Is the President giving rights to the terroist that had masterminded 9/11 by having him and four others tried in an American court instead of a military tribrunal court of which they would gladly plead guilty too.

Will they try to make a mockery of the American judicial system which already is a laugh when trying Americans for crimes?

The words that they use when speaking in front of cameras may entice people of the muslim community to take up a Jihad such as the case of the Muslim Jihadist Terrorist, murderer of American military personal on our own soil under Obama's watch..

JD, you got me to use that word that you prefer to call him. You must have baited me to use that word. I will have to research past blogs to see how you managed to make me use that word. :wall:

Is the President giving rights to the terroist that had masterminded 9/11 by having him and four others tried in an American court instead of a military tribrunal court of which they would gladly plead guilty too.

Will they try to make a mockery of the American judicial system which already is a laugh when trying Americans for crimes?

The words that they use when speaking in front of cameras may entice people of the muslim community to take up a Jihad such as the case of the Muslim Jihadist Terrorist, murderer of American military personal on our own soil under Obama's watch..

JD, you got me to use that word that you prefer to call him. You must have baited me to use that word. I will have to research past blogs to see how you managed to make me use that word. :wall:

It's funny. In listening to your "rile the Right" commentators (as I refuse to believe you came up with this topic on your own), did they mention how much of a giant cluster *uck the military tribunals were when Bush tried to order them? There are huge gaping jurisdictional issues and people tried in a tribunal have a better chance of not seeing a day in court, as opposed to if they are tried in a federal court. There are multiple lawsuits going on at the moment over the legality of trying people in Guantanamo by tribunal.

Did you do any investigation into this issue, or were you just listening to the radio on the way into work and was like "yeah, that Obama pisses me off and helping terrorists"?

You guys are really reaching.

JD, I do not drive into work. I would get a headache if I had to drive to work. You assume to much.

You still do not believe he is a terrorist? I do not try to rile feathers.

When I am in my vechicle I listen to WBZ they do not say to much they are a liberal news network and they do not want to rile the administratration.

No good can come of this. At the very least it should be done after the war. Their lawyers will ask for everything from water boarding to intell reports. This is beyond stupid. I wonder what other motives the Administration could have?

It's funny. In listening to your "rile the Right" commentators (as I refuse to believe you came up with this topic on your own), did they mention how much of a giant cluster *uck the military tribunals were when Bush tried to order them? There are huge gaping jurisdictional issues and people tried in a tribunal have a better chance of not seeing a day in court, as opposed to if they are tried in a federal court. There are multiple lawsuits going on at the moment over the legality of trying people in Guantanamo by tribunal.

Did you do any investigation into this issue, or were you just listening to the radio on the way into work and was like "yeah, that Obama pisses me off and helping terrorists"?

You guys are really reaching.


dude...you are Archie Bunker...lash out at anyone that "don't think like yous' "...from your bark-o-lounger...everyone is an "ignorameous" except for yous' .....:rotf2:

Is the President giving rights to the terroist that had masterminded 9/11 by having him and four others tried in an American court instead of a military tribrunal court of which they would gladly plead guilty too.

Will they try to make a mockery of the American judicial system which already is a laugh when trying Americans for crimes?

The words that they use when speaking in front of cameras may entice people of the muslim community to take up a Jihad such as the case of the Muslim Jihadist Terrorist, murderer of American military personal on our own soil under Obama's watch..

JD, you got me to use that word that you prefer to call him. You must have baited me to use that word. I will have to research past blogs to see how you managed to make me use that word. :wall:
Feds move to seize 4 mosques, tower linked to Iran
Feds move to seize 4 mosques, tower linked to Iran - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_forfeiture)

Yeah, the current administration has some secret agenda to shield Muslims from the rest of our society. Good thing they keep walking on eggshells as not to offend the Islamic community.

Feds move to seize 4 mosques, tower linked to Iran
Feds move to seize 4 mosques, tower linked to Iran - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_forfeiture)

Yeah, the current administration has some secret agenda to shield Muslims from the rest of our society. Good thing they keep walking on eggshells as not to offend the Islamic community.

I'm sure this is at odds with what the Sec. of State had planned. This isn't going to help with the diplomacy route. However, that was never going to work anyways so score one for common sense:uhuh:

I had to search long and hard, about 6 seconds at least, using obscure tools like the Google, to determine that the cases will be tried under the Military Commissions process established under President Bush.

-spence

I had to search long and hard, about 6 seconds at least, using obscure tools like the Google, to determine that the cases will be tried under the Military Commissions process established under President Bush.

-spence
From what I understand is the trial is to be held in civilian court. Are you tring to say this is Bush's idea Spence? They never would step foot on American soil let alone NY, if Bush had his way. Nice try.

From what I understand is the trial is to be held in civilian court. Are you tring to say this is Bush's idea Spence? They never would step foot on American soil let alone NY, if Bush had his way. Nice try.

Nice try? How about you try the Google...

-spence

Nice try? How about you try the Google...

-spence

Not sure what your point is but the trials are being held in Fed. Court just blocks from Ground Zero.

Not sure what your point is but the trials are being held in Fed. Court just blocks from Ground Zero.
Ahhh, it looks like the news story I was reading had mixed the cases...I can't find it anymore, go figure...

But it also looks like we've convicted nearly 200 terrorists in US Federal court, so what's the problem?

Do you believe in due process? Either these guys are terrorists or they are not.

Do you think it's ethical to hold them indefinately and probably submit them to some torture along the way, if we don't as a nation, who says we follow the rule of law, believe they don't stand the test of our own courts?

If so, what do you believe in?

-spence

Spence, I googled Flyrod and I haven't come up on any of the five pages, go figure.

Ya! Ya! Spence your getting like JB have to google to get your answers

Ahhh, it looks like the news story I was reading had mixed the cases...I can't find it anymore, go figure...

NO, YOU CONFUSED YOUR GOOGLES AND ARE WRONG

But it also looks like we've convicted nearly 200 terrorists in US Federal court, so what's the problem?

THE PROBLEM IS IT WILL BE A CIRCUS AND IS POINTLESS, DANGEROUS AND STUPID

Do you believe in due process? Either these guys are terrorists or they are not.

THEY ARE
Do you think it's ethical to hold them indefinately and probably submit them to some torture along the way, if we don't as a nation, who says we follow the rule of law, believe they don't stand the test of our own courts?

IF THEY ARE FOUND NOT GUILTY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE WALKING FREE?
If so, what do you believe in?

-spence


I believe that our civil court system is the wrong way of doling out justice to terrorist. Can you imagine coming up with an untainted jury pool of peers in of all places NYC.
You are giving the "masterminds" of the worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor the open forumn to tell the world why they did it. They don't deserve that and the police, firefighters and people who suffered from 9/11 don't deserve that.

I believe that our civil court system is the wrong way of doling out justice to terrorist. Can you imagine coming up with an untainted jury pool of peers in of all places NYC.
You are giving the "masterminds" of the worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor the open forumn to tell the world why they did it. They don't deserve that and the police, firefighters and people who suffered from 9/11 don't deserve that.

Then what is justice?

Do we follow the rule of law or not?

There are serious implications here.

-spence

Then what is justice?

Do we follow the rule of law or not?

There are serious implications here.

-spence

No, we use a military tribunal. That still follows the rule of law. Answer me this.....Why NY? Why now? Convince me. You voted for this guy knowing what he stood for. Closing Gitmo was a main campaign pledge. This is something he said he would do.
On second thought, nothing you say will convince me this is a good idea. Don't bother.

I'm taking a time out for cookies and milk.

Sorry!

No, we use a military tribunal. That still follows the rule of law.
Not according to the Supreme Court.

Think of it this way. GITMO was put in place by the "US Government" and from what I read the people detained there are not covered under any other jursidiction....

How could they not be covered under Federal laws?

-spence

Spence, I googled Flyrod and I haven't come up on any of the five pages, go figure.

Ya! Ya! Spence your getting like JB have to google to get your answers

I'm assuming JB, is suppose to be JD.

I don't google in order to get my answers. I google to show support for my response. There's a difference between reading some website then copy/pasting it over here and saying "hey look at this! I agree with this!", and making a point then supporting it.

Strange thing though, my posts tend to be fact based, as opposed to subjective ramblings.

Ahhh, it looks like the news story I was reading had mixed the cases...I can't find it anymore, go figure...

-spence

You didn't imagine it....I read the same article earlier.

was 4 going to NY for trial and 4-6 (can't remember exactly) facing a Military tribunal.

I wonder if these terrorists were read their Miranda rights? and I wonder how much evidence collected during their illegal and unjust detention will be admissable in court? Not to worry though, with an Attorney General with a history of terrorist pardons and a President whose best friend back in Chicago was a terrorist, we practically have terrorist experts on the job overseeing this whole operation...should be quite a spectacle...are these guys REALLY even terrorists or did they just "CRACK" and assist in the commission mass murder? maybe they were on Ambien?...and how do we even really know what their motivation was?.....they might make great college professors....

are these guys REALLY even terrorists or did they just "CRACK" and assist in the commission mass murder? maybe they were on Ambien?...and how do we even really know what their motivation was?.....they might make great college professors....

Even you know that this is a ridiculous comment and these terrorists have no relation to the incident last week.

Even you know that this is a ridiculous comment and these terrorists have no relation to the incident last week.

none?

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. probably just coincidence

oh, I can see it now ..the Obama defense.....you can't say that just because he hangs out with other anti- American radicals and terrorists and goes to a church with a radical leader spewing hate ...that he might himself be radical, it just makes him open-minded....why, that guy preaching might actually have a valid point...

none?

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Well, if the brits say it is so, it must be. Bring out the pitchforks and torches.

You didn't imagine it....I read the same article earlier.

was 4 going to NY for trial and 4-6 (can't remember exactly) facing a Military tribunal.

Try Fox news from now on:biglaugh:

Try Fox news from now on:biglaugh:

That's just a crapshoot between getting fabricated news or not.

Try Fox news from now on:biglaugh:

I Tried...but after I watched it I felt the need for a Shower....scrubbed for an hour and just never felt clean

I Tried...but after I watched it I felt the need for a Shower....scrubbed for an hour and just never felt clean

:rotf2: No worries Kevin. For the trial you can tune in to any of the big three...... Alkazeer, Sead. Alkaze, Hachidak :rotf2:

" We interupt this beheading to bring you the latest on the evil Bush's torture and mistreatment of our freedom fighters. Live from NY"

This won't be far from what happens. I'm sure the news org. that brought you the decapitation of Pearl will have a front row seat. How else do we show the world how good we really are.:yak5:

Effffin pathetic:fury:

I'm heading north to kill something. see you in a week.:buds:

none?

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. probably just coincidence
According to that article he was at the mosque for the funeral of his mother, around the same time two 9/11 hijackers were thought to have been there.

This is a long stretch to say Hasan was out for coffee with them.

Quite possible the local imam, known to be a radical, helped to pollute his thinking.

-spence

Johnny, sorry about the B instead of D

I must have been intoxicated from the calcium in the milk. I'll only have a half glass the next time, it couldn't have been the cranberries in the cookies. :rotf2:

Buckman: Happy hunting.

I will be around Kingfield Me. starting Sunday.

Johnny, sorry about the B instead of D

I must have been intoxicated from the calcium in the milk. I'll only have a half glass the next time, it couldn't have been the cranberries in the cookies. :rotf2:

mmmm... cookies and milk. But you've gotta replace those cranberries for chocolate chips.

According to that article he was at the mosque for the funeral of his mother, around the same time two 9/11 hijackers were thought to have been there.

This is a long stretch to say Hasan was out for coffee with them.

Quite possible the local imam, known to be a radical, helped to pollute his thinking.

-spence

yeah...I'm sure that if a couple of guys from my mom's church were involved with the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans and a while later, I attempted to slaughter dozens of innocent Americans and was partially successful and it was discovered that I'd been contacting the known radical former leader of the church that my mom and the other guys had attended and had attended the church myself for any period of time...it would be a HUGE LONG stretch to try to draw any sort of link....yikes...we're in trouble BIG

like I said...probably just a coincidence

yeah...I'm sure that if a couple of guys from my mom's church were involved with the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans and a while later, I attempted to slaughter dozens of innocent Americans and was partially successful and it was discovered that I'd been contacting the known radical former leader of the church that my mom and the other guys had attended and had attended the church myself for any period of time...it would be a HUGE LONG stretch to try to draw any sort of link....yikes...we're in trouble BIG

like I said...probably just a coincidence
So you're asserting his mom was a terrorist also?

And everyone at the Mosque?

Do you trust any Muslim?

-spence

So you're asserting his mom was a terrorist also?

And everyone at the Mosque?

Do you trust any Muslim?

-spence

I don't have any problem with "any" muslims...just the ones prone to violence, like any other group that you'd like to create...as far as I'm concerned...Muslims come in many shapes colors and sizes so I'm not sure that I'd "recognize" a Muslim and be at that point capable of not trusting them based on appearance or for any other reason for that matter..If someone divulges to me that they are muslim, I don't think any differently of them that anyone else.... .I certainly have a healthy wariness about anyone who spent/spends time in a place of worship listening to and approving of by their continued presence the Anti- American hateful rantings of a radical lunatic....Why does everything lead back to Obama???

didn't say any of those things but that's a pretty high body count for that one Mosque.....

you seem really desperate to portray me as a racist or something similar...sorry to disappoint you but I'm just not...

you'd be fun in a fox hole Spence...the enemy charging and Spence standing and intellectualizing...."hold on guys, don't shoot yet...we don't have any evidence that they really want to harm us and we're not even sure if they are serious about pulling their triggers, they might just be bluffing.....after all we provoked them...not the other way around....let's try a little diplomacy" :rotf2:

You really have to be leary of someone changeing their name to something like Abdul, Mudula etc:

A niece of mine has a husband that did such a thing and I still can't pronounce the name. Well, I mentioned to my wife that we had better keep an eye on that fella, Boy! did she crack me upside the head. You think them football players get a concussion, my :eyes: are still rolling.

You think them football players get a concussion, my :eyes: are still rolling.
That certainly explains your recent posts :hihi:

-spence

:cheers: Spence!

You really have to be leary of someone changeing their name to something like Abdul, Mudula etc:

A niece of mine has a husband that did such a thing and I still can't pronounce the name. Well, I mentioned to my wife that we had better keep an eye on that fella, Boy! did she crack me upside the head. You think them football players get a concussion, my :eyes: are still rolling.

Yeah. Next thing you know, Muhammad Ali is going to blow up a school.

Yeah. Next thing you know, Muhammad Ali is going to blow up a school.

don't know where all of that came from but my only point was that I'd never put all muslims in any all inclusive box and make a judgement such as "And everyone at the Mosque? Do you trust any Muslim?" or any other rediculous assertion that you'd like to make...

so desperate to level that charge that the leaps are astounding...

however...if a teacher named Muhammed Ali blows up a school tomorrow and had been for years openly espousing Anti-American and radical violent thoughts that the administration had apparently ignored, will your knee- jerk response continue to be that this is not terrorism, just mass murder by a guy that "cracked"?

I'd have to start wondering if some here were not terrorist sympathizers involved in a cover up? :uhuh:

so desperate to level that charge that the leaps are astounding...
That's a "question".

To level the charge of "terrorism" against one of our own soldiers, an officer with 12 years of service, is a very serious assertion that you seem almost eager to dispense.

-spence

That's a "question".

To level the charge of "terrorism" against one of our own soldiers, an officer with 12 years of service, is a very serious assertion that you seem almost eager to dispense.

-spence


12 years as an officer and 8 as an enlisted man.....20 years of service.

That's a "question".

To level the charge of "terrorism" against one of our own soldiers, an officer with 12 years of service, is a very serious assertion that you seem almost eager to dispense.

-spence

far more credible than your "eagerness" to characterize someone who believes this to be an act of terrorism as somehow racist and bigoted toward all muslims.....

far more credible than your "eagerness" to characterize someone who believes this to be an act of terrorism as somehow racist and bigoted toward all muslims.....
My question was in direct response to your remarks, and the remarks of others.

Hence, it's cause and effect.

I'm simply defending objectivity and the legal principals of our Founding Fathers.

-spence

12 years as an officer and 8 as an enlisted man.....20 years of service.

this is truly amazing, I don't recall the "years of service" being factored into the savaging of the Haditha Marines by the liberal media and elected democrats...and I'm quite sure that I can pull countless quotes from elected dems and the left referring to our military members in the most unflattering ways but that would now like to reserve judgement and weigh "years of service" for this terrorist....

this is truly amazing, I don't recall the "years of service" being factored into the savaging of the Haditha Marines by the liberal media and elected democrats...and I'm quite sure that I can pull countless quotes from elected dems and the left referring to our military members in the most unflattering ways but that would now like to reserve judgement and weigh "years of service" for this terrorist....
Ahhh, the old "two wrongs do make a right" defense...nice.

-spence

don't know where all of that came from

It came as a response to FlyRod saying "You really have to be leary of someone changeing their name to something like Abdul, Mudula etc:"

When I include a quote from someone in my post, then my response is directly to them.

It came as a response to FlyRod saying "You really have to be leary of someone changeing their name to something like Abdul, Mudula etc:"

When I include a quote from someone in my post, then my response is directly to them.

In FlyRod's defense, I do believe he said that in jest.

-spence

Ahhh, the old "two wrongs do make a right" defense...nice.

-spence

no, not at all.....just compare the reaction...................

hey....didn't Tim McVeigh have some "years of service"?...I don't recall but did we hold off on referring to what he did as terrorism until after the trial in deference to his "years of service"?

this is truly amazing, I don't recall the "years of service" being factored into the savaging of the Haditha Marines by the liberal media and elected democrats...and I'm quite sure that I can pull countless quotes from elected dems and the left referring to our military members in the most unflattering ways but that would now like to reserve judgement and weigh "years of service" for this terrorist....

All i did was correct a fact....Its amazing how a simple correction can set your gears in motion.

Didn't say it mattered.....just corrected the facts. :rolleyes:

All i did was correct a fact....Its amazing how a simple correction can set your gears in motion.

Didn't say it mattered.....just corrected the facts. :rolleyes:

As I've been saying, either you agree 100% with what the conservatives say, regardless of the topic, or you hate America.

To level the charge of "terrorism" against one of our own soldiers, an officer with 12 years of service, is a very serious assertion that you seem almost eager to dispense.

-spence

Charging ANYONE with terrorism is a very serious assertion. "LEVELING" a charge of any kind on anyone is very serious. Accusing a soldier, an officer, anyone, of just plain old "mass murder" is a very serious assertion. Claiming or believing that a soldier, an officer, mass murdered because he just "snapped" is a very serious assertion.

What does "almost eager" mean? Not quite eager, therefore not really eager? Or just that there is no proof of eagerness so just an implication that makes it sound like Scott is "eager."

If a soldier, an officer, with 20 years of service, who had not shown any signs of mental disturbance, or any indication that he was a run-of-the-mill garden variety mass-murderer, but had expressed several, clear, vociferous statements that indicated Jihadist beliefs and had tried to contact Al quaeda, should anything have been done, and what, if so, should that have been, and under what grounds?

Quite honestly, I don't care how he's charged as long as he's given a death sentence.

If a soldier, an officer, with 20 years of service, who had not shown any signs of mental disturbance, or any indication that he was a run-of-the-mill garden variety mass-murderer, but had expressed several, clear, vociferous statements that indicated Jihadist beliefs and had tried to contact Al quaeda, should anything have been done, and what, if so, should that have been, and under what grounds?

My question is directed toward future prevention, not the execution of the Hasan case. There seems to be a consensus here that somebody dropped the ball in allowing this man to do what he did. In what way can a similar event be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs, other than strong Jihadist tendencies, that he will turn on his comrades?

All i did was correct a fact....Its amazing how a simple correction can set your gears in motion.

Didn't say it mattered.....just corrected the facts. :rolleyes:

just reacting to the idea that 20 years or 100 years of service buys you anything after you slaughter and mamed that many innocent people...

apparently we can't accurately identify obvious extremism of this type

According to Ret. Col Terry Lee, who had worked with Hasan in the psych ward at Ft Hood, Hasan was constantly broadcasting his beliefs:

"He said, precisely, that maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.... When there was a shooting at Little Rock--he was almost sort of happy about it.... (He said) this is what Muslims should do. People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.... He was hoping that President Obama would pull troops out...when things weren't going that way he became more agitated, more frustrated.... He made his views well known...."

but WOW...Janet Napolitano is an expert on extremism of this type


(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.
(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.
From the report, p. 5:

(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

apparently years of service puts you at the top of the watch list if .......

huh?, according to the current administration, right wing extremist groups are currently recruiting disgruntled military members to carry out violence as "lone wolves or small terrorist cells"...

I think they need to refocus...

My question is directed toward future prevention, not the execution of the Hasan case. There seems to be a consensus here that somebody dropped the ball in allowing this man to do what he did. In what way can a similar event be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs, other than strong Jihadist tendencies, that he will turn on his comrades?
It may be helpful to define "strong jihadist tendencies."

Muslims often have a strong religious unity that can appear (often falsely) to transcend nationalistic lines. I don't think it's abnormal at all for a devout Muslim to contemplate the impact to their actions if they were sanctioning the killing of other Muslims against the perceived unified threat (as seen from, we'll call it Islamic conventional wisdom).

Certainly, there's the appearance among much of Islam globally that the West is engaged in a war to destroy (or at least hurt) Islam...as a faith.

This is why Saddam was looked at with reverence (he stood up to the West) and why Bin Laden gets a pass from otherwise moderates who believe that while his tactics are ugly he is standing up for the rights of Muslims less fortunate.

Granted, not all Muslims would agree with this, and many Islamic nations and people don't have a great track record respecting the rights of their fellow Muslims.

And also, a very large number of Muslims appear to either "get it" or simply don't think any of this nonsense justifies violence. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the World's Muslims are totally non-violent.

So where do you draw the line? Certainly acting out with violence to "protect the faith" is well past it, but what about peaceful opposition, protest or condemning language?

Or if one explored the meaning of violent actions (like Hasan's jumping on a grenade comment) without actually calling for or explicitly condoning violence?

Is attending a mosque where radical preachers are know to oppose the US a warning sign or just an exercise of free speech?

Would the same standards be applied to a Catholic who's pastor flirted with violence against abortion clinics in their sermons?

Would these be offending "jihadist tendencies" for a US citizen?

-spence

It may be helpful to define "strong jihadist tendencies."



Would these be offending "jihadist tendencies" for a US citizen?

-spence

I'm pretty sure the rules change a bit when you become a member of the military, he referred to soldiers/officers...

why don't we ask Napolitano, she seems to have outlined in detail "strong right wing extremist tendencies"...

I'm pretty sure the rules change a bit when you become a member of the military, he referred to soldiers/officers...

So there's an incompatibility between Islam and US Military service?

-spence

It may be helpful to define "strong jihadist tendencies."

Strong: emphatic, extreme, having force of conviction or feeling.

Jihadist: (in this context) a Muslim who favors or supports the Jihad.

Tendency: a demonstrated inclination to think, act, or behave in a certain way.

Muslims often have a strong religious unity that can appear (often falsely) to transcend nationalistic lines. I don't think it's abnormal at all for a devout Muslim to contemplate the impact to their actions if they were sanctioning the killing of other Muslims against the perceived unified threat (as seen from, we'll call it Islamic conventional wisdom).

I don't understand the above paragraph.

Certainly, there's the appearance among much of Islam globally that the West is engaged in a war to destroy (or at least hurt) Islam...as a faith.

Yes, I agree that appearance exists and believe that it has willfully been implanted by Islamist extremists many of whom want Jihad against the West.

This is why Saddam was looked at with reverence (he stood up to the West) and why Bin Laden gets a pass from otherwise moderates who believe that while his tactics are ugly he is standing up for the rights of Muslims less fortunate.

Did those Muslims that suffered Saddam's torture, humiliation, and his murder of their kith and kin look at him with reverence? Or did Muslims that favored Jihad against the West propogandize and convert others to this reverence?

Granted, not all Muslims would agree with this, and many Islamic nations and people don't have a great track record respecting the rights of their fellow Muslims.

And most Islamic nations have an even less than not great track record of respecting the rights of non-Muslims. And are encouraged by Jihadists to act on that less than not great respect for non-Muslims.

And also, a very large number of Muslims appear to either "get it" or simply don't think any of this nonsense justifies violence. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the World's Muslims are totally non-violent.

For the time being--but the Jihadists are working on that. And also, the vast majority of the World's Muslims are not in the U.S. military.

So where do you draw the line? Certainly acting out with violence to "protect the faith" is well past it, but what about peaceful opposition, protest or condemning language?

That's kind of my question.


Would the same standards be applied to a Catholic who's pastor flirted with violence against abortion clinics in their sermons?

Have we had any Catholic Jihadists in the recent past? Is there some cause for fear of the radical Catholics?

Would these be offending "jihadist tendencies" for a US citizen?
-spence

Perhap's, if he were a Muslim.

So, what is the answer to my question: In what way can a similar event (the Hasan incident) be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs (other than strong Jihadist tendencies) that he will turn on his comrades? I gather by your equating Islam to other religions, that the perpetrators and professors of radical Islamist's contemporary and actual "terrorist" activities are to be perceived as no more of a present danger than the possible, equivalent actions of the extremists within other religions. That free speech (even seditious, treasonous speech) is to be protected in the military. I gather, then, by your lengthy answer, that there is nothing that can be done. Just wait for the next incident and prosecute it as a mass murder. Of course, that is not prevention.

So there's an incompatibility between Islam and US Military service?

-spence

There is certainly an incompatibility between radical, jihadist (the little jihad--holy war against the infidel stuff) Islam and the US Military. There is certainly an incompatibility between Shariah law and US law. There is certainly an incompatibility between honor killing and US law. (I know, I know, that's not true Islam. Just an extremist quirk . . . like all those other little quirks, the treatment of women, or non-Muslims, . . .)

There is certainly an incompatibility between radical, jihadist (the little jihad--holy war against the infidel stuff) Islam and the US Military. There is certainly an incompatibility between Shariah law and US law. There is certainly an incompatibility between honor killing and US law. (I know, I know, that's not true Islam. Just an extremist quirk . . . like all those other little quirks, the treatment of women, or non-Muslims, . . .)
I would think you could say the same thing about nearly any extremist behavior.

-spence

So, what is the answer to my question: In what way can a similar event (the Hasan incident) be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs (other than strong Jihadist tendencies) that he will turn on his comrades? I gather by your equating Islam to other religions, that the perpetrators and professors of radical Islamist's contemporary and actual "terrorist" activities are to be perceived as no more of a present danger than the possible, equivalent actions of the extremists within other religions. That free speech (even seditious, treasonous speech) is to be protected in the military. I gather, then, by your lengthy answer, that there is nothing that can be done. Just wait for the next incident and prosecute it as a mass murder. Of course, that is not prevention.
I think you're mixing issues.

The real breakdown of the military appears (based on what we know today) is that Hasan's private life was inhibiting his ability to perform his job. Given some of the erratic behavior that's been noted, one would think this should have raised the appropriate red flags.

The degree of radicalization is a legal issue, and Hasan has the same rights of any US citizen. I'm not sure he crossed any legal lines before the shooting in this regard, at least with what we know.

While some assert the Army was blinded by political correctness, they seem to ignore the fact that he was promoted to Major in spite of his poor performance simply because there was a shortage at the time.

Certainly his action was influenced by his faith, but all religious rage isn't terrorism. With hindsight, the biggest change that could have prevented this event appears to be more judicious management and monitoring of a subordinate.

-spence

I would think you could say the same thing about nearly any extremist behavior.

-spence

I was not referring to extremist behavior, but to your question"So there's an incompatability between Islam and US military?" And I specifically mentioned Holy War Jihadism and a couple of "quirks" in Islamic belief that are incompatible with US law.

I would not say that nearly any extremist behavior is incompatible with US law. So long as that behavior is not unconstitutional nor breaks any legal codes, I think we are garantied a right to it.

I think you're mixing issues.

The real breakdown of the military appears (based on what we know today) is that Hasan's private life was inhibiting his ability to perform his job. Given some of the erratic behavior that's been noted, one would think this should have raised the appropriate red flags.

I have to admit that I have not followed any breaking news that talks about new facts about his private life. And the only erratic behavior that I've heard about all was in some way related to his religious views conflicting with his duties.

The degree of radicalization is a legal issue, and Hasan has the same rights of any US citizen. I'm not sure he crossed any legal lines before the shooting in this regard, at least with what we know.

While some assert the Army was blinded by political correctness, they seem to ignore the fact that he was promoted to Major in spite of his poor performance simply because there was a shortage at the time.

Poor performance would certainly speak against promotion, but would not be an indication that he would mass-murder.

I don't think the Army was blinded by political correctness, rather, it was ordered by it. As a society, we have no compunction against speaking out against and even demonizing many views, especially right wing views as being dangerous. We have not only political warnings but media sanctions, including movies and television shows that have overt or subliminal cautions and admonitions that inform us of the dangers and lunacy of militias and the religious right and the mean spiritidness of "extreme" conservatives. This has a suppressive effect, good or bad, depending on your point of view. And one effect is to persuade many away from "extremism." But there seems to be a reluctance to speak out in an equally culturally aggressive manner against the extremism of Islam. Could we not persuade, as a moderate, liberal, centrist society, those in the Islamic community, through the same cultural and media modes, that Holy war Jihadism against the West is an extreme belief that is just as threatening to our civil society as the so-called religious right? If we are to be a unified society of diverse elements, those elements must adhere to a common law. We must as a civil society teach equally against ALL dangerous extremes.

Certainly his action was influenced by his faith, but all religious rage isn't terrorism. With hindsight, the biggest change that could have prevented this event appears to be more judicious management and monitoring of a subordinate.
-spence

So we agree that his faith was the decisive factor. And I agree that terrorism is not an accurate description, which is why I spoke about Jihadist tendency. Other than that, I don't see what judicious management and monitoring could have prevented this unless the military would have been allowed to reject him because of his expressed views on our policies on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the various complaints against his attempt to proselytize those he counseled to Islam.

So we agree that his faith was the decisive factor.
Not necessarily. I believe he suffered a mental breakdown over his inability to resolve the internal conflict. Faith certainly was a major influence though as it was the source of the conflict. All other Muslim soldiers don't seem to have this problem. Perhaps he had some latent issues that were brought to the surface.

And I agree that terrorism is not an accurate description, which is why I spoke about Jihadist tendency. Other than that, I don't see what judicious management and monitoring could have prevented this unless the military would have been allowed to reject him because of his expressed views on our policies on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the various complaints against his attempt to proselytize those he counseled to Islam.
I think his leadership could (hindsight here, right) have seen him as a potential issue because of his behavior in context of his job. This might have led to deeper exploration to reveal his real issues which could have had him removed from his duties.

Granted, I have the luxury of hindsight here...but...

-spence

Not necessarily. I believe he suffered a mental breakdown over his inability to resolve the internal conflict. Faith certainly was a major influence though as it was the source of the conflict. All other Muslim soldiers don't seem to have this problem. Perhaps he had some latent issues that were brought to the surface.
I think his leadership could (hindsight here, right) have seen him as a potential issue because of his behavior in context of his job. This might have led to deeper exploration to reveal his real issues which could have had him removed from his duties.
-spence

Long distance psycho-analysis based on unsupported conjecture is worse than useless and can be used to suppose any motives we wish. If we are going to discuss this (perhaps as amateurs who only "know" the tip of the iceberg, we shouldn't discuss it, but that would be boring) we must, in our best Sherlock Holmes/Joe Friday imitation, just examine what little facts we "know."

His Leadership could have seen his relative incompetence as a reason for demotion but not as a threat to go Jihadist on the guys. Deeper exploration into his incompetence would seem a bit extreme and not only expend inordinate hours of analysis over a simple, obvious trait, but would, ipso facto, be cause for such useless analysis of many thousand other less than highly competent personnel.

The only other issues that I'm aware of are the conflict between his religious views and his military duties. I don't think that those conflicts are a cause for psycho-analysis unless one is to believe that religious views, per se, are psychotic. The fact that "all" other . . . (I'm sure the "all" is just an exageration as there have been other such "incidents" in the military) . . . the fact that many other Muslim soldiers don't seem to have "this" problem may, and I hope it's so, is that they are of a reformed view of Islam. The Holy War Jihadist, I believe, is a throwback view that is in dire need of reformation, as was Christianaity centuries ago. To be a partner with the rest of the world rather than a master, the "convert or die" mentality, along with many other rules, customs, and beliefs of Islam need reformation.

The "bad" Muslims--those that more loosely follow their faith like their counter-part Christians and Jews, are the "good" citizens and soldiers. The really "good" Muslims, of the fundamentalist persuasion, see the rest of the world as not just a threat, but an underclass that, at best, is merely allowed to exist, or worse.

I believe the reformation needs to, quickly, come from within the faith, and little perfunctory "condemnations" of radical Islamist violence is not going to do it. It is a faith that is very susceptible to crackdown from the higher-ups. They could could change this so-called minority behavior in a nano-second, if they truly wished to do so.

Would the military be allowed to deeply explore such issues with Hasan? Again, the only other "facts" that I'm aware of in this case that might, in any way, indicate what he was about to do, stem from his conflict between his faith and his military duty (not to mention how that faith, as he viewed it, would impact his view of American culture and law--not enough facts to conjecture). And if the military were allowed to explore his inner conflict, could they find cause to remove him. I think there would be, dare I say, a politically correct objection to that.

I think you guys are illustrating perfectly why little or nothing will change and why it will most likely happen again...:uhuh: hiding in plain sight is a brilliant strategy these days....


Dr. Nidal Hasan served on a Presidential Transition task force and helped set national security priorities.
In the proceedings report for the Presidential Transition Task Force entitled, "Thinking Anew -- Security Priorities for the Next (OBAMA) Administration," in APPENDIX C Task Force Event Participants, on page 29, we find the name of Nidal Hasan, Uniformed Services University School of Medicine. This is the same Nidal Hasan, Major, US Army, who murdered and maimed fellow soldiers at Ft Hood. This is the same Nidal Hasan who had been spouting Jihadist rhetoric and defending radical Islam for years without disciplinary action or censure. This is the same Nidal Hasan who communicated with Islamic radicals and was tracked by the FBI.

If he were a member of a militia however, he would have been out. The DOD's security clearance questionnaire asks about militia membership, but not a peep about radical or violent Islamic groups.

I have a number of military families renting in my neighborhood because we live close to the War College....shortly after every military family moves out of the neighborhood, I get a knock on my door and there is an agent standing there with a badge, requesting that I answer questions about the family that has just departed...the questions are remarkably detailed, to a great degree intrusive questions that I could never answer regarding their bank accounts, visitors, behaviours etc...the investigation is much more than thorough and they are looking for ANYTHING that would indicate any kind of suspicious behaviour...it is mind boggling that this guy was allowed to continue through to his ultimate claim to fame...

The DOD's security clearance questionnaire asks about militia membership, but not a peep about radical or violent Islamic groups.[/B]



I just went through the DOD Security Clearance process in February.....don't remember anything about belonging to militias on the Questionaire.

and who in their right mind is actually going to admit to belonging to a Violent Islamic group.....your not really banking on somebody actually checking off box "A" and flushing them out that way are you?

He went in as an Enlisted and rose to throught tthe ranks to Major....he obviously must have been doing something right somewhere along the way. It was in the past 5-6 years where he started to show the warning signs that should have gotten him investigated a little more thoroughly.

This almost reminds me of the Catholic church passing the guy along in hopes that somebody else will fix the problem.

I just hope now they just get rid of the guy permanently

Currently, the “SF 86: Questionnaire for National Security Positions” is
completed by every applicant for military service in the United States. Its purpose is to
collect information for background investigations of persons applying for security
clearances. For military accessions and security clearance vetting, the SF 86 is the
primary questionnaire for documenting potential indicators of hostile and disloyal
associations and histories.

and these guys are investigated constantly as I indicated, thoroughly, which makes more even disturbing the fact that this guy continued on despite broadcasting that he was a problem...

I don't know what more is required...

from ABC News

Major Hasan's E-Mail: 'I Can't Wait to Join You' in Afterlife

American Official Says Accused Shooter Asked Radical Cleric When Is Jihad Appropriate?

By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
Nov. 19, 2009 —


United States Army Major Nidal Hasan told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.

"It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind."


Other messages include questions, the official with access to the e-mails said, that include when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.

"Hasan told Awlaki he couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife," the official said.

Major Hasan also wrote, "My strength is my financial capabilities."

Federal investigators have found that Hasan donated $20,000 to $30,000 a year to overseas Islamic "charities." As an Army major, his yearly salary, including housing and food allowances, was approximately $92,000. A number of Islamic charities have been identified by U.S. authorities as conduits to terror groups.

Two FBI task forces, in Washington and San Diego, received the intercepted messages, but deemed them innocent.

On Capitol Hill today, Senators questioned how that could be.

"The choice of this recipient of emails says a lot about what Hasan was looking for," said Senator Joseph Lieberman, chair of the Senate's Homeland Security committee. Lieberman's committee held a hearing on the Fort Hood shootings, and announced that it was launching an investigation.

"What I'm getting at," said Lieberman, "Is he may have been looking for spiritual sanctions for what he's accused of ultimately doing."

The American-born Awlaki is considered a recruiter for al-Qaeda. He has been in hiding since the shooting, but a Yemeni journalist told ABC News today that the e-mails show Hasan was "almost a member of al-Qaeda."

Pentagon Probe Looking For Gaps, Gates Said
At Fort Hood today, federal investigators continued to gather evidence for the criminal prosecution of Hasan, while Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced his own investigation of the incident.

Gates said the Pentagon probe would try "to find possible gaps or deficiencies in Defense Department programs, processes and procedures for identifying service members who could potentially pose credible threats to others."

Some members of Congress have raised questions about the military's counter-intelligence unit, based at Fort Meade, and Gates said every question will be answered.

"I promise the Department of Defense's full and open disclosure," said Gates.

Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was once the imam of a Falls Church, Virginia mosque attended by Hasan and two of the 9/11 hijackers. After an intensive investigation by the FBI, Awlaki moved to Yemen where he was imprisoned in 2006 and says he was interrogated by U.S. authorities.

A blog entry posted on Awlaki's site after the Fort Hood massacre praised Hasan as a "hero" and a "man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people." The site has since been taken down, as has a Facebook fan page devoted to Awlaki. In a subsequent interview with the Washington Post, Awlaki described himself as Hasan's "confidant."

In addition to his contacts with Hasan, Awlaki served as an inspiration for men convicted in terror plots in Toronto and Fort Dix, New Jersey, according to government officials and court records reviewed by ABCNews.com.

In Toronto, members of the so-called Toronto 18 watched videos of Awlaki at a makeshift training camp where they allegedly planned an attack on the Canadian parliament and prime minister.

His Leadership could have seen his relative incompetence as a reason for demotion but not as a threat to go Jihadist on the guys. Deeper exploration into his incompetence would seem a bit extreme and not only expend inordinate hours of analysis over a simple, obvious trait, but would, ipso facto, be cause for such useless analysis of many thousand other less than highly competent personnel.
So deteriorating mental health that impacts job function wouldn't be of concern to his leadership? I thought the military actually paid very close attention to this.

The only other issues that I'm aware of are the conflict between his religious views and his military duties. I don't think that those conflicts are a cause for psycho-analysis unless one is to believe that religious views, per se, are psychotic.
The source of the conflict is irrelevant if it has a negative impact to his duty.

The fact that "all" other . . . (I'm sure the "all" is just an exageration as there have been other such "incidents" in the military) . . . the fact that many other Muslim soldiers don't seem to have "this" problem may, and I hope it's so, is that they are of a reformed view of Islam.
Like most things this falls on a spectrum. I'm sure there are many Muslim soldiers who are conflicted but stay true to their duty to serve. The fanatics obviously would consider them infidels, but it's not necessarily either / or, the right push and you could find yourself on the other side. This looks to be what may have happened to Hasan.

The Holy War Jihadist, I believe, is a throwback view that is in dire need of reformation, as was Christianaity centuries ago. To be a partner with the rest of the world rather than a master, the "convert or die" mentality, along with many other rules, customs, and beliefs of Islam need reformation.
The difficulty is that to some the Sharia is seen as a highly refined legal and moral system. Hence, no need for any "Enlightenment". To the many Muslims detached from the mainstream, this may appear to provide more comfort. Just like how people will send their kids to a Madrassa as it's the only place to get an "education".

The "bad" Muslims--those that more loosely follow their faith like their counter-part Christians and Jews, are the "good" citizens and soldiers. The really "good" Muslims, of the fundamentalist persuasion, see the rest of the world as not just a threat, but an underclass that, at best, is merely allowed to exist, or worse.
Speaking of good and bad, there's a pretty interesting read called "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim."

I believe the reformation needs to, quickly, come from within the faith, and little perfunctory "condemnations" of radical Islamist violence is not going to do it. It is a faith that is very susceptible to crackdown from the higher-ups. They could could change this so-called minority behavior in a nano-second, if they truly wished to do so.
Definitely agree that reform needs to come from the inside, but I'm not so sure change is just a matter of free will. In fact a lot of Western behavior works against the very people who might seek reform.

Perhaps we should start dropping Ayn Rand books instead of bombs :hihi:

Would the military be allowed to deeply explore such issues with Hasan? Again, the only other "facts" that I'm aware of in this case that might, in any way, indicate what he was about to do, stem from his conflict between his faith and his military duty (not to mention how that faith, as he viewed it, would impact his view of American culture and law--not enough facts to conjecture). And if the military were allowed to explore his inner conflict, could they find cause to remove him. I think there would be, dare I say, a politically correct objection to that.
The military is a regimented organization, and I'd be surprised, if what was starting to look like a clear dereliction of duty, wouldn't be cause for his removal from service.

Again regarding PC, he was promoted despite his performance simply because of a need for more psychiatrists. This would seems to trump any simple speculation that they were afraid of confronting a religious issue.

I do think some heads will roll once this is investigated.

-spence

So deteriorating mental health that impacts job function wouldn't be of concern to his leadership? I thought the military actually paid very close attention to this.

I haven't been following new updates on this. Has there been some new evidence that Hasan showed signs of deteriorating mental health?

The source of the conflict is irrelevant if it has a negative impact to his duty.

Until the "incident", I am not aware of evidence that the conflict between his religious views and his military duty had a negative impact. There are reports that he was not the sharpest tack in the drawer which may have been cause for demotion but not a discernable motive for Jihad.

Like most things this falls on a spectrum. I'm sure there are many Muslim soldiers who are conflicted but stay true to their duty to serve. The fanatics obviously would consider them infidels, but it's not necessarily either / or, the right push and you could find yourself on the other side. This looks to be what may have happened to Hasan.


Precisely what I meant earlier in this thread when I responded to your view that most Muslims in the world are not violent, and I said that the Jihadists were working on that--that is, to "push" them "to the other side."

The difficulty is that to some the Sharia is seen as a highly refined legal and moral system. Hence, no need for any "Enlightenment". To the many Muslims detached from the mainstream, this may appear to provide more comfort. Just like how people will send their kids to a Madrassa as it's the only place to get an "education".

This is why reformation not "enlightenment" is necessary. The Mullahs and Imams and Islamic scholars must stop merely verbally "condemning" occasional eruptions of "terrorism" and begin to forcefully preach in every Madrassa and in every Mosque that the holy wars must stop or Allah will rescind the 70 virgins and send all Jihadists to hell.

Speaking of good and bad, there's a pretty interesting read called "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim."

I think that's were I got the idea--didn't read the book, just heard about it--if it's the same one.

Definitely agree that reform needs to come from the inside, but I'm not so sure change is just a matter of free will. In fact a lot of Western behavior works against the very people who might seek reform.

Again, not free will (not sure if there is much of that in Islam . . . some, for sure) rather forcefull reform from the top dogs. Oops, dogs is a term in Islam used for non-Muslims--should read forceful reform from the hierarchy.

Perhaps we should start dropping Ayn Rand books instead of bombs :hihi:

I LIKE IT! Actually, we should be dropping the Ayn Rand bombs over here on our way too far left citizens. They're kind of lengthy, heavy though . . .

The military is a regimented organization, and I'd be surprised, if what was starting to look like a clear dereliction of duty, wouldn't be cause for his removal from service.

Again, haven't kept up on this--is there evidence of dereliction of duty before the "incident"?

Again regarding PC, he was promoted despite his performance simply because of a need for more psychiatrists. This would seems to trump any simple speculation that they were afraid of confronting a religious issue.

You start this post by implying that deteriorating mental health (which is somehow tied to his religious views) is a cause for concern and that the mililtary paid close attention to such and then feel that it is not serious enough to confront simply because of a shortage of psychiatrists?

I do think some heads will roll once this is investigated.
-spence

That would be good. Especially if they roll all the way down from whatever top instills the fear of PC.

If he were a member of a militia however, he would have been out. The DOD's security clearance questionnaire asks about militia membership, but not a peep about radical or violent Islamic groups.[/B]

Actually if you read the Form they ask if you are a member of any Foriegn Military or Militia....not Domestic

They also ask a series of questions about whether you belong to any organizations that are terrorist organizations or organizations that want to overthrow the government..

here's a link to the form so you can view it.

http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF86.pdf


Currently, the “SF 86: Questionnaire for National Security Positions” is
completed by every applicant for military service in the United States. Its purpose is to
collect information for background investigations of persons applying for security
clearances. For military accessions and security clearance vetting, the SF 86 is the
primary questionnaire for documenting potential indicators of hostile and disloyal
associations and histories.

I haven't been following new updates on this. Has there been some new evidence that Hasan showed signs of deteriorating mental health?

Until the "incident", I am not aware of evidence that the conflict between his religious views and his military duty had a negative impact. There are reports that he was not the sharpest tack in the drawer which may have been cause for demotion but not a discernable motive for Jihad.
I believe there are many reports of erratic behavior, a good example is where instead of a required medical report he gave a presentation on Islam.

Hasan on Islam - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html)

Interestingly enough, he calls out his own dilemma on slide two.

Precisely what I meant earlier in this thread when I responded to your view that most Muslims in the world are not violent, and I said that the Jihadists were working on that--that is, to "push" them "to the other side."
There's push and pull. What many don't seem to be willing to accept is that it's really a mix of legitimate and not so legitimate issues that eventually work to radicalize someone. Again, it's a spectrum.

This is why reformation not "enlightenment" is necessary. The Mullahs and Imams and Islamic scholars must stop merely verbally "condemning" occasional eruptions of "terrorism" and begin to forcefully preach in every Madrassa and in every Mosque that the holy wars must stop or Allah will rescind the 70 virgins and send all Jihadists to hell.
And loose their sources of funding? You'd better be prepared to fill the void or we may get something even worse.

I think that's were I got the idea--didn't read the book, just heard about it--if it's the same one.
Interesting book. Nothing groundbreaking but there are some good observations and anecdotes. I'm sure I have a copy somewhere if you want to read it.

Again, not free will (not sure if there is much of that in Islam . . . some, for sure) rather forcefull reform from the top dogs. Oops, dogs is a term in Islam used for non-Muslims--should read forceful reform from the hierarchy.
The aversion to dogs is perhaps the best evidence I've seen that our cultures are truly not compatible.


They're kind of lengthy, heavy though . . .
And always with tiny print...I never really did like her style of writing.

Again, haven't kept up on this--is there evidence of dereliction of duty before the "incident"?
See above. I'm sure there are other examples but this is particularly noteworthy.

You start this post by implying that deteriorating mental health (which is somehow tied to his religious views) is a cause for concern and that the mililtary paid close attention to such and then feel that it is not serious enough to confront simply because of a shortage of psychiatrists?
Multiple issues. From what I've read he really didn't deal with the death of his mother very well. As the FBI pro filers have said, he was the classic loner after all.

-spence

I believe there are many reports of erratic behavior, a good example is where instead of a required medical report he gave a presentation on Islam.
Interestingly enough, he calls out his own dilemma on slide two.

I read most of the stuff from your link, none of which is definitive as to exactly what "authorities" believe motivated Hasan. The Q & A with the Post reporter was nice, but it too left open the Q of motivation. To me, it all suggests, without further evidence, that Hasan is an Islamist extremist of Jihadist persuasion. Rather than calling his behavior erratic, it appears to me, with the facts so far presented, that his behavior was very pointed, conscious, rationally directed from a Jihadist view. I was not able to link to the slides of his presentation, but the description of them points to what I say.

There's push and pull. What many don't seem to be willing to accept is that it's really a mix of legitimate and not so legitimate issues that eventually work to radicalize someone. Again, it's a spectrum.

I am sure that any radical views the issues that drive him as legitimate.

And loose their sources of funding? You'd better be prepared to fill the void or we may get something even worse.

Are you saying the Imams, Mullahs, and Islamic scholars are in it for the money? If so, we can solve the "problem" by paying them from our treasury instead of funding the war on terror.

The aversion to dogs is perhaps the best evidence I've seen that our cultures are truly not compatible.

Good one!

And always with tiny print...I never really did like her style of writing.

Her style is more geared to essay than fiction. I like her ideas, but the fiction is a deep plow.

Multiple issues. From what I've read he really didn't deal with the death of his mother very well. As the FBI pro filers have said, he was the classic loner after all.
-spence

All mothers, sadly, die. And many loners have done great things. These things, in themselves do not motivate to mass murder. Radical Islam, however, does.

These things, in themselves do not motivate to mass murder. Radical Islam, however, does.

So does radical Christianity....

So does radical Christianity....

I haven't heard of any indications that Hasan is a radical Christian.

Well I hate to take this thread back to the case at hand, but it appears they will plead not guilty and then use the trial as a means of spreading there veiws of America and explain their reasons for the attack..... stay tuned

I haven't heard of any indications that Hasan is a radical Christian.

He wasn't implying that there were. I think the intention is that there could possibly exist a difference between religious fanatics and terrorists.

No one was screaming terrorists when abortion clinics were getting bombed. Or did not enough people die in those incidents?

Or is it murder if you kill because of Christian beliefs, but terrorism when you kill due to Islamic beliefs?

No one was screaming terrorists when abortion clinics were getting bombed. Or did not enough people die in those incidents?



I rememeber the outcry. Yes they were.
IMO you can't equate someone trying to protect an innocent unborn child with someone killing 3000 . It's not right but it's not the same

He wasn't implying that there were. I think the intention is that there could possibly exist a difference between religious fanatics and terrorists.

Which is also what I have been saying. I specifically said that terrorism is not an accurate description of Hasan's motives. I attributed it to "Jihadism" which non-Jihadists would probably refer to as religious fanaticism.

No one was screaming terrorists when abortion clinics were getting bombed. Or did not enough people die in those incidents?

Although no one was "screaming" terrorists, the abortion clinic bombings have been defined by many as terrorism. Even Wikipedia defines it as a form of terrorism.

Or is it murder if you kill because of Christian beliefs, but terrorism when you kill due to Islamic beliefs?

If it's murder, it's murder in both cases. The motivation for the murders is probably different. As far as anti-abortion violence, the main animous seems to be a loathing for the killing of what is considered to be innocent human life, innocent babies. I think that nine such anti-abortion murders have occured since 1993. Not all, probably the minority, were attributed to religion. As horrible as these have been, I don't think they evoked a national security threat. Jihad against the West seems to be a much different, much larger, greatly more dangerous phenomenon. And it is specifically an Islamic religious phenomenon.

I rememeber the outcry. Yes they were.
IMO you can't equate someone trying to protect an innocent unborn child with someone killing 3000 . It's not right but it's not the same
There was an outcry, but people weren't screaming "terrorists". So, if you bomb a clinic to "protect an innocent unborn child" then that's not terrorism, but shooting people in the name of religion (which we still don't know is fully the case) is terrorism?

You sure can equate it. Killing is killing, isn't it? This isn't directed towards you, but I love the religious hypocrisy of murdering an abortion doctor being acceptable to some people because he's, in their opinion, murdering babies.

We've had this discussion before where you've made the comparison to the number of people killed during 9/11. What exactly is the number of people that must be killed for a situation to be considered terrorism? The interesting part is that we weren't even talking about 9/11.

There was an outcry, but people weren't screaming "terrorists". So, if you bomb a clinic to "protect an innocent unborn child" then that's not terrorism, but shooting people in the name of religion (which we still don't know is fully the case) is terrorism?

You sure can equate it. Killing is killing, isn't it? This isn't directed towards you, but I love the religious hypocrisy of murdering an abortion doctor being acceptable to some people because he's, in their opinion, murdering babies.

We've had this discussion before where you've made the comparison to the number of people killed during 9/11. What exactly is the number of people that must be killed for a situation to be considered terrorism? The interesting part is that we weren't even talking about 9/11.

99.999% of Christians would call the taking of any life wrong JD. Why are you so quick to call the killing of an abortion DR terrorism but give this terrorist the benifit of the doubt.
FYI, his clock was set at 9/11 at his apartment but thats just a coincidence.:smash:

99.999% of Christians would call the taking of any life wrong JD. Why are you so quick to call the killing of an abortion DR terrorism but give this terrorist the benifit of the doubt.
FYI, his clock was set at 9/11 at his apartment but thats just a coincidence.:smash:

I'm not calling either terrorism.

And I know a lot of Christians that are in support of the Death Penalty.

I'm not calling either terrorism.

And I know a lot of Christians that are in support of the Death Penalty.

Me for one. I'm able to see the difference between a innocent unborn child and a murdering scum bag. You can too, you just won't admit it.

Me for one. I'm able to see the difference between a innocent unborn child and a murdering scum bag. You can too, you just won't admit it.

Well, you're a bad Christian then.

Thou shall not kill.

You do keep twisting the topic though. This isn't a comparison between abortion and murder.

Well, you're a bad Christian then.

Thou shall not kill.

You do keep twisting the topic though. This isn't a comparison between abortion and murder.

I think I'll be Ok when Peter calls my name at the gate:grins: