Muslims off to war in Muslim lands was problematic and liable to lead to blow back. Muslims intimately acquainted with the Takfiri jihad which is principally against fellow Muslims would think him deranged his mental health professional colleagues are likely more blinkered. He didn't actually argue that US soldiers should be allowed time off for Jihad but that's where he was headed.

This collapsing individual entering middle age was more likely camouflaged by his education, profession and and rank than his confession or ethnic identity: highly qualified Majors aren't expected go postal that's what failed white bread realtors do.

Originally Posted by alib

Jihadica offers a different perspective:

...
Posters on Shumukh agree. If AQ were behind the attack, it would have been more spectacular. Other posters posit more individual attacks as American troops tire of the war.
...

Incidentally I agree with Virgil here. I don't think this is PC gone mad.

Perhaps there is an argument to be made about the pervasive affect of daft identity politics on US society. The fact that only one aspect of the culprits identity gets attention in the MSM speaks volumes.

What we have here is a massive failure of vigilance by a once institutionally racist army now largely reformed. It is increasingly casual about selection procedures and clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel for folks to deploy.

This guy actually stood up and did an hour long presentation to his colleagues saying sending Muslims off to war in Muslim lands was problematic and liable to lead to blow back. Muslims intimately acquainted with the Takfiri jihad which is principally against fellow Muslims would think him deranged his mental health professional colleagues are likely more blinkered. He didn't actually argue that US soldiers should be allowed time off for Jihad but that's where he was headed.

This collapsing individual entering middle age was more likely camouflaged by his education, profession and and rank than his confession or ethnic identity: highly qualified Majors aren't expected go postal that's what failed white bread realtors do.

I suppose we will see if the facts ever really surface. From what I know of our bureaucracies, I am still betting there was an element of PC-itis.