It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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!"
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.
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.
Originally posted by nenothtu (since no other religion recognizes "jihad")
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.
Originally posted by nenothtu
That's the point I keep trying to get across, that a lot of folks have confused "muslim" with "jihadist".
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Guys, I have no intention of deraling the thread but look at this
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?