What (Really) Killed The Helpless US Military Victims At Ft. Hood.

This is from a thread on another forum by Gabe Suarez about the tragedy at Ft. Hood. I can't say I don't agree with him.



What (Really) Killed The Helpless US Military Victims At Ft. Hood.

First of all to say the word "helpless" in the same sentence as "US Military" is ridiculous, but there it is. Specially if the sentence is one about the terrorism at Fort Hood, the largest military installation in the nation. The question we need to answer is who killed those American soldiers at Fort Hood. Let's see if we can answer the question without the mental disease of political correctness, or the guts-deficiency syndrome typified by the symptoms of over-tolerance, egalitarianism, and over-sensitivity.

First off, Islam killed the victims at Ft. Hood. Islam is a cult of death and violence. Its victims around the world are only at peace when they submit unconditionally to its excesses, or when they are dead. What was it that Hasan said? "We love death more than you love life". What is reasonable man to make of that? All americans should read Robert Spencer's excellent book - The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam and the Crusades.

The message that men like Hasan send us is that the only peace-loving muslim is a "muslim in name only". Their religion demands conversion, or subjugation of the infidels. Just as there are CHINOS (CHristians In Name Only) that blaspheme and sin daily, there are MINOS (Moslems In Name Only) that really don't want to hurt anyone....the problem is in knowing which is which. A Christian-in-name-only will not be a threat to society when he goes "devout". What does Hasan's example tell us about a muslim going "devout"?

Whenever I hear someone discussing "tolerance", I would ask them if a Jew could open up a Synagogue in Iran, or if Chuck Smith could hold a Christian church gathering in Syria?

No? Then WE are not the intolerant ones are we?

Secondly, the US Government killed those victims. The US Government, in its endless quest for egalitarian, feel-good, political correctness and refusal to name the enemy ignored the fact that we are in fact in a Fourth Generational War against Islam's desire to take over the world, and allowed this to happen.

Had Hasan been a devout Christian that spoke up against homosexuality in the military, he would have been summarily discharged...maybe dishonorably. Instead, as an outspoken radical muslim that kept contact with extremists, and that hated the west and infidels....questions about him were dismissed, and he was promoted and given choice assignments.

Third responsibility goes to whomever was in overall command of Ft. Hood. They are also responsible for the deaths of the victims by denying soldiers the very human right of self defense. A right, incidentally, that is recognized as soon as one leaves the gates of the fort and enters the land of Texas. What might have happened had Hasan's first intended victim been armed with an M9? How many innocents might have been saved had Hasan been shot to the ground between his "Allah Akbar" and his first shot?

That their silly regulations make no difference at all (and have never made a difference in such events anywhere or anytime) are clearly evidenced by the fact that Hasan brought his weapons on base with no problems or interference.

The last responsibility in a long chain of culpability is Hasan himself. The spear point of a Fifth Column alive, and well, and thriving in America. Allowed to thrive because of an ever-present fear by Americans of being called a racist, or intolerant. A terror shared even more intensely by every poor brow-beaten government worker in fear of their career.

Hasan was a clear and present danger to America, that was promoted to Major instead of being summarily dismissed. Hasan was a buck that was endlessly passed, lest any of his commanding officers be thought unkind, insensitive, or horror of horrors....a racist. Hasan, a murdering, cowardly terrorist, acclaimed a hero by other terrorists, did exactly as his beliefs demanded....he successfully made war on the infidels.

Lessons learned? There won't be any. The lessons of this event are already known by any who would read this, and will be constantly ignored by those who should read it.

Get ready for the next one...Mumbai is coming.
__________________

Gabe Suarez


[edit on 12-11-2009 by EyesWideShut]

Great points and ones which are very seldom pointed out.

Star and flag for you. Let the debate begin.

reply to post by EyesWideShut
A military base should not be guarded by civilians. Soldiers should be armed. If the victims had had guns things would have ended differently. If there is a fifth column ,you should look at who decided the military should depend on corporations for security. Using crazy people for fall guys is an old mafia trick. There is too much strangeness surrounding these murders for me to attribute them to faults within Islam.



[edit on 12-11-2009 by eradown]

It's pretty much how I feel , Sometimes I get frustrated at the lack of reason by otherwise reasonable people when it comes to these issues.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Whenever I hear someone discussing "tolerance", I would ask them if a Jew could open up a Synagogue in Iran, or if Chuck Smith could hold a Christian church gathering in Syria?

No? Then WE are not the intolerant ones are we?

Gabe Suarez

Sorry! but Gabe Suarez must be an ignorant fool!

There are a big community of Jews in Iran, and they also have over 36 Synagogues in Iran!

en.wikipedia.org...

And regarding Syria! hasn't this guy ever heard about the Syrian Orthodox Church?
en.wikipedia.org...

Christians in Syria make up about 10% of the population and that's a lot of churches believe me!

Greek Catholics

Greek Orthodox

Syriac Orthodox

Syriac Catholics

Armenian Orthodox

Armenian Catholics

Assyrian Orthodox

Assyrian Catholics

Chaldean Catholics

Maronites

Protestants

Latin Catholics


Well I find it very funny that some people don't even know that:

Damascus was one of the first regions to receive Christianity during the ministry of St Paul. There were more Christians in Damascus than anywhere else. After the military expansion of the Umayyad empire into Syria and Anatolia, the teachings of Islam came into practice and many became Muslims.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Chevalerous]

Actually there are about 30,000 Jews in Iran , and in a country with a population of 72,000,000 I wouldn't call that a lot. In Syria, Christians make up about 6.5% of the population. Disappearing Christians of the middle east And calling the Author Ignorant while you're missing the main point of the article is just Snark . I appreciate your input through. I'm more curious to learn about your thoughts pertaining to the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan and if this could have been prevented.





[edit on 12-11-2009 by EyesWideShut]

I personally agree completely with the main point of the post. And absolutely this could have and should have been prevented.

What many seem to forget is the terrorism and extremism of this type only works in the absense of vigilance.

And sometimes vigilance is simply going to offend someone.

Better for them to be offended than us to be dead though.


My opinion.

reply to post by EyesWideShut


Well could it be that your source may be skewed and wrong then? perhaps an agenda behind it?

Syrians are proud of the fact that Christians and Muslims have traditionally lived together in harmony in Syria. The historical monuments alone tell the story of the intertwining of faiths.

Massive columns, the remains of a pagan temple, which was at once the Temple of Hadad — and later the Temple of Jupiter — face the entrance to Damascus’ Umayyad Mosque, one of the holiest shrines in Islam. The mosque you see today was actually built on the site of the old temple. But there was yet another interlude.

When Christianity became the official religion of the Byzantine Empire, a basilica to St. John the Baptist was built on the site. In fact, reportedly the head of St. John the Baptist is buried in the mosque.

---

Today, 10 percent of Syria’s population is Christian. St. Paul converted to Christianity on the road to Damascus, and the country just recently celebrated 2000 years since his birth, in a year-long nationwide commemoration.

In the town of Maalula, just outside Damascus, many people still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. It’s one of the very few places in the world where that tongue is still spoken. Some children don’t even learn Arabic, the official language of Syria, until they start school.

www.foxnews.com...

The Christians really make up 10% of the population in Syria - don't believe anything else please!

www.cia.gov...

www.epilgrim.org...



But yeah! I understand what you mean about Major Nidal Malik Hasan and if this could have been prevented.

An awful and disgusting & terrible tragedy - may the man rot in hell!

but the point was that the author didn't seem to know these facts, but hey! maybe the Middle East can suprise you from time to time?

Regards

Gabe Suarez - I never had much respect for that fellow.

Whenever I hear trash of this magnitude, directed toward the second largest religion on the planet, I refer the ignoramus to a Yusuf / Cat Stevens album.

Congrats to OP on having the go-nads to start this thread. Of course, you will be ripped...but that's to be expected.

Eradown hit the nail on the head....why in the heck aren't the soldiers armed??

My last trip on a base (Barksdale) was years ago...but there were M16s and guns in general everywhere.

~POLITICAL CORRECTNESS~ is destroying everything our Forefathers fought for....I am sick of it!

reply to post by Chevalerous


sorry, 30,000 jews is basically nothing.

also, the christians of syria need to watch each other's backs. they carry knives all the time, and need to protect themselves from the muslims who constantly harrass & attack them.

but i do think it's true that muslims and christians lived fairly peacefully until the past 50 years or so, give or take... Radical Islam as it is today hasn't always existed to the degree of today, which is why it's a problem.

reply to post by EyesWideShut


Excellently written and a huge problem with the US hypocrisy!!

reply to post by eradown


OK..but if you allow arms to be kept by soldiers on base, what's to prevent a hundred of these people going on the rampage, only this time in much greater numbers and much better arms?

reply to post by spikey


the point should be its a MILITARY BASE!!!!!!! that's the business there in, if cops can carry guns, WTH can't our military personal have them on them? they should be.

come on guys this is part of the politically correct BS we live in ... they don't serve burgers there .... they are trained to kill people. we pay them to protect and serve our country, and should expect and give them every means to do just that.

but it aint gonna happen, back to the top to reread the OP again.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by svpwizard]

To the OP...

You seem to have forgotten the fact that the US is involved and is indeed the main instigator of the invasion of other peoples countries.

Under the 'guise of the "war on terror" the US is the single most agressive nation on the planet - blindly advancing the power of capitalism by the only means they know - war.

Maybe this is what sparked the lunatic off that did the massacre.

Maybe the "little men" are getting p*ssed off with the situation.

It is ok after all for the US to go into other people's countries and slaughter man woman and child?

Slaughter innocent people?

I think that all nations on the earth should remember that if you want peace you don't go to war.

And if you're going to start a fight you've got to expect to get punched.

TPTB could stop war if they wanted and don't kid yourself of anything else - anything else is excuses.

Peace.



[edit on 13-11-2009 by Stanton Dowd]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Stanton Dowd]

The incident at FT Hood, is it only deemed a terrorist act because it was a Muslim who carried out the act? I find that if it is the case not only disturbing, but IMO points towards another excuse to point the finger at a whole Religion rather than a single instigator.

If it was a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Pagan who carried out the shooting, what would it be classed as then?

From what I have read and understood, this guy was pissed at his superiors, pissed off at the Military in General, and was Pissed off because he was about to be deployed to Afghanistan if what I read was right that is.

I'm not trying to annoy anyone here I am asking a simple enough question.

There are many instances of when Soldiers or anyone going into a adrenalin producing activity, be it bungy jumping, Parachuting, going for a machine gun post during battle, it seems there is a cry of some kind, and usually as loud as possible, is it because of what he cried out when the incident started that it's deemed a Terrorist attack, or because a bunch who's lives are indeed intent on causing terror throughout the World have praised him?

Is it because the MSN who is always being put down for plying false information are calling it that? help me understand.

There have been several shooting over the past week or so, why where they not classed the same?, Columbine, same there.

The figures on Iran for instance having Temples of different faiths is true, as in many middle eastern countries.

Terrorism was not invented on 9/11, it has been around as long as mankind has attacked each others peoples, in Modern times Europe has had Terrorist attacks on large scales for over 5 decades, yet every time some fool decided he wanted to die and take as many people with them was never classed as an act of Terror, it was classed as a failure of society, the failure of people around them, not taking action, or reporting fears, or worries that something was not right, and they needed some help.

If the Personnel at FT Hood where allowed to carry weapons with them at all times, would this kind of thing not happened long ago? and who would have carried out the shooting?

I just believe care needs to be taken before it is taken as a given that it was an act of Terror, because there are many Muslims who are deployed in hot zones on active service, Muslims who day in and day out fight side by side with Military personnel of many faiths, you cant fight if you have to look in all directions and at those serving with you, who have shown themselves to be allies by watching the backs of their friends, what would placing the wrong tag on this incident do to those who are already stressed and needing their friends to back them up, this could do so much harm, as well as creating suspicion at every turn.

So who was it who classed this as an act of Terror over a mentally unstable Soldier who had enough.

reply to post by EyesWideShut

Secondly, the US Government killed those victims. The US Government, in its endless quest for egalitarian, feel-good, political correctness and refusal to name the enemy ignored the fact that we are in fact in a Fourth Generational War against Islam's desire to take over the world, and allowed this to happen.

Well put EyesWideShut. I think the rabbit hole may go even deeper than this though. Star and flagged my friend.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
First off, Islam killed the victims at Ft. Hood. Islam is a cult of death and violence.

1/5 of the world's entire population is Muslim.

It has extremists, but trying to say 1/5 of the world's population is hell-bent on death and violence, simply because they are Muslim, is outright racist. And this isn't "pulling the race card," it's calling a spade a spade, outright.


The whole purpose of this thread is to apparently enrage people against Muslims worldwide for a single event carried out by a single extremist, in the face of over a billion people across the planet who practice this same religion peacefully.

Originally posted by Stanton Dowd
You seem to have forgotten the fact that the US is involved and is indeed the main instigator of the invasion of other peoples countries.

Right. It's completely irrational to say this event was totally uncalled-for, considering we have invaded and totally destroyed 2 countries that host millions of Muslims, and kills hundreds of thousands of them already.

I never wanted either of these wars to begin with. Even Afghanistan could have been handled much more effectively. If I lived in either of those countries, I feel as though I would have every right to be extremely pissed off at the invading forces destroying my country.


It would be no different here if China invaded us, wiped out our government, tried to install their own communist government, and then when people started fighting back, they say, "Why are you so angry? We just LIBERATED you!!!"

I can't recall seeing a Muslim proselytizing even once. I don't think Muslims are the gun grabbers. They are not the people destroying our rights inspite of what people are saying about sharia law. The Muslims are not pushing the Brave New World on us. The Muslims are much farther away from world domination than some other enslavers are at this point. People should pay attention to the police staters and how they are spinning this.

Muslims are probably targets of a massive propaganda campaign for several reasons. Muslims hold many positions in our Universities. Muslims are not practicing self genocide through population control. Islamic countries refuse to allow the banking cartel to abuse their citizens. This more than anything else is probably contributing to the up surge in negative propaganda directed at Islam.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by eradown]