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.

 

The Fort Hood Report: Why Not Mention Islam?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

The Fort Hood Report: Why Not Mention Islam?


www.time.com

The U.S. military's just-released report into the Fort Hood shootings spends 86 pages detailing various slipups by Army officers but not once mentions Major Nidal Hasan by name or even discusses whether the killings may have had anything to do with the suspect's view of his Muslim faith..The Pentagon report's silence on Islamic extremism "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become"
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
This is unbelievable. Even after what happened the Army is still reluctant to come right out and say exactly what this was. A terrorist attack on US troops by an Islamic extremist.

It is this type of political correctness that caused all the warning signs to be missed in the first place. We are so afraid to offend anyone and its sickening. What a bunch of gutless cowards.


John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan's view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military's activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report's silence on Islamic extremism "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become," he told TIME on Tuesday. "It's definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens."

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn't in keeping with the military's ethos; it's a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War with its command to know your enemy.

Without a motive, there would have been no murder. Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers.


I think this quote says a lot about the state of political correctness in the world today.


"Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for."


www.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


My Friend I am not sure if you are Military or not, but just in case, let me go ahead and break it down for you... If you are a White Male, you most at all times walk on egg shells. If you say or act mean spirited toward minorities or females they can file a complaint against you then that’s when all hell breaks loose. I have seen women file it against their male sergeants and with no evidence the sergeant is in trouble all because of an accusation. I know this as a fact because it happened to me.

Now mind you it’s not only white males that get hit up, I have seen black males get hit up as well. But a majority of the time its white males.

The Army has become a cowardly organization, feminized by politicians in DC. Do you think if we were this Nancy in Korea or WWII the outcome would have still been the same? Do you think the Chinese or Russian Soldiers have to deal with that crap? Sure we can pound the crap out of the Arabs, but anyone can...


***NOTICE**** I am well aware that in the military Rape and Sexual Assault occurs and am in no way shape or form condoning those actions. However, A lot of Rapes or sexual assaults in the military are made up and haven’t happened, which takes away from those that have occurred.


***EDIT TO ADD***


This is not the first an American Soldier has turned the gun on his own, An a majority of those shootings were white Christian soldiers turning the gun on other soldiers. Some of those cases the army classified them as white separatist or militant Christians some cases they didn’t. However I do believe this case was a radical Muslims shooting.

www.cbsnews.com...


[edit on 20-1-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Generally I am no fan of political correctness, but with regards to the "War on Terror" extending a little more tolerance to Muslims can go a long way or prevent disaster. While there may be some merit to profiling Muslims at security checkpoints, it is not wise for Americans to insult all Muslims or all of Islam.

America needs to do everything it can to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims here and abroad, or at the very least prevent them from becoming terrorist sympathizers. If an official government report blames Islam as a whole for a terrorist act, not only will extremists use this as ammunition in the war for hearts and minds, but moderate Muslims will take offense to this.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
.

America needs to do everything it can to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims here and abroad, or at the very least prevent them from becoming terrorist sympathizers. If an official government report blames Islam as a whole for a terrorist act, not only will extremists use this as ammunition in the war for hearts and minds, but moderate Muslims will take offense to this.


I'd disagree about the muslims here part........are they an American or a muslim? Political correctness gets people killed and exploited in the military, and has no place in it.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Thanks for the reply. I served in the Army in the late 80's. I guess things have changed quite a bit since then. The Army you describe is very different then what I experienced, I had no idea how bad it has become.

Back when I was in, there really wasn't any of that political correct BS. Drill Sergeants could still rough you up a bit and you did not go running to the CO to whine about it. It was looked upon as being weak if you did.

What I can't understand is that they still do not want to address the issue that there was an Islamic extremist Army officer that murdered our troops and all the warning signs were ignored in the name of being politically correct.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Is it possible that he's not mentioned in there because he wasn't the shooter?

Seriously what does his name have to do with political correctness?

Anyone with half a brain can see there was something fishy about the fort hood event, first 3 shooters on the loose, then 1 shooter on the loose and 2 apprehended, then only one shooter on the loose and then the shooter is dead and then oopps he's still alive.

Maybe they couldn't put his name because he wasn't the shooter.

Honestly I would believe that way easier than the above discrepancies i've noted.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Winning the minds of moderate Muslims?
You can't be serious! Why do so few so called moderate Muslims speak up? Could it be because of a fear of extremists? Since it is a win-win to stop extremist for all involved their silence is deafening.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Generally I am no fan of political correctness, but with regards to the "War on Terror" extending a little more tolerance to Muslims can go a long way or prevent disaster. While there may be some merit to profiling Muslims at security checkpoints, it is not wise for Americans to insult all Muslims or all of Islam.

America needs to do everything it can to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims here and abroad, or at the very least prevent them from becoming terrorist sympathizers. If an official government report blames Islam as a whole for a terrorist act, not only will extremists use this as ammunition in the war for hearts and minds, but moderate Muslims will take offense to this.


I do not agree. Where have all these moderate Muslims been when people are blowing themselves up and killing innocent people in the name of their religion? I never hear them speak up against these killers. They are either too afraid of the extremists that have hijacked their religion or in some way agree with what they are doing.

The Army report did not have to come out and blame all of Islam, but I think they should have mentioned the motive of the killing which was the extremist Islamic views of the shooter. I don't see how this could offend the so called moderate Muslims. And if they are offended by the truth then too bad.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Is it possible that he's not mentioned in there because he wasn't the shooter?

Seriously what does his name have to do with political correctness?

Anyone with half a brain can see there was something fishy about the fort hood event, first 3 shooters on the loose, then 1 shooter on the loose and 2 apprehended, then only one shooter on the loose and then the shooter is dead and then oopps he's still alive.

Maybe they couldn't put his name because he wasn't the shooter.

Honestly I would believe that way easier than the above discrepancies i've noted.


I think there were enough eye witnesses to determine that Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact the shooter. There could have been additional people involved but that is another story.

Its not just that they did not mention his name in the report, they did not mention the motive and all the warning signs that were ignored at all. They should just come out and say it, he did this because of his extremist Islamic views.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


It is possible to be both a Muslim and an American. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Like it or not, there are a few million people living in the USA who are Muslims. There are also a billion or so people world wide who are Muslims. Many of these people are good peoole, some are not. One thing that got little press was a recent protest by American Muslims denouncing the underwear bomber.

Like it or not, many of these people can be potentially radicalized. You are increasing the possibility of radicalizing these Muslims by making broad-sweeping defamatory statements about Islam.

On the flip side, these people can also be potential allies. I cannot see a blond hair, blue eyed kid from Kentucky infiltrating an Al Qaida cell. I can see a first generation Arab kid from Michigan pulling it off. I cannot see a Mormon from Utah telling the police he overheard men at his church plotting violent jihad. I can see a Pakastani from California telling the police he overhead plots of violent jihad in his mosque.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I started a thread about this report the other day......and how they may punish the officers involved. This whole thing is a sham......

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


look i am muslim and i am gonna join the us marines soon just waiting for my papers and IT WAS A TERRORIST ACT but majority of muslims or not violent and evil..pls people get that in ur mind.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
I think there were enough eye witnesses to determine that Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact the shooter. There could have been additional people involved but that is another story.


Really?
Enough eye witnesses that trained soldiers caused so many friendly fires?????

So much for EYES!

Whether you admit it or not nothing makes sense as far as this story is concerned.

As far as i'm concerned if you believe the official story after the way too many conflicting stories either you are naive or are brainwashed to think muslims extremists are behind everything.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


You can be an American and just about any religion. However, when your religions plan is world domination, as stated in it's holy texts, kind of makes you uncompatable with the western world, true? So, I'd say no, by default you can't be an American soldier and be a muslim. I fully expect to get flamed for this and called a few names ( ones that have truley been over used and lost most of their meaning), however.....when it comes to our troops safety from within....nope kick 'em all out.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


The Fort Hood Report: Why Not Mention Islam?

-> May cause they did not wanted to make a fool out of themselves.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Erasurehead
I think there were enough eye witnesses to determine that Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact the shooter. There could have been additional people involved but that is another story.


Really?
Enough eye witnesses that trained soldiers caused so many friendly fires?????

So much for EYES!

Whether you admit it or not nothing makes sense as far as this story is concerned.

As far as i'm concerned if you believe the official story after the way too many conflicting stories either you are naive or are brainwashed to think muslims extremists are behind everything.


I am neither naive or brainwashed. Both civilian and military people identified Nidal Malik Hasan as the shooter. He was shot at the scene by a civilian police officer and the gun he used was recovered on site with his finger prints. Like I said there could have been additional people involved but it is undeniable that Hasan was there and he shot people.

Hasan is not denying that he did it. Wouldn't he be screaming that he was setup? Not everything is a conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
On the same context why was Christiniaty not mentioned in case of Jeffrey Dahmer and Unabomber. A lil' history last time someone blamed religion/ race on crimes was before WWII and it was done by Hitler and we all know what happened after that.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Let's say the story is true and that you are not naive... just for a second though

How is this islamic extremism?
Just tell me how you define this as islamic extremism.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by ModernAcademia]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
On the same context why was Christiniaty not mentioned in case of Jeffrey Dahmer and Unabomber. A lil' history last time someone blamed religion/ race on crimes was before WWII and it was done by Hitler and we all know what happened after that.


Not the same at all. Jeffery Dahmer and the Unibomber did not commit their crimes in the name of their religion. I am not even sure that they were religious at all. Hasan was making contact with known al Qaeda associates. He asked if it was ok to kill American soldiers. He was screaming Allah Akbar while he was shooting.

When some Christian nutcase murders a doctor because they perform abortions people have no problem coming out and saying that the guy was a Christian extremist. I don't see Christians getting offended by this.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join