It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

At Least 7 Dead, 12 Wounded in Shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas

page: 71
62
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

www.weeklystandard.com...

Connecting the Dots

The shooting at Fort Hood was no 'mystery.'
It was an act of terrorism waiting to happen.

by Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn

11/23/2009, Vol 15, #10

… a little more than a week after the shooting we know that Hasan justified suicide bombings in an Internet posting. He lectured colleagues using the rhetoric of jihad. He warned darkly about "adverse events" if Muslims were not allowed to leave military service. He repeatedly sought counsel from a radical imam with known ties to al Qaeda. He tried to convert some of his patients to Islam--many of them soldiers troubled by their near-fatal experiences with jihadists. He printed business cards that made no mention of his military service but instead identified him as an "SOA," a soldier of Allah.

And U.S. authorities knew about some of this well before the attack at Fort Hood. At Walter Reed -- where Hasan spent the six years before his posting to Fort Hood in July --his superiors wondered whether he might be "psychotic" and worried that he consistently sided with jihadists over his fellow soldiers. The FBI had intercepted emails Hasan had sent to Anwar al Awlaki, an al Qaeda supporter with strong ties to three 9/11 hijackers

[…]

The U.S. government was concerned enough with Awlaki and his jihadist connections that it continued to monitor his activities once he was back in Yemen. He broadcast his sermons on the Internet, his fluent English making it possible for him to reach audiences that other radical clerics couldn't penetrate. He regularly called for violent jihad against the United States--his native country.

In 2006, the U.S. government asked the Yemenis to detain Awlaki. The jihadist-friendly government in Yemen complied, for a while anyway. But by 2007, Awlaki had been freed and was using his recent confinement as a propaganda tool to expand his reach. Thousands downloaded his lectures and pledged fealty to his radical cause.

Among those he influenced were the six Muslim immigrants who plotted an attack on Fort Dix, a U.S. Army base in New Jersey, in 2007. ABC News reported that court documents show that at least two of the men said they drew inspiration from Awlaki's fiery rhetoric. Major Nidal Malik Hasan drew on the same source.

In December 2008, the NSA intercepted a series of emails--as many as 20--sent by Hasan to Awlaki. There was no investigation

[…]

it may very well be the case that Hasan was not taking direct orders from Awlaki. But that misses the point. Even if the content of the communications was benign, their mere existence should have been troubling: A Muslim officer in the U.S. Army was seeking guidance--spiritual? academic? -- from an openly pro-jihad cleric whose past was so troubling he had been investigated by the U.S. intelligence community on three separate occasions and whose words had inspired a plot to attack a U.S. Army installation.

A February 2009 report from a respected counterterrorism think tank called the NEFA Foundation released at approximately the same time the JTTF was reviewing Hasan's communications with Awlaki, described the imam this way. "There is no other comparable pro-al Qaeda American figure who has such tremendous access to audiences or who has such credibility." Awlaki, the report concluded, "may be a key player in al Qaeda's efforts to radicalize and incite American Muslims to commit terrorist acts." It is no wonder, then, that Awlaki praised the Fort Hood attack in a blog posting, calling Hasan a "hero" and a "man of conscience."

If Hasan's communications with Awlaki were disturbing on their own, they were even more worrisome seen in the context of his increasingly bizarre professional behavior over the past several years.

Hasan had long been known as a quiet, somewhat detached man. But as the United States fought two wars in Muslim lands, he became more outspoken and more radical in his religious expression.

During one particularly disturbing June 2007 presentation at Walter Reed, first reported by the Washington Post, Hasan showed a slide that raised questions about the ability of Muslims to serve. "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims." (Awlaki has repeatedly made similar claims, saying that the war on terror is really a "war on Islam.")

Hasan lectured at Walter Reed about the evolution in Islamic thinking on jihad. At first, Hasan said, the Koran was filled with mainly peaceful verses and "Muslims were not permitted to defend themselves/fight." But as the situation on the ground changed, so did the verses. After the Muslim emigration to Medina, "Self defense was allowed" and then "offensive fighting was allowed." As a result, "Later verses abrogated former ie: peaceful verses no longer apply."

Hasan followed this line of thinking through to its natural conclusion by citing a passage that calls for uncompromising warfare:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

This is standard jihadist thinking--subjugation of all those who refuse to convert to Islam is a divine commandment. But Hasan took it a step further. In the June 2007 presentation, he echoed the martyr's call to action: "We love death more then you love life!"



[edit on 15-11-2009 by mmiichael]




posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




The Department of Homeland Security has demonstrated a decided aversion to actually securing the US. They consistently work against securing the borders, and are prone to seeing monsters in the closet where there are none, as in the spurious Fusion Center reports targeting American Citizens as terrorists, while leaving the true dangers unattended to.

I would take anything at all coming from Chertoff, Napolitano, or any other DHS bureaucrat with a very large chunk of salt. DHS is there just to be "there", and has no serious function other than to curtail the liberties of US citizens. Other departments of the US government, most notably (but not limited to) the FBI and CIA actually do all the heavy lifting of "fighting terrorism" in the US. That sucks, too because CIA isn't even supposed to be active inside our borders. Some one HAS to, though, and DHS isn't up to it. I have my doubts that most DHS bureaucrats would know a terrorist if they were beheaded by one.


nenothtu,

I laughed deeply when I read the above quote by you. I agree ...though I also recognize that this is a very serious topic and one to which I believe we will be more seriously confronted in the future.

I am aware that in this upside down world that the FBI has been more and more operating outside the US Borders and the CIA and even foreign agencies operating within our borders. Alot of this informations has been kept from most Americans but it can be found on the web is one is able to do a decent search.

I suspect that there is a very valid and interesting reason that ordinary Americans are being subjected to such conduct by our government but said government does not want us to know why this is ..especially concerning many foreigners and illegal aliens. They seem to enjoy a status at law ..superior to most Americans. A very interesting contrast.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Just a friendly reminder that this guy's actions were a deviation from what is considered "normal" even for Muslims.

He was an extremist, and a murderer, yes, and he was obviously at least a little off his rocker.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
This quote I post, is the modus operandi, some of you members seem to practice here IMO.
You apply this thinking to the Major, Muslims and Americans at large IMO.


."Deepen, exacerbate existing problems, crises, differences, and if they don't exist, create them or convincingly claim that they exist, and then deepen, exacerbate them...and profit [politically, ideologically and even financially] the most from them in any way you can, and, in the resulting chaos, blame our enemies for the whole thing."

Does anyone care to take a shot at the author's name? Who the followers of these words are?
Hint-- Not a Muslim.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


In that same vein, everyone dancing around the "Muslims are a bunch of terrorists" bandwagon would do well to consider these as well:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.


Let me repeat that last part again:

"All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."


“Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy”

“Of course people don’t want war. Why should a poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best thing he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?”

“Shoot first and ask questions later, and don't worry, no matter what happens, I will protect you.”

“I herewith commission you to carry out all preparations with regard to . . . a total solution of the Jewish question in those territories of Europe which are under German influence.”



All very relevant quotes from the Nazi officer Hermann Goering.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just a friendly reminder that this guy's actions were a deviation from what is considered "normal" even for Muslims.

He was an extremist, and a murderer, yes, and he was obviously at least a little off his rocker.


Exactly! That's the point I keep trying to get across, that a lot of folks have confused "muslim" with "jihadist". The latter is a politicized subset of the former. It's a political philosophy trying to operate under cover of, and masquerade as, religion. All "jihadists" are "muslim" (since no other religion recognizes "jihad"), but not all "muslims" are "jihadists".

In my own little world, all jihadists are necessarily mental abberrants, but that's just my own opinion, not an objective assessment or definition.

Also, I don't necessarily view mental incompacitance as a bar to the death penalty in such crimes. One thing is sure, a dead man with never commit the same crime again, regardless of his mental state before his demise.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu (since no other religion recognizes "jihad")


Put the word into the right context for other religions, which means in other languages. For example, 'jihad' might be translated as kamikaze & banzai in its essence of loyalty and honor to samurai code. The main offset is when taliban member is seen more militant rather than a traditional religious student, which departure from the traditions and into militant code is the reported way of north of Iran. The civil wars that Iran had almost 2 decades ago show the scars of such departure.

When such actions are really comparable to militant code, it probably is better said to be the same as fascism rather than traditional religious jihad. This is not always easy to distinguish if one considers virtue neither religious nor militant, and such virtue is probably what the samurai tried to hang onto before fascism destroyed them.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Also, I don't necessarily view mental incompacitance as a bar to the death penalty in such crimes. One thing is sure, a dead man with never commit the same crime again, regardless of his mental state before his demise.


I'm actually not very partial to the death penalty when we can already just lock the guy up for the rest of his life and keep him out of everybody else's hair. That so many people always want to go the extra step and actually kill him, too, just makes me think we all have a little murderer in us.


Executing people usually costs more money in lawyers fees and all that in the end than just locking them up for the rest of their lives anyway. Texas may be an exception, though, because of its relatively "short trip" to the chair (not as much time making sure they're killing a guilty person), but at the same time, they have been later found to have executed innocent people as well. So now who is the murderer? There are always trade-offs to everything, but I don't see what the big deal would be just to lock the guy up for the rest of his life. I have no desire to kill another person, just simply remove a threat from society.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
That's the point I keep trying to get across, that a lot of folks have confused "muslim" with "jihadist".

Are you speaking of muslims who are confused about that? And those muslims that are confused commit horrific crimes?
Or are you still talking about people who sympathize?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
"Radical Muslims are spreading extremist propaganda and promoting jihad from inside UK jails, a report has claimed.
Counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation said radicals were also being allowed to lead prayers.
And its report said extremist cleric Abu Qatada had issued fatwas from Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire where he is awaiting deportation.
The Ministry of Justice said it had a dedicated unit to tackle the risk of extremism and radicalisation in prison."
news.bbc.co.uk...

This practice needs to stop from within Islam.
Clerics who are issuing fatwas should be stopped. Who is giving them authority?
The Ft Hood shooter was following a fatwa.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55
This practice needs to stop from within Islam.
Clerics who are issuing fatwas should be stopped. Who is giving them authority?
The Ft Hood shooter was following a fatwa.


Which fatwa was the Ft hood shooter following?

PLease back your claims.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by JJay55
 


Of course you do understand that there are violent criminal gangs of all persuasions inside of prisons?

White Arian Brothers, Bloods, Crips, Mexican Mafia, Italian Mafia, Jewish Mafia, Chinese Triads, Columbian Crime Gangs all operate huge violent criminal enterprises from inside jail that result in the murder of thousands of people outside of the jails carried out by the members of those gangs who are free and at large on the orders of the jailed leaders.

Most people who serve lengthy or life sentences end up ‘finding’ or ‘rediscovering’ religion while they are in jail.
Whether they are Christians, Muslim or Hebrew it doesn’t stop them from carrying out their violent and criminal ways.

That’s why they are in Jail in the first place. So put all those other gangs on your list. Combined they rack up a much greater body count.

I don’t suppose you have ever paused to think that perhaps one of the reasons our whole society is degrading in every way is because some people and the government spend too much time and too many resources focused on one potential problem while a whole lot of real problems caused by a whole lot of other very real groups go on conducting their crimes with very little scrutiny by the authorities, government and their purposefully distracted citizens?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Example of just how nasty jihadists can be, these guys fight dirty and are extremely violent:
"Ten months before Al Qaeda in 2001 struck a deathblow in the heart lower Manhattan, one of the terrorist group's founding members plunged a sharpened comb through Pepe's left eye and into his brain, blinding the 42-year-old prison guard and causing severe brain injuries that plague him to this day."

"Pepe told FoxNews.com he worries that sending Mohammed and four of his alleged fellow 9/11 conspirators to New York could compromise the safety of the guards at the MCC prison. Keeping the prisoners in one location, he said, was especially dangerous.
"Could you imagine over there what they're gonna do, God forbid?" asked Pepe, now 52, who lost feeling in the right side of his body and most of his ability to speak. "After all these years, you'd think they should know."
On Nov. 1, 2000, Pepe was ambushed in the cell of Mamdouh Mahmud Salim -- an alleged top aide to Usama bin Laden. Salim's cellmate, another Al Qaeda suspect, joined in the attack, which prosecutors say was an attempt to steal Pepe's keys to the cell block to free other prisoners and take hostages."
www.foxnews.com...

The shooting in Ft Hood was extremely violent. Opening fire on a crowd of people. Same method of other jihadists, same method, same motivation, same cruelty.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by JJay55]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by JJay55]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by JJay55
 


Because it's much more civilized to drop a laser guided 500 bound bomb from a U.S. Airforce or Nany Fighter/Bomber on a house full of innocent people blowing their limbs off and turning their entire lives into splinters and rubbish were maybe they die in one searing jolt of pain as they watch their limbs ripped assunder by the power of the blast or maybe they get to live as cripples after they burry their innocent loved ones.

Should we start posting the pictures of the little 4 and 5 and 6 year old Iraqi and Afghani children crippled by civilized unmanned drones?

What were they guilty of JJay besides being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The truth is all religions are equally dangerous for one very real reason that seems to escape everyone:

Religion = Teaching people not to believe Heaven can ever be realized on earth.

Religion = Teaching people how to accept there will never be a heaven on earth.

Because...

Religion = Christians, Jews and Muslims arguing over what G-d wants and ultimately committing any crime, spreading any lie, justifying anything, committing any act of violence to prove themselves right.

When you look in the mirror that's all you are doing, it's all you are wanting to do.

Meanwhile no one has ever been tried in a Court of Law for most of these 'terror' related crimes.

Ultimately most critically minded people are skeptical as to what really happened and who really did them and who really benefited.

The level of bigotry, prejudice and lack of true perspective far too many people have is why there will never be a heaven on earth.

The truth is all religions are equally quilty as charged on that account.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
PT, I agree with your point about the hypocrisy of our involvement in Afghanistan where we regularly mutilate and kill innocents, including kids, however, I do not feel all religions are equal in the 21st century- YES all religions can be used to claim nerfarious deeds, but Islam, in the modern world, is on a different level in terms of association with violence and in terms of the inability of large numbers of its followers to think of the state as being anything other than Islam.


500 years ago you may have had a point about Christianity, but not now, not with any sane assessment of the situation



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
PT, I agree with your point about the hypocrisy of our involvement in Afghanistan where we regularly mutilate and kill innocents, including kids, however, I do not feel all religions are equal in the 21st century- YES all religions can be used to claim nerfarious deeds, but Islam, in the modern world, is on a different level in terms of association with violence and in terms of the inability of large numbers of its followers to think of the state as being anything other than Islam.


500 years ago you may have had a point about Christianity, but not now, not with any sane assessment of the situation


I highly disagree but respectfully so. If you look at a number of posts to this threat it truly is about people involved in religious crusades.

People just don't see how they fall into the trap. The truth is that Jews kill innocent people all the time in the name of Israel, that Christians kill people all the time in the name of the United States, or England or Canada, etc., etc., and often what compells most people to the violence is their religious beliefs or fear of what someone elses religious beliefs mean.

It is simply misdirection and slight of hand oh many times have we heard the phrase "Godless commies!" in the name of statism or nationalism but the reality is those two words say it all. In face in God we Trust ended up being totally instituted on our currency here in America just to set us apart from the "Godless commies" so we would know for sure, for sure why we have to fight against them, why they would fight against us.

Of course they never did fight against us but they fought against our imperial and corporate interests in client states throughout the world like Afghanistan, and Cuba, and Korea and Vietnam. Stop the Godless Communist Scourge. Now it's stop the blasphemous Islamic scourge.

A rose is a rose by any other name, wrapping thinly veiled religious crusades in the American flag doesn't make it not a religious crusade and from George Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq in the Rose Garden to his daily Psalms he insisted be printed on the daily war reports from the Pentagon to the selection of religious days of note and importance to plan and execute major attacks on the man was fighting a religious crusade, in part because you need the Christians to be on board with major policy initiatives here in the U.S.

Hiding behind a flag, accepting manipulation that misrepresents the tennants of someone else's religion and even letting yet another religion than Christianity and Islam influence and shape that perspective and I am talking about the Hebrew on that score all speaks of a three sided argument between three distinct and seperate groups of people that all claim to worship the same Deity who all claim the other person is doing it wrong.

Seperate Church from State again like it was meant to be, take all the references to God off of our currency and in our policies, stop supporting Israel military and financially and what you will have is what the United States always had with the Islamic world, GOOD RELATIONS, until we traded the friendship of 11 some odd Islamic nations to back our number one religious charity case Israel instead.

There is a root cause of religious terrorims and that root would be religion.

Religions that terrorize people into accepting there must be a hell on earth in order to gain a heaven in a hoped for and presumed after life.

Ask yourself about that. Why would religion not promote the concept of heaven on earth. Why when it does suggest it can happen it's only after one huge appocalyptical battle and the return of the Jedi and a one world government?

A game is a game is a game no matter which side you are on or how you play it.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I highly disagree but respectfully so. If you look at a number of posts to this threat it truly is about people involved in religious crusades.

People just don't see how they fall into the trap. The truth is that Jews kill innocent people all the time in the name of Israel, that Christians kill people all the time in the name of the United States, or England or Canada, etc., etc., and often what compells most people to the violence is their religious beliefs or fear of what someone elses religious beliefs mean.


with all due respect though PT, I think you are falling into a relativist trap- I have already admitted that any religion can have a deed claimed in it's name, but there is no sane comparison with the actions claimed in the furtherance of Islam- for example, what English Christians are committing murder to further the spread of Christianity?





It is simply misdirection and slight of hand oh many times have we heard the phrase "Godless commies!" in the name of statism or nationalism but the reality is those two words say it all.


In reality, the "commies" indulged in mass brutalisation and death of their population, with one of the aims being the extinguishing of religion (the Muslims suffered as well as the Christians)- even under this brutality religion survived



In face in God we Trust ended up being totally instituted on our currency here in America just to set us apart from the "Godless commies" so we would know for sure, for sure why we have to fight against them, why they would fight against us.



It was more the fact that the commies were so brutal and so oppressive that they could not even tolerate the fact that people believed in God




Of course they never did fight against us but they fought against our imperial and corporate interests in client states throughout the world like Afghanistan, and Cuba, and Korea and Vietnam. Stop the Godless Communist Scourge. Now it's stop the blasphemous Islamic scourge.


The commies were as imperalistic as the Americans in those nations you talk about



A rose is a rose by any other name, wrapping thinly veiled religious crusades in the American flag doesn't make it not a religious crusade and from George Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq in the Rose Garden to his daily Psalms he insisted be printed on the daily war reports from the Pentagon to the selection of religious days of note and importance to plan and execute major attacks on the man was fighting a religious crusade, in part because you need the Christians to be on board with major policy initiatives here in the U.S.


It must be the worst crusade in history then, because if Christians are attacking Iraq to further Christianity then why are they not funding the growth of churches there and importing Christians- when in fact the Christian population has been decimated by the short sighted policies of the Americans as the Islamic extremists, without the "order" of Saddam were able to cleanse them- the yanks invaded Iraq for many reasons, but it sure as hell was not to ensure that Christianity flourished there



Seperate Church from State again like it was meant to be, take all the references to God off of our currency and in our policies, stop supporting Israel military and financially and what you will have is what the United States always had with the Islamic world, GOOD RELATIONS, until we traded the friendship of 11 some odd Islamic nations to back our number one religious charity case Israel instead.


I would cut Israel loose, but I would not loose sight of the fact that the US was formed by people with a Christian morality and by people who were Christians- one cannot separate that from reality, it is impossible- it has to be a balance though, with the extreme position being religion dominating the state, and the state being subservient to religion, as in Shariah law




There is a root cause of religious terrorims and that root would be religion.


Not at all, it depends what that religion offers and teaches and how its' followers apply it.



Religions that terrorize people into accepting there must be a hell on earth in order to gain a heaven in a hoped for and presumed after life.


"terrorize" is an extreme word- they are simply stating what they believe, that this is the way to spiritual salvation, I was in Church yesterday, though not a "Christian" as my minister would understand it, and I did not feel oppressed at all



Ask yourself about that. Why would religion not promote the concept of heaven on earth.


Because, and it is quite obvious, that is not reality- life is filled with sickness, accidents, greed, murder etc- no amount of sugar coating can change the nature of man, so for them to "promote" heaven on earth would be to suggest sprouting wings, however, they could argue that by following their spiritual path you will do what you can to aid a better earth



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Guys, I have no intention of deraling the thread but look at this
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If two parents get a kid born with two heads and one eye and then they get angry and want revenge, would you also call that religious terroism?

Just asking!



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Guys, I have no intention of deraling the thread but look at this
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If two parents get a kid born with two heads and one eye and then they get angry and want revenge, would you also call that religious terroism?

Just asking!


I would call it disgusting and in need of investigation, but I am not sure how you have factored "religion" into that



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


If a muslim is angry and is angry that his wife died while buying a dress at the local market because of a u.s. missile, or his kids are born deformed because of DU or White Phosphorus or is angry because of america's foreign policy everyone will call him a religious extremist.

That was my point, it has to be religion, it can't be anything else.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join