Political Correctness Made Cowards of Them All

Wednesday, August 21, AD 2013

 

 

The farce that is the courtmartial of mass killer Major Nidal Hasan  is wending on its way with the military judge restricting evidence of Hasan’s jihadi motives:

Prosecutors will not be allowed to enter evidence that Nidal Hasan intended to commit jihad in his mass murder spree at Fort Hood nearly four years ago, the judge in the court-martial ruled yesterday.  Col. Tara Osborn also struck from evidence the correspondence between Hasan and al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, although she did allow prosecutors to use records of Hasan’s Internet usage and search histories at the time of the shooting.

For my sins no doubt, I have spent the last 31 years as an attorney.  I have done more than my fair share of criminal defense during that time.  I cannot express adequately just how ridiculous this ruling of the court is.  Hasan has already admitted in open court that he was the shooter and that his motivation was jihad.  I can only assume that the true motivation behind the court’s absurd ruling was the same motivation that caused the administration to classify Hasan’s multiple murders as being workplace violence.

This courtmartial circus is merely the culmination of Hasan’s entire involvement with the Army during which he may as well have been wearing a sign saying “ENEMY COMBATANT”.  His superiors knew that Hasan was at best deranged and at worst a soldier for the jihadis.  The soldiers that Hasan murdered did not die because Hasan made any attempt to conceal what he was and is, a jihadist, but because his superiors cravenly did not wish to stand up against him for fear of harming their own careers and being accused of anti-Islamic bias.

NPR of all places has an excellent report showing that before he was assigned to Fort Hood from Walter Reed, that his superiors knew that Hasan was a likely threat:

 

 

When a group of key officials gathered in the spring of 2008 for their monthly meeting in a Bethesda, Md., office, one of the leading — and most perplexing — items on their agenda was: What should we do about Hasan?

Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials’ radar since he started training at Walter Reed, six years earlier. Several officials confirm that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work.

Both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan’s behavior — which they variously called disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid. The officials say he antagonized some students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist Islamic views. His supervisors at Walter Reed had even reprimanded him for telling at least one patient that “Islam can save your soul.”

Participants in the spring meeting and in subsequent conversations about Hasan reportedly included John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed; Robert Ursano, chairman of the Psychiatry Department at USUHS; Charles Engel, assistant chair of the Psychiatry Department and director of Hasan’s psychiatry fellowship; Dr. David Benedek, another assistant chairman of psychiatry at USUHS; psychiatrist Carroll J. Diebold; and Scott Moran, director of the psychiatric residency program at Walter Reed, according to colleagues and other sources who monitor the meetings.

NPR tried to contact all these officials and the public affairs officers at the institutions. They either didn’t return phone calls or said they could not comment.

But psychiatrists and officials who are familiar with the conversations, which continued into the spring of 2009, say they took a remarkable turn: Is it possible, some mused, that Hasan was mentally unstable and unfit to be an Army psychiatrist?

One official involved in the conversations had reportedly told colleagues that he worried that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide, like the Muslim U.S. Army sergeant who, in 2003, killed two fellow soldiers and injured 14 others by setting off grenades at a base in Kuwait.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Political Correctness Made Cowards of Them All

  • It has taken the U.S. Army 44 months to even put this blatantly guilty man on trial. Either the procedural articles in the Code of Military Justice are nonsense or there is a crew of JAGs up and down the hierarchy who need to be flushed out of the service for efficiency’s sake. When I had to know something about this (ca. 1986), New York State Courts could process a murder case from arrest to jury verdict in a median of 13 months.

    What Glenn Reynolds said about Bradley Manning applies in this case: the scandal is that he was in the Army to begin with.

  • I do not doubt that you are correct in your assessment, Don but I think that there is a more subtle problem going on: equal employment opportunity and discrimination law have created a paralyzing environment for employers and that prevents them from taking action in a timely fashion.

    I have observed many examples of bizarre, counterproductive behavior in employees that absolutely demanded action but were dealt with with kid gloves. I observed directly, for example this incident in 2000:

    A supervisor, having repeatedly received complaints about a clerk’s dirty and smelly sweatpants, brought him into his office to again remind him about the dress code and to tell him that he would have to go home and change. The employee flipped out, knocked all of the files of of the supervisor’s desk, and stormed out. (I was standing 3 feet away because the raised voices made me consider that I may need to physically intervene.) He then stormed over to the Deputy Director’s office, shook a fist at her as she jumped out of her chair and put the rolling chair and desk between her and him, and threatened “I’m going to beat you into a bloody mess!” By that time, the supervisor, me, and two other officers had gotten between him and her and were forcing him out of the office. He then stormed out of the building.

    The result? 2 days Admin Leave and a referral to the Employee Assistance Program – voluntary, of course.

    I’ve heard many similar anecdotes – only one as bad – in the last 20 years. The stories come from hospitals, government, non-profits, and private companies; All seem to have similar stories of management shackled by human resources rules that are far more restrictive even than the law.

    I have had every single hiring decision challenged in some way. We win all of them because I spend an immense amount of time making sure that I am getting the best possible hire and following the rules to the letter. Mind ye, it isn’t hard to get good employees in this horrible economy. I see 100+ applicants for every $45K job. Calling those who were interviewed but not selected is a real mixed bag. On the last hire – January – one non-selectee said “I know I was the best qualified candidate so why didn’t you give me the job.” Of 213 applicants, she “knows” she was the best qualified?

    We can’t call former supervisors to get the scoop on past employment and wouldn’t get anything we could use even if we could. We can’t be honest with those who ask us for an assessment either, cordoned to specific, useless information like verifying that a person did, in fact, work for us during a specific timeframe.

    All of this employment and discrimination law creates a backdrop for the kinds of incidents you describe. It makes managers fearful of doing their jobs and it puts the organization’s attorneys in the position of holding back on the reigns of justice for fear of suits. The delays can be deadly.

    What is particularly galling is that I have yet to see a legitimate EEOC, employment, or discrimination case that originated from organization action in the last 10 years. Even the biggest cases are speculative and the majority of the employee or applicant actions are resolved by organizations out of fear, not fault.

    Is it any wonder that companies prefer to do business in places without such laws? This is, to my mind, the “elephant in the room.” Business recognizes that they won’t be sued in India or China or Russia or Chile or Brazil and won’t be making employment decisions in an environment of paralyzed fear.

    So, there you have it, my rant for the day. I’m going to have my second cup of coffee now.

  • Jonathan Swift couldn’t concoct such a parody.

    I anticipate reading a MSM defense of the drone strike that liquidates Major Hasan . . .

  • With this development, as with news that Al Jazeera US has launched, tells me that Islam has conquered in the West, but not by a head-on conflict, which failed centuries ago, because of the internal rot, as outlined by David above.

    I really think we’re done for at least for the next generation or two. What comes next? Barbarians a la the downfall of Rome? It’s frightening for a family man.

    Yes, there are pockets of resistance but outposts are continually surrendered. We’ve been told that we should no longer debate the marriage issue but focus on other topics. What other topics? What’s left? I’m not an anti-clericalist (right or left-wing) but the clergy and hierarchy as a corporate body (I don’t mean individuals) lost the culture wars decades ago. They’ve lost on the “gay” issue. Before that it was contraception and divorce. Even where the rules were still on the books, the message was frequently watered down or the clergy was complicit by their silence. They are going to have to be a lot more outspoken, and clear (i.e. in plain black and white, not so many useless ambiguities) to make up for the damage.

    Only Russia’s Putin for all his vices seems to voice common sense on cultural issues. A strange irony! I say all this having keep my pessimism and paranoia at bay for years. I just can’t do it any longer. Sorry. If there’s cause for hope, let me know! I would love to be an optimist.

  • Re: Mr. Spaulding’s remarks. It is indicative of the pathology of public discussion in this country that one would be hard put to think of a public advocate for repealing employment discrimination law even though millions have been through the kabuki theatre of the contemporary job interview as conducted by enterprises concerned with compliance and even though everyone is aware that discrimination is widely practiced and permitted for applicants outside certain preference categories. I can think of three occasions in 35 years where I have read a published argument for repeal. One was by the publisher of an obscure and long defunct alternative weekly in Rochester, N.Y. – a man of libertarian sympathies (that would have been around 1990 and the man in question would now be in his late 50s and in some other line of work), one was by the political theorist Gottfried Dietze (foreign born, had tenure, now deceased), and one was by the legal scholar Richard Epstein (has tenure). Dr. Dietze told his students that his arguments (offered in his monograph America’s Political Dilemma and encompassing much more than the new civil rights legislation) were considered so outre in 1968 he could not persuade anyone to review the book. He was a personal friend of Wm. F. Buckley and the book was accessible to the general reader, but Buckley would not allocate space to a review. (Dietze was offering normative arguments. The practical problems with employment discrimination law had not hit home).

  • I feel sorry for Hasan. Wait, wait, hear me out.

    He is trying to be perfectly clear about his religious struggle.

    It will not restore the dead to life with loved ones here and now.

    But he is trying to educate Americans about the logical extremes of Islam.

    The Obama administration, the military, the media are trying to shut him up.

  • on topic,

    with the new disparate impact guidance from EEOC, and Tom Perez beginning his reign of terror at Labor,

    I expect I could start a business organizing white people with criminal backgrounds to apply for jobs so that companies can hit their quota of rejected white criminals.

  • I find it curious that I agree with Matt A’s observation about Putin.

    We will never know what Putin has done. As a regional KGB chief, covering Moscow during the Soviet Era, I think we can safely say that he has probably done much that would be classified as a crime in the US.

    And yet, his efforts to restore something akin to a conscience and general mores in Russian society are laudable. I am reminded of Augustine of Hippo’s father who, though utterly pagan, sought to instill a kind of virtue in Augustine.

    Of course, following that idea out, it was Christ that saved Augustine, not his father’s pagan virtues. Let us pray that Christ will redeem us before we experience the horror of another fall of Rome.

  • It baffles me that the powers in charge can present this charade with a straight face. It is so blatantly obvious that Hasan is a jihadi terrorist that to assert otherwise is absolutely stupefying. It violates the truth in much the same way that Nancy Pelosi says that abortion is “sacred ground” violates the truth. It does so by creating an absolute fiction to substitute for what all of one’s senses are screaming into the brain, and then believing it to be true. The only parallel I can think of is the cult of personality surrounding the Kim dynasty in North Korea. There, the truth is whatever the dictator says, and to even consider an alternative is treason worthy of death. I saw a documentary where American eye surgeons went to North Korea and operated on people who could not receive care from domestic surgeons. Then, with the surgeon who actually did the operation standing right there removing the bandages, these patients praised Kim for restoring their eyesight with a charismatic religious fervor that would put a Pentecostal to shame.

    It’s really a satanic perversion of what is holy. Christ proclaimed that He is the way, the truth, and the life. Truth and life are thus holy. In this instance, truth is defied as Christ Himself is defied. Instead, a falsehood is substituted and worshiped, created out of the imagination of the State and demanding obedience from all. And so they create a lie that doesn’t even contain a shred of the truth, demanding that we bow down before it no matter how absurd. In fact, the more absurd, the better. The further they can get from the truth, the further they can get from Christ, and so the lie they create gets even more and more absurd. May Heaven help us!

  • Addendum to my original comment: A large number of priests and bishops are good and holy men. Without them we could not get through this cultural catastrophe. We need the Church founded by Christ. I was merely voicing my extreme frustration — which I rarely do, being more like Mr. Spock in my public comments — with many of those in positions of leadership. But that’s humanity for you.

    On a separate point, I enjoyed David Spaulding’s further comments on Putin. Is a comparison with Constantine in order? The man had his character defects but he was God’s chosen instrument as the proximate material means of ending anti-Christian persecution. I’m not saying that Putin’s role here, but such could be the case with a leader in the future.

  • What were those thirteen he killed chopped liver?

    I am volunteering to be one of the shooters in Hasan’s firing squad. I’d pop him in the gut.

    I am buying a case of Stoli. Putin (in banning pro-sodomy propaganda) is more Catholic than . . .

  • Hasan insists that he is a soldier of Allah, with a mission to kill Americans in behalf of Islam. He will be found guilty, and that should reverse the “workplace violence” nonsense that unjustly denies proper recognition and benefits to the victims of his attack. Such political correctness is a total inversion of reality, typical of that which pervades our sick latter day culture.

  • I can only assume that the true motivation behind the court’s absurd ruling was the same motivation that caused the administration to classify Hasan’s multiple murders as being workplace violence.
    –Donald R. McClarey

    At the time, no Christian filmmaker was available for convenient scapegoating. Or the DOD PC-munists weren’t as cunning as their counterparts in Hillary’s State Department and hadn’t thought of that ploy.

    As for Col. Tara Osborn the courts martial judge, she herself is another argument against tolerating females in the military.

  • News form Killeen, TX: The jihadi was convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

    Sentencing Monday.

Three Years and Counting

Tuesday, December 4, AD 2012

 

 

Hattip to Ann Althouse.  Major Nidal Hasan on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded 29 others.  Since that time his trial has been pending.  And pending.  And pending.  The latest development?  The military judge presiding over the case has been removed.  Why?  Because, pursuant to regulations, he ordered that Hasan be forced to shave his beard.

Although the military judge here stated that [Hasan’s] beard was a ‘disruption,’ there was insufficient evidence on this record to demonstrate that [Hasan’s] beard materially interfered with the proceedings,” the unsigned ruling said.
“Taken together…. the decision to remove [Hasan] from the courtroom, the contempt citations and the decision to order [Hasan’s] forcible shaving in the absence of any command action to do the same could leave an objective observer to conclude that the military judge was not impartial.”

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Three Years and Counting

  • What an abject farce this trial has become for justice. Hasan should have been court-martialed and executed within six months. Does having a Muslim for a president have anything to do with this unconscionable miscarriage of justice.

  • In Scotland, we have a rule, going back to the Wrongeous Imprisonment Act of 1701, that an accused in custody must be served with an indictment, containing a list of witnesses and productions, within 80 days of the accused being charged. This time limit cannot be extended. The diet must call within 110 days of detention and the assize must be sworn within 140 days. This can be extended only by reason of sickness of the accused or a witness.

    These rules work, even in the most complex cases, which this, plainly, is not.

  • Beacuse the “rule of law” is no longer operative in the United States of America.

    Disparate treatment, compare and contrast: lone-wolf, jihadi Hasan and Arab Christian producer of a YouTube Muslim truth documentary that was seen by 16 people saw.

    Here is a picture from Tahrir Sq. that will never be seen in the USA:

    https://twitter.com/betsy_hiel/status/276027241115295744/photo/1

  • The Fifth Amendment: Habeas Corpus which Obama has obliterated with the National Defense Authorization Act. Each and every law must be applied with equity. Perhaps Hasan ought to be tried under the Articles of War as a traitor.

Work Place Violence. Sure.

Friday, October 19, AD 2012

2 Responses to Work Place Violence. Sure.

  • Workplace violence?
    After watching this heartbreaking story and how the Osama administration tries cowardly to deny this assault for what it truly is, I believe its only fair to call every day Osama is in Our White House TRULY WORKPLACE VIOLENCE on us.

    Every single day is an assault on Americans from Osama. Yes Osama! Call it what it is.

  • Thanks for linking to this powerful video.

Mosque Opponents: Be Careful What You Wish For, You Might Get It

Saturday, August 28, AD 2010

The debate over the so-called Ground Zero mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center in New York has raised public interest in, and opposition to, other proposed or recently built mosques and Islamic centers throughout the country.

In areas where Muslim migration or immigration has been significant, some citizens have attempted to discourage construction of new mosques. Few come right out and cite the threat of terrorism; more often they seem to resort to time-honored NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) tactics such as creative interpretation of zoning ordinances, claims of decreased property values, or claims of real or potential problems with traffic, noise, etc.

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I understand the need to be vigilant regarding the potential for violent subversion, as well as the dangers of taking such a politically correct approach to militant Islam that people hesitate to report obvious suspicious activity for fear of being labeled bigots (as seems to have happened in the Fort Hood massacre case).

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Mosque Opponents: Be Careful What You Wish For, You Might Get It

  • Outstanding article — thank you!!

    Question (and please forgive this social-networking-backward-participant!):

    Why doesn’t American Catholic enable readers to SHARE this via Facebook? (Maybe I’m flunking the IQ test and missed the link??? I just did a “copy & paste” on the link above on my FB page . . . Sad to say, I am still trying to figure out this RSS stuff!!!)

    Thank you!

  • Elaine,

    You raise some very valid points. But, did Catholicism, or the perversion therof, and Catholics or any Christians for that matter murder 3000 innocents on September 11? Or have Catholics or Christians committed bombings in recent years or pose threats of bombings around the world?

    I think the problem here is that the Muslims who have proposed this mosque have displayed absolutely NO sensitivity to the families of victims of 9/11 while demanding all the tolerance in the world from those 9/11 families,as well as other citizens. These “moderate” Muslims claim that they want to build bridges but all they are doing by forcing the building of this mosque at this partiular ultra-sensitive location is burning bridges. Why is this location so important when there are over 100 mosques located in NYC already? How is this mosque being funded? By terrorist organizations or not? I believe in order for the community as a whole to benefit from this mosque our government and our citizens must be as certain as possible that this mosque is not funded by terrorist organizations and will not be used as a terrorist training center under the guise of religious freedom. If the mayor and others would be willing to look into the mosque’s financial funding I believe that this would allay many peoples’ fears.

    I do understand that the people behind the building of the mosque has a right to be built according to civil law. But, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, if zoning laws and aesthetics can trump one’s right to build why could the sensitivity to those families who had loved ones killed by a single act of war trump one’s right to build?

    As to the issue of this mosque being two blocks away from the primary ground zero site: Would you agree that wherever the planes hit or any of its part on 9/11 should be considered Ground Zero? If so, then so should the Burlington building since a part of the plane hit that building.

    I think this whole controversy could have been avoided if the NYC commission had shown some prudential judgment and declared the Burlingtion building as a historical landmark.

  • I agree that it wasn’t a good idea for the mosque/Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero. I see nothing wrong with encouraging them to build elsewhere. The $64,000 question, however, is whether or not the local government has a right to explicitly FORBID them to build at the site. That’s where the danger of setting a bad precedent comes in.

  • Elaine a ban on construction of new places of worship would be clearly unconstitutional and would not stand up in court longer than the time it takes a Chicago alderman to pocket a bribe. No one has been disputing the right of the Flim Flam Imam and his Cordoba Initiative (Dhimmis Always Welcome!) to build this Mosque, but whether it is right for them to do so. I am keenly aware of the frequent divergence of a legal right and a moral right. My opposition might well not exist if a local group of Muslims had wished to put up a Mosque for local worship. I think the Flim Flam Imam clearly has an agenda that has little to do with worshiping Allah, and quite a bit to do with furthering his Cordoba Initiative which has one message for gullible Western elites and another message for his backers in the Middle East.

  • I thought this post by Bob Murphy about the Glenn Beck rally today was a propos:

    Of course Mr. Beck and his fans have every legal right to hold a rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech.

    Nonetheless, we are asking that they hold their rally a few blocks away, and on a different date. There are 364 other days in the year; what’s wrong with them?
    Now look, we know full well that Mr. Beck and his supporters claim that they are trying to heal racial division. Intellectually, we black Americans know that just because we have been brutalized by angry white conservative males for as long as we can remember, that doesn’t mean that all angry white conservative males pose a threat to our physical safety.

    But this isn’t about logic or rationality. This is about sensitivity to our feelings. Surely Mr. Beck can understand why a majority of American blacks wouldn’t appreciate him holding a rally on the anniversary of Dr. King’s famous speech. If he goes ahead with his plans, he won’t promote racial unity. So we ask him to hold the rally in a different place, on a different date.

  • Teresa – Did you seriously just say that Christians have not bombed or killed significant numbers of people? Check the stats on our current wars sometime.

  • As usual, Blackadder mistakes cuteness for substance. By now Blackadder is aware that the objections to the Mosque are not grounded in a general objection to anything at all being built near Ground Zero.

  • “Teresa – Did you seriously just say that Christians have not bombed or killed significant numbers of people? Check the stats on our current wars sometime.”

    Our wars being the equivalent of Bin Laden’s murder of 3,000 innocent men, women and children? Moral equivalency: the opiate of the politically correct.

  • While I agree with Donald that the proposed ban shouldn’t pass constitutional muster (there’s a case that states you can’t ban all forms of religious speech-I think it’s Rosenberger v. Rectors & Vistors of UVA), you are absolutely right in stating that the opposition to the mosque establishes a precedent that is far more dangerous to Catholics than to Muslims insofar as some are advocating legal means to interfere with the building of the mosque.

  • “I think the Flim Flam Imam clearly has an agenda that has little to do with worshiping Allah, and quite a bit to do with furthering his Cordoba Initiative which has one message for gullible Western elites and another message for his backers in the Middle East.”

    Donald, I agree.

    Blackadder,
    If Alveda King has no problem with the rally I don’t see why any other person, of any color black, white, red, brown etc., should have a problem with Beck and others honoring Martin Luther King Jr’s message of equality for all. Yeah, and if he didn’t do anything honoring Martin Luther King the Left would make accusations about no person caring about blacks and spreading King’s message, so Your “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” according to liberalism.

    Martin,
    First, is that an admission that our nation is rooted in Christian values?

    Second, Did we really go to war as “Christians” or as a nation fighting against terrorism and for our nation’s national defense?

    Third, I didn’t know that a group of Christians not associated with the U.S. government went off on their own and specifically targeted a building or another location just to murder Iraqi inocents? I think your the person who is a little confused with reality, Martin.

    Fourth, Please name me one war in history that has had no civilian casualties?

  • I’m with Gen’l. (Vinegar) Joe Stillwell, “Don’t let the bastards wear you down.”

  • It isn’t even a matter of where the mosque is being built – replace the entire WTC site with the biggest mosque in the world, no problem – PROVIDED Islam changes its ways.

    I realize all the 1st Amendment issues involved here – but until I am no longer considered such subhuman filth that I cannot enter the precincts of Mecca, then I’m going to hold that Moslems must be curbed in what they do in the United States. Not stopped – not expelled; just carefully curtailed to ensure that everyone, especially in the Moslem world, knows that we have not lost our back bone.

    Tolerance does not mean going along happily with whatever someone wants to do – it is a two way street and it requires some compromise. We can easily tolerate a mosque in Manhattan – but we can’t tolerate it hard by Ground Zero…not now, and not until Islam changes its tune.

    Mark Noonan

  • Blackadder,

    I wonder if the author of that piece can find even a single black man brutalized by a conservative white man in the past 40 years.

  • We might just consider the possibility that these local pols want to limit the quantum of non-taxable property in that particular locality. Piggy, but unsurprising.

    It is not a novelty for houses of worship to face zoning tangles. Given the size of the metropolitan New York area, you will have to excuse me if I suggest that prohibiting the placement of a 13 story building of a particular character at a historic site of modest dimensions is a measure different in kind than prohibiting all construction of houses of worship in a given municipality.

    Martin:

    As far as I am aware, the Marine Corps does not have an icon of St. Michael on their weaponry and al-Qaeda does not do civil affairs projects.

  • Here’s my $64,000,000.03 question.

    If religious freedom/tolerance requires a $100 million mosque over the WTC site. How is religious liberty/tolerance served by denying the rebuild of THE Orthodox Church that THE muslim terrorists destroyed on 11 Sep 2001?

    AD:

    No! It’s much worse than that! USMC heroes wear (gasp) US flags on their uniforms.

    Re AQ civil affairs projects: They’re helping make Americans good. They believe the only good American is a dead American.

  • Lot of assumptions in this post; the assumption that the REAL motive folks have is fear of terrorism, and that they can’t possibly object for the reasons they give:

    zoning ordinances, claims of decreased property values, or claims of real or potential problems with traffic, noise, etc.

    Evidence for this claim? I know that the blog Beers with Demo did the research to show a pattern of harassment against a church in his area, but a blanket claim that 1) Mosques are being unusually opposed and 2) it is because of fears of terrorism is a claim that requires more than just a claim to be taken seriously.

    There’s also the issue of using charged terms inaccurately. NIMBY, while meaning “not in my back yard,” also implies that something is not opposed in general. (Example, opposing wind power generators in your area while promoting wind energy in general.)
    People who are worried about Islamic terror risings from Mosques are going to be bright enough to remember the home mosques of the 9/11 terrorists were far, far away, and would appose them in general, not just specific.

    Your notion of equivalence between “there shall be no non-profit organizational buildings in our district” and “no, you may not build a triumphalist religious center on the ruins created by said religion” is mind bending.

  • Martin-
    Go troll someplace else.

  • Wow. Far-ranging discussion.

    First, the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The religion piece really has no bearing on the discussion over the Cordoba Mosque proposed for Ground Zero.

    How many mosques are there in Manhattan? About a hundred? Sounds like pretty free exercise of religion to me.

    Second: I challenge any black person who reads this blogs, or any black person who’s a friend of someone who reads this blog, to tell me the date of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. I had to memorize parts of it as a child (stand down, racialists: I’m Black). Never knew what day it was given; barely knew it was in August. Glenn Beck planned this rally (which I wish I had had time to attend)for the last Saturday in August. An lo and behold, what date did that happen to fall on? Why, August 28! August the 28th, which happened to be an anniversary of Dr. King’s speech!

    Why should a mosque be built at the site of a murder committed by people motivated by Islam? Why should a church of any type be built at the site of the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jewish people (and others, including Catholic Saints)? Why should the Japanese in Hawaii build a temple at the site of the sunken USS Arizona?

    Answer? None of them should. Because it’s disrespectful. Why is this so hard to grasp? And what does it tell those who truly hate us about whether we will truly resist them?

    It is not un-Christian to stand up for common politeness.

  • Gee, RR, why didn’t you link to this much more recent article on those idiots?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/nyregion/08hate.html

    Those morons were accused of racial hate crimes and seem to be gang related. Notably, not “conservative white men”– just idiot gang members. (is that redundant?)

  • What are you trying to prove by arguing that white people no longer attack black people? For one, it’s a sad, callous, and absurd battle to fight. Do you, like, remember this one time, in, like, 1992 in LA where, like, some white cops beat up this black guy named Rodney King? White on black violence occurs a lot, as does black on white, white on white, black on black, brown on black, brown on white, brown on brown, white on brown, black on brown, etc, etc, etc.

    Also, please STOP calling it a mosque. A mosque is specifically a Muslim holy place where only prayer can be conducted. This is a Muslim community center, similar to a YMCA. It will have a culinary school, basketball courts, etc. With a prayer room on one or two of the fifteen or so floors.

    I can think of Catholic terrorism pretty easily: the IRA. And that was specifically religio-nationalist.

    It is utterly absurd to demand that “Islam” renounce its terroristic ways before the community center is built, as Mr. Noonan said. A religion cannot change its ways. People can change their ways, but abstract nouns cannot. And the people behind this community center have no terroristic tendencies to modify. Furthermore, there is no central authority for Islam as there is for Catholicism. In fact, some radical sects of Muslims hate opposing Islamic sects more than they hate America. Like al-Qaeda. Bin Laden hates America not “for our freedoms” but because we prop up the (in his mind) heretical Saud monarchy in Arabia.

    Quite frankly, it’s astounding that a debate over a Muslim community center is occurring in 21st century America. As someone who would never have voted for George Bush, I will say that I am so grateful that he modeled Christ’s love to American Muslims by not targeting them after 9/11, as seems to be occurring now.

  • Pingback: Opponents of mosque may soon see tables turned | Holy Post | National Post
  • I would like to ask everyone – Do you think that Islam can be a “moderate” religion? I am not saying Muslims cannot be moderates, but can the religion itself really ever be considered moderate since it follows Sharia law?

    If Sharia law is one of the precepts of Islam then why wouldn’t Sharia law fall under the guise of religious freedom and challenge the constitution in several capacities and force all of us citizens to respect and follow Sharia as well? Is Sharia law and the Constitution really compatible?

    If those who believe in the “letter of the Constitution” instead of the “spirit of the Constitution” with regards to religious freedom truly believe that religious freedom is absolute without taking into account our national security interests (as it seems to me) how could one deny Muslims the “right” to follow their “moderate” religion that includes Sharia Law which would also impose Sharia Laws on the non-Muslim citizens when that clearly clashes with our Constitution?

    You might want to look at a some things that Sharia law demands:

    1 – Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

    2 – A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

    3 – A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

    4 – A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

    5 – It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

    6 – A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

    7 – The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

    8 – A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

    9 – A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

    10 – A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

    11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

    12 – Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

    13 – Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

    14 – It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

    15 – A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

    16 – Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

    17 – No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

    18 – A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

    19 – H***sexuality is punishable by death.

    20 – There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

    21 – Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

    22 – Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

    23 – There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

    24 – A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

    25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

    26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

    27 – A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

    28 – The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

    29- A woman loses custody if she remarries.

    30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

    31 – A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

    32 – A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

    33 – A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

    The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

  • Ryan-
    who are you talking to?
    NO ONE was talking about “whites never attack blacks”. Blackadder posted a quote of someone claiming that “angry white conservative males” have been brutalizing blacks for “as long as they can remember,” and someone else challenged him to find a single case of a white conservative assaulting a black person. RR then posted an article that implied but did not claim anti-Dem motives, and which five minutes of research showed to just be gang idiots.

    Secondly, go yell at the Cordoba House proponents, and even the initiative itself; half the time, they call it a mosque. (Generally when they want to drum up the religion side of it; when it’s more flattering to emphasize the “community center” side, it becomes a building that includes a mosque.)

    If the reading comprehension and careful consideration of the argument you’ve shown in this post is standard for you, no wonder you can’t see how this is a topic for valid debate. Straw men with only a nodding acquaintance to the topic aren’t very good aids to understanding.

    A wise lady once told me that if you can’t argue the other side of something, you have no business arguing your own side because you clearly don’t know enough about the topic. I try to keep it in mind, maybe you should try it?

  • In response to jihad etc…

    I am not sure where you are getting your information on what jihad and sharia is….but you have incorrect information. Jihad and sharia is much more complex then what you have stated. As I have reserached this extensively I will just point out very plainly and in layman terms what jihad is. Jihad means “struggle”.
    More commonly known in the Muslim world as an internal spiritual struggle to be better and serve God. It can also mean warfare where one needs to defend themselves when attacked- so it has two meanings to it. There are a lot of inaccuracies in your e-mail and I do not have time to go over them now…but one just to correct one is that bride money is not given for sexual organs. Bride money is called “mehr” and it is an obligatory gift that the groom must give his wife so that she is not left with nothing if he decides to leave her. It is the right of a woman and not a man. Actually in researching Muslims I found that there are a lot of similaries to Catholicism…and then there were differences as well. An interesting bit of information I came across was “Marriage helps men and women to develop along natural lines and head towards development and success through mutual co-operation. Marriage prevents immorality licentiousness and irresponsibility. The spouses in marriage agree to share rights and responsibilities to develop a happy family”….doesn’t that sound like something Catholics believe in as well? What happened on 9/11 was plain WRONG. I have friends who are Muslims and they beleive it is wrong…they say that the people who did this are crazy. So I have to think before I judge anyone and encourage you to do the same.

  • Sandy-
    please do not misrepresent your study, which seems to have been of the more modern and mild forms of Islam, as representative of Islam in general.

    Also, your definition of “mehr” is incorrect, (In Canada, it often functions like a pre-nup– often enough that a basic google will bring up a LOT of legal help boards.) as is your characterization of Jihaad.
    (links to understanding-Islam.com, which is affiliated with Al-Mawrid Islamic Research foundation out of Pakistan.)

  • Foxfier, white conservatives can’t be in gangs?

  • RR,

    Gangs are color neutral, but I’m having a hard time picturing how a conservative could be in a gang since gang life and activities run counter to conservative values. My guess is that you’re perhaps angling toward skinheads because the media like to call them conservatives. However, conservatives have about as much appreciation for neo-nazis as they do racist gangs/parties typically associated with the left, which is to say none.

  • “Gang life and activities run counter to conservative values”

    Well, it goes without saying that violence, vandalism, drug use, other criminal activity, and intimidation of non-members go against conservative values (and probably even the values of most moderates and liberals I know).

    But, isn’t it true that gang membership, especially among urban teens, basically takes the place of the families they don’t have — giving them a structure, culture and sense of belonging that they don’t get from absent or incarcerated or unknown fathers, mothers who change boyfriends as often as they change clothes, being shuffled from one relative to another, etc.?

    So in that sense, gang membership does express (albeit in a perverted or distorted fashion) one very important “conservative” value: the absolute primacy of the family as the basic unit of society, and the consequences that result when it is undermined or destroyed.

  • I can think of Catholic terrorism pretty easily: the IRA. And that was specifically religio-nationalist.

    True to some extent. But it wasn’t expansionist.

  • Actually I think in a number of areas there are limits on, if not the building of churches, at least the size of churches. Where I once lived this limit made it impractical to build a Catholic Church as the size limit was too small for what was required to meet the needs of the Catholic population without building multiple small churches. Those restrictions were placed in the 90’s as I recall. No big First Ammendment concerns have been raised. Perhaps they should.

  • Mary Margaret Cannon,

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

    Until recently, WordPress.com did not allow this function (WordPress.org does I believe).

    But today I noticed this option was now available and I have just finished adding this particular function.

    Enjoy!

  • Hey, why not make a page, too? You can set it up to autopublish your blog with the “notes” feed, or us
    e http://apps.facebook.com/blognetworks/newuser1.php

  • Foxfier,

    We have ‘something’ on Facebook, not sure what.

    I’m going to investigate and get this set-up/streamlined for greater social-networking-optimization (SNO).

  • Scott Gentries might want to take a look at this:

  • …Might strike home if the primary arguments weren’t specifically related to the history and culture of Islam, Ryan.

    Fail.

  • RL, if conservatives can’t be in gangs by definition then sure there are no white conservatives in gangs. There are no Catholics in gangs either then.

  • i would like to point out that the proposal only bars new buildings, and not changing the use to of already constructed ones. the mosque near to us was once a church, a church was previously a synagogue, and the nigerian christian group uses a clothing warehouse.

  • Teresa, half of what you said is inaccurate / disinformation. if the USA followed the other half, maybe they wont have millions of inmates that the taxpayer has to support.

  • I would just like to point out a couple of things that are on point:

    1. It’s not a mosque. It’s a community center, and you can read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html?_r=1&src=tptw the words of the chairman of the project, stating that one of the many goals of it is to include prayer centers for those of Christian and Jewish faiths in hopes that this will strengthen interfaith relations.

    2. I’m not usually a fan of Charlie Brooker, but he hit one point straight on the head when he said that being a 2 minute walk and around the corner is not at all the same thing as being AT the same location. He said something like, he’s used a bathroom 2 minutes away from Buckingham Palace, and has yet to be arrested for defecating on the Queen’s pillow. We’re talking about Manhattan, and if you’ve ever been there, it’s a crowded place. How close is too close, exactly?

    3. To the person who said Catholic/Christian extremists haven’t bombed or killed significant numbers of people in recent years, I ask: Have you ever heard of the Irish Republican Army? Visit Belfast or Glasgow sometime and ask around – just… be careful in which neighborhood you ask and what colors you’re wearing when you do.

  • 4. On the topic of how Muslim women are clothed, ask yourself if you’ve ever questioned the chaste garb (and lifestyle, for that matter) of nuns and priests. I bet you just take it as a matter of course, because it’s what you’re used to. Of course, there is spousal abuse and other unsavory activity that goes on among members of the Islamic faith, but again, look closer to home. Surely you cannot insist that no Catholic or Christian has ever abused another human being.

  • Brian,

    Strawman.

    The IRA is a nationalist organization. To be more accurate, they are a violent Marxist nationalist organization looking to impose communism under the guise of being “Irish” and “Catholic”.

    Being Catholic has nothing to do with it.

    They don’t espouse anything Christian AT ALL.

    You’ve never heard them saying they are dying in the name of Jesus. Only in the name of Ireland.

    You need to do better than that to espouse your anti-Christian bigotry around here.

  • Brian,

    Again your bias is grossly revealing itself.

    Religious wear their clericals as a choice, not in being imposed.

    Whilst on the other hand Muslims force women to wear burkas, regardless of their religiosity.

  • Brian, you’re exposing your ignorance or willful blindness– the folks building it called it a mosque until their PR guys realized that was not so good. They also called it the Cordoba House, until word got around what that indicated, especially with the 9/11/11 opening date.

    Also, you’re pointing to an opinion piece in the NY Times. Not exactly hard, unbiased facts– I notice you didn’t bother to do the research Powerline did about another time that “chairman” spoke in the NYTimes.

    As Teresa pointed out above, a building destroyed by chunks of the plane on 9/11 is part of ground zero.

Fort Hood Shooter: Passing the Buck

Tuesday, January 12, AD 2010

4 Responses to Fort Hood Shooter: Passing the Buck

  • “Still, Hasan’s officer evaluation reports were consistently more positive, usually describing his performance as satisfactory and at least twice as outstanding. Known as “OERs,” the reports are used to determine promotions and assignments. The Army promoted Hasan to captain in 2003 and to major in 2009.”

    In my day “satisfactory” on an OER (fitrep in those days) was the kiss of death for any career. There was grade inflation in evals and uless one got a fair number of “outstandings” one was not going to get promoted. Perhaps someone was trying to ease out Hasan in the long-haul. Of course not noticing what was going on in the here and now.

  • Yeesh. A jihadi Frank Burns.
    Just what the Army needed.

  • Brilliant cminor!

  • “They gave Hasan glowing reviews so he would be promoted, transferred and be someone else’s problem.”

    Happened all the time in the navy with women and minorities. No one would risk the label of chauvinist or racist.

Walter Reed Officials Suspected Hasan Was Psychotic

Wednesday, November 11, AD 2009

Nidal Malik Hasan

The more we learn about this story the more unbelievable it becomes.  NPR is reporting here that starting in the Spring of 2008 officials held a series of meetings  during which one of the subjects of discussion was whether Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan was psychotic. 

Starting in the spring of 2008, key officials from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences held a series of meetings and conversations, in part about Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens of others last week during a shooting spree at Fort Hood. One of the questions they pondered: Was Hasan psychotic?

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Walter Reed Officials Suspected Hasan Was Psychotic

  • It is, perhaps, not fair to draw a parallel but I sense an eerie similarity between the chain of events in this case and the chain of events in some of the more egregious sexual abuse cases that our Church suffered through.

  • “Thus political correctness running rampant caused those who could have stopped Hasan to sit on their hands until this tragedy erupted. Contemptible.”

    This political correctness that places innocents in harm’s way goes beyond contemptible. It’s treasonous.

  • MASH message for Islamic terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan:

    Mr. Hasan,

    May you be swiftly executed, may you rot in Hell for eternity, and may your family be ashamed of you for as long as they shall live.

    With utmost contempt,

    Muslims Against Sharia

    http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/11/fort-hood.html

  • It’s beyond comtemptible. They believed that man was sick, and did nothing. If they had believed he had cancer or diabetes, they would have done something about it. I don’t blame political correctness, I blame the way we view mental illness as shameful. If mental illness were viewed the same as physical illness (which it is), they would have forced Major Hasan to get help, and all of this would have been avoided.

  • What’s the evidence that he was actually *psychotic*? Are there reports he was hearing voices, hallucinated or had some other personality disorder? If so, then yes, perhaps he was psychotic.

    I think we fling “insane” around far too often, instead of recognizing that sometimes people imbibe, then internalize deeply evil ideas and act on them. The insanity card allows us to avoid more difficult questions, to our discredit. More to the point, it leaves us vulnerable to similar actions in the future.

  • Probably suspected he was psychotic because of his behavior. His behavior was so extreme that, for one in the psychology mindset, he must have been psychotic. When there was no proof of this, then they must of let it drop because it couldn’t have been because of his Muslim beliefs.

  • Phillip, that makes sense. To someone with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

    It reminds me of the days before 9/11, when the war with jihadists was viewed through a legal paradigm, not a military one. I never thought I’d look back proudly at the courage of those who used to say that Islam is a religion of peace, it really is, but a small number of people have gotten a tiny bit carried away. You’d never hear language that strong from the White House nowadays.

  • “They were afraid to take action against a Muslim officer …”

    Well said, counsellor, and so comforting to know that you have the insight directly into people to actually know this. Did that kind of argument work well in the courtroom for you?

    “Thus political correctness running rampant caused those who could have stopped Hasan to sit on their hands until this tragedy erupted.”

    And naturally the reason would not be a failure of leadership within the military. Let’s remember this guy was going to Afghanistan, too. A very safe haven indeed for someone with enemy sympathies. And he was also an officer. Do accusations against military officers tend to come up on scanty evidence, or is there a higher burden of proof?

    I don’t know if this paralysis is contemptible as much as it is part of the culture that honors high leadership, people who are obedient, keep their heads down, and don’t mess with the smooth operation of the status quo.

    What was it they called anti-war Americans in 2002? Blame all that on PC, too?

  • Gee Todd, I guess you’ll come up with some innocent explanation for his Soldier of Allah card.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574546,00.html

    As for going to Afghanistan Hasan was constantly complaining about being deployed and expressing sympathy for the Jihadists we are fighting.

    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/11/muslim_army_major_be.php

    Only idiots, or people concerned with protecting themselves from charges of discrimination, would’t have taken action against Hasan.

    Do you read anything on a subject before you make a completely uninformed comment?

  • A serving officer speaks out about the fatal political correctness that protected Hasan:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/12/why_i_am_angry.html

  • Seems like a lot of the hermeneutic of victimhood. People saw something was wrong, yet they did nothing; and now the pundits blame the heavy hand of pc. And these are the people responsible for defending the country?

    Ever read The Caine Mutiny? Many in my family were military, largely enlisted personnel. It’s almost a joke about the “mindless” leadership that takes place. You might want to expand your thinking to include the possibility that having a commissioned officer as a loon was just beyond the realm of sanity. What happens when subordinates accuse a superior officer? And did Hasan’s superiors have any clue here?

    So yes, Donald, I do a good bit of reading. I also ask a lot of questions, sometimes uncomfortable ones. I don’t accept everything I see on the internet as being gospel. And I’m inclined to dismiss the easy answers people try to feed me.

    Read any good books lately?

  • The Caine Mutiny Todd? Yeah, I think I’ve heard about it.

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/06/14/the-caine-mutiny/

    Of course it is political correctness Todd that is the culprit here. No one would raise a hand to stop Hasan because he is in an official victim class and any officer who would have taken action against him was taking a career ending risk. The fact that you attempt to deny this simple fact speaks volumes about how invested the Left is in regard to this poisonous nonsense.

  • Todd,

    You don’t normally act like a jerk — choosing to roll it out now doesn’t make your sentiments seem more credible.

  • Would you care to elaborate, DC, or has simply disagreeing with your blog partner suddenly become the definition of jerkdom?

    There are a few credible reasons why Major Hasan wasn’t touched. Some conservatives seem willing enough to tack on their favorite cause as some sort of excuse.

    I do think insightful conservatives have much to contribute to this discussion, peeling away at blind spots of the middle or the left. Credibility would suggest a certain reciprocal openness as opposed to acting like, say, jerks.

    Even in an atmosphere of hands-off-the-Muslims, an honorable soldier or certainly even a citizen is obligated to stand up and confront the wrong. Though hindsight is an effective educator here, it seems rather cowardly and self-serving to blame others for one’s own failures.

    Other people have taken the fall in their careers standing up for what is right. We ask military personnel to sacrifice their lives, if called upon to do so. If they’re afraid of pc, I’d hate to think of their reactions on the battle front.

    No, Donald. While I wouldn’t disagree that some Muslims get a pass in some corners, your intuition on this one seems false. And if it’s not, it raises very damning issues of competence for our military. Are we ready to go there?

  • If I am not mistaken, the military has an up-or-out promotion system, and, in contrast to the civil service, commissioned officers are readily separated from the force for errors of one sort or another. (Though perhaps the machine works differently for specialists such as physicians). The conduct described sounds more like a school district apparat than like the military.

    I don’t know if this paralysis is contemptible as much as it is part of the culture that honors high leadership, people who are obedient, keep their heads down, and don’t mess with the smooth operation of the status quo.

    They devote considerable effort to the protection of your supercilious carcass, Todd. A note of appreciation would not be inappropriate, if you can possibly manage it.

  • “No, Donald. While I wouldn’t disagree that some Muslims get a pass in some corners, your intuition on this one seems false. And if it’s not, it raises very damning issues of competence for our military. Are we ready to go there?”

    This doesn’t involve intuition Todd, it merely involves a simple restatement of facts. As I have said from the beginning, the heads should roll of anyone, inside or outside of the Army, who had knowledge of these facts and did nothing to take action against Hasan.

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/10/nidal-malik-hasan-what-did-the-feds-know-prior-to-the-massacre/

    We owe it to Hasan’s victims to make sure that we learn something from this, and that the type of gross incompetence and criminal negligence that caused a Jihadi supporting psychiatrist to have murderous access to our troops is never repeated.

  • Pingback: Fort Hood Shooter: Passing the Buck « The American Catholic

Nidal Malik Hasan: What Did the Feds Know Prior to the Massacre?

Tuesday, November 10, AD 2009

Lots of disturbing facts coming out as to information possessed by the Federal government about  the alleged shooter Nidal Malik Hasan prior to the Fort Hood Massacre.

1.    Internet postings:   At least six months ago Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement authorities regarding internet postings about suicide bombings. 

2.    Attempts to contact al-Qaeda:  US intelligence officials knew for months that Hasan was attempting to contact al-Qaeda operatives.  Apparently the Army was informed of these attempts by Hasan to contact al_Qaeda.  The inquiry was dropped last year because the feds decided that there was no indication he would become violent.  (I guess they were wrong about that.)

3.    Comments made to fellow officers:  Colonel Terry Lee who worked with Hasan makes clear in the above video that Hasan was not shy about making pro-jihadi comments to other officers.    At Walter Reed he gave a lecture to dozens of doctors in which he said that non-believers in Islam should be beheaded and boiling oil forced down their throats (presumably before the beheading), in addition to being condemned to Hell.  For good measure he also said that unbelievers should be set on fire, although after the the boiling oil and the beheading that strikes me as redundant.  I find it difficult to believe that Hasan’s superiors would not have been aware of this type of behavior by him.

4.    Attempts to proselytize: Hasan was disciplined at Walter Reed for attempting to proselytize his Muslim faith to patients and colleagues.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Nidal Malik Hasan: What Did the Feds Know Prior to the Massacre?

  • This is just sick. Pure PC disregard for duty so as not to ‘offend’. How’s that workin’ for ya?

    One thing I will note is that he made a statement that he was Muslim first and American second. I have a problem with that and I am not a hypocrite for saying it. I am Catholic first and American second. However, the Catholic understanding of duty, loyalty, community and patriotism (the 4th degree of the Knights of Columbus BTW) is very different than that of Islam.

    A truly authentic, orthodox, faithful Catholic will be the best citizen of the USA. Our faith directs us to live and possibly die for others on our own initiative in imitation of Christ. That is true sacrificial love.

    The Muslim version of dying for others is skewed. First the reward is not union with the Blessed Trinity it is a Gnostic paradise of virgin wives and honey. It seems like the ultimate in excess rather than holiness. Additionally, although we may have to kill for God and country we do not SEEK to kill for God and country. Muslims are rewarded, according to the Qu’ran, for waging war against Dar al Harb, the House of War, which is everything outside of Islamic politico/religio-fascism. All infedels are to be killed. All ‘people of the book’ Jews and Christians are to be subdued to conversion or killed.

    That is one messed up ideology and we need to give strong consideration for preventing or severly monitoring Muslims that serve in government and military. I know it seems draconian but the threat is real and I am far more concerned about stealth jihad than terrorist acts. The former is wide reaching, the latter is containable.

    Does it make sense to be ‘tolerant’ of those who seek your destruction?

  • “We need to give strong consideration for preventing or severely monitoring Muslims that serve in government and military.”

    Total prevention may not be necessary at this point, but monitoring is certainly justified. I would think that a Muslim who sincerely wanted to prove his or her loyalty to our country would understand the reasons why and accept that as the price they have to pay for entering such sensitive professions.

  • Discrimination against Muslims is neither permissible nor necessary. All we have to do is make certain that no one is given a pass on clearly suspicious, not to say in the case of Hasan obviously alarming, activity, because they are a Muslim, which I fear is precisely why no one took action in reference to Hasan in spite of giant red flags.

  • Donald,

    I wasn’t advocating discrimination in the conventional sense; I was simply recommending more monitoring and barring if needs be for those who choose to enter sensative government and/or military service. They are not conscripts so it is volunatry, if they don’t want to be scrutinzed then they can find another career. That is not across the board discrimination; however, what has been the common thread in 97% of terrorist activities against the USA in the last 30-40 years?

    Ignoring that is foolish.

  • American Knight Says: “Does it make sense to be ‘tolerant’ of those who seek your destruction?”

    You may not have a choice if the UN gets it’s way

  • The secular world government aka the UN seeks to destroy national sovreignty, hard money, freedom of religion especually for those pesky Cahtolics and their Pope, and human dignity.

    Do you wonder why we never passed the Bricker amendments? Some of those with evil designs in our government want us to cave-in to UN demands for a totalitarian world state – an athiestic, or worse, Satanic one.

    I think we have the resolve to stop them. Pandering to which ever pawn they want to use to achieve their ends is no way to win – in this case, they are using political correctness and Islam as a stick to beat the USA with.

  • A Wall Street Journal article rightly notes concerning the illustrious Democrats and their utter complacency in the War Against Terrorism:

    “Before the Democrats came to power in the 2008 elections, one issue they pushed hardest through the policy debate was their opposition to domestic electronic surveillance in pursuit of Islamic terror activities. If the Hasan investigation concludes that he arrived at his pre-spree cry of ‘God is great!’ after immersion in the world of violent Islamic Web sites and prior time spent at radical domestic U.S. mosques, then we would hope that the response of our lawmakers would be more than a shrug that these 13 dead are simply the price we have to pay for living in ‘our system.'”

    However sad to admit, but personally I felt safer under the Bush Administration.

  • American Knight/Donald:

    In 2007 the Posse Commitatus Act was amended (by President Bush and Senator Warner) allow the use of federal troops to “restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition… the President determines that… domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order… or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such… a condition… so hinders the execution of the laws… that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law… or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” This amendment was subsequently revoked but the Posse Commitatus Act has been increasing disregarded by presidents both Republican and Democrats.

    Answer me this. What if after another attack on an abortion clinic or the assasination of another abortion provider President Obama ordered federal troops to protect abortion clinics and abortion providers or going one step further to round up members of anti-abortion groups as potential terrorists. Now I would not expect you to act the way the Major did, but what would you do if you were a Catholic in the armed forces and ordered to protect an abortion clinic or to round up pro-life group members?

  • The comparison between Catholics and Muslims is false. Protecting life is tantamount. It is the most basic human right. Pro-lifers protect life and therefore are right. Muslim jihadists take life and therfore they are in the wrong.

    Posse Commitatus is designed to prevent a police state, yet many illicit and probably illegal executive orders have undermined it. This is very dangerous. Domestic order should be maintaned by police forces and they should always be local, drawn from the population they are policing. It is very unwise to use military forces for police work. One of the purposes of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is live fire excercises in using our soldiers for police work. Of course that is a foreign country and they should never be used here. So what will they use: UN international forces that have no problem using guns on the American populace. Who will be rounded up first? Not the peaceful Muslims. The first target will be those homophobic, dogmatic, hateful, strict, anti-choice Catholics.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  • AK:

    OK, Protecting life is Tantamount and Pro-lifers protect life and therefore are right.

    But, answer the question. What if you are in the military and your Commander in Chief disagrees with this assessment and believes that a “woman’s right to choose” is tantamount. What do you do if ordered to protect an abortion clinic or to suppress pro-life groups? Should you as a soldier be regarded with suspicion as guilty of sedition if you try to preach the pro-life message to your fellow troops? What if you tell others that by protecting/promoting abortion their immortal souls are threatened with damnation and hell fire?

    Finally, you state that “Muslim Jihadists take life and therefore they are in the wrong”. Does this mean that all members of the military are in the wrong since their main purpose is to enforce the will of the United States Government by force and by killing if necessary?

    If

  • “What if you are in the military and your Commander in Chief disagrees with this assessment and believes that a “woman’s right to choose” is tantamount.”

    You go to court awakaman, and the soldier would have plenty of volunteer attorneys like me to take his case.

    “What if after another attack on an abortion clinic or the assasination of another abortion provider President Obama ordered federal troops to protect abortion clinics and abortion providers or going one step further to round up members of anti-abortion groups as potential terrorists.”

    Oh, and we’d make unending political hay out of this and probably hasten considerably the ultimate victory of the pro-life cause by decades. I pray that the Obama administration would be so foolish!

  • awakaman,

    “What if you are in the military and your Commander in Chief disagrees with this assessment and believes that a “woman’s right to choose” is tantamount. What do you do if ordered to protect an abortion clinic or to suppress pro-life groups?”

    Pray for the commanding officer and tell him that he is wrong and that God will forgive him if he repents and then disobey an immoral order based on the oath of service taken. To defend the Constitution which calls for Justice and Liberty, which must by defenition begin with life. Then I would rely on the Grace of the Lord and attorneys like McClarey.

    “Does this mean that all members of the military are in the wrong since their main purpose is to enforce the will of the United States Government by force and by killing if necessary?”

    No. The difference is that we, the people and not necessarily our wayward government, engage in war with the ultimate end being peace and we try to engage only in just war. I am referring to the people’s intentions not the oligarchy. Soldiers come from the people not the oligarchs, unless it is to get some street cred for public office.

    Muslims are called to jihad, waging war for the destruction of all outside of Islam. Christians are called to love our enemies. Do all Christians love their enemies? No. Do all Muslims seek to wage jihad? No. But it is clear which outlook is true and good and which is a lie from the devil.

  • We “engage in war with the ultimate end being peace”?

    No wonder for years now, Sparta, not Athens and certainly not Jerusalem, has served as our civic model to no good end whatsoever!

    How many wars must be fought in order that peace be obtained? Or isn’t it the case that engaging in war actually goes against the goal of achieving peace?

    Just what kind of perverted universe do you live in that engaging in war is a necessary prerequisite for peace?

  • War is not going away. Ever. If you want peace you prepare for war. You fight the war that comes to you, becuase one will eventually, and you win it quickly to re-establish the temporary peace.

    We will never have perpetual peace until the final war is fought.

    I don’t like war. I am not a jingoist. I would love for us to never have to be in one again. But that is a fantasy. Since WWI most of the wars we have fought have been set up for evil purposes and I suspect that our government has engaged in this evil; however, the soldiers that fight in our wars, fight and die out of a sense of patriotism, duty and sacrifice – those are good things even if the government sends them to an unjust war – propaganda makses it hard to know for the average person.

    No nation will survive long in this world without the ability to wage war. If one engages in a war, then it is a duty to end it quickly to achieve peace.

    If I am not mistaken, Chesterton said something to this effect – but I am not a GK expert.

  • Donald:

    Instead of a hypothetical let’s look at an actual factual case the St. Patrick’s Battalions which I saw referenced on a different site earlier today:

    “When the US invaded Mexico (1846-48) to seize much of its territory, the US troops burned Catholic churches, raped Mexican women, and desecrated the Blessed Sacrament. They also taunted the small Catholic minority in the US army, most of whom were Irish and German immigrants, and who were horrified at what the US army was doing. In response, many of them left and joined the attacked side. The “San Patricios” were called traitors by the US, and many were executed after the US won the war. Of course, the Mexicans saw them in a different light.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick's_Battalion

    If you or AK were in the US Army at that time what would you have done. Joined the St. Patricos or stayed to fight the Mexicans, since while you may be personally opposed to anti-Catholicism you would not oppose the right of individuals and the US government to engage in it.

  • AK:

    While I like and admire Chesterton I think another author beter represents your line of thought the one who wrote: “War is Peace” and “Slavery is Freedom”

  • The US government was not anti-Catholic awakaman. Troops who mistreated Mexican civilians were severely punished as the court martial records of the time demonstate. Both Scott and Taylor, the two chief American generals during the war, did everything in their power to maintain good relations with the Catholic Church throughout the conflict including setting an example for the troops by attending Mass. Scott with his general order number 20 specifically set up a framework, which was implemented, to punish Americans for crimes against the civilian population in Mexico. I would have remained loyal to my oath as an American soldier and I would have happily assisted in punishing the traitors in the San Patricio Battalion after their capture.

  • awakaman,

    You are confusing the actions of individuals with the overall purpose of the people of the USA and with our government. The culture of the people, the direction of the government and individual action are not always aligned.

    As for your Orwell reference, that too is mistaken.

    I never said War is Peace and I certainly never said Slavery is Freedom, at aleast not in the political order. Slavery to Jesus is authentic Freedom.

    My statement was the ENDS of a just war are peace. Unless you are engaged in conquest or plunder then you will engage a war for a higher moral purpose and the aim will be peace.

    Wars, especially in the last two centuries, are rarely fought for one purpose. Some are honorable, most are sinsiter. WWII may not have been necessary, it was set-up by the treaty of versailles and the League of Nations attempt in order to cause chaos and bring about a world government, the UN. Trans-national financiers made money on all sides. Operation Keelhaul sent many good people to Stalin’s death camps. The list of attrocities goes on. All that does not make it any less noble that Jews and Catholics persecuted and murderered by the Nazis were in fact liberated by the Allied troops.

    Just because the aim is peace doesn’t mean that war should be engaged without much consideration; however, not preparing for war is suicide.

  • Pingback: Walter Reed Officials Suspected Hasan Was Psychotic « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Fort Hood Shooter: Passing the Buck « The American Catholic

Fort Hood Massacre, President Obama, and George Tiller the Killer

Monday, November 9, AD 2009

Isn’t it interesting that President Obama is pleading for us to “not to rush to judgment” concerning the Fort Hood Massacre that was executed by Malik Nidal Hasan who is an extremist Muslim.  Yet President Obama called out the National Guard to protect abortion mills when George Tiller the Killer was killed by a deranged man and not a pro-life advocate?

Double standard you think?

Yeah.  But just remember that this is the same administration that called “right-wing” groups such as pro-lifers as a threat to national security and not one mention of extremist Muslims or Muslim organizations that operate within the United States or abroad.

President Obama and his administration represent a world view that is un-American with values that only Moloch would love.  Catering to the politically correct sympathies and dogmas of modern liberalism while demonizing pro-life organizations that only seek to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Let’s pray for a one term Obama presidency and a strong candidate to emerge to represent the best of most Americans.

_._

To read more about the Fort Hood Massacre click here.

To read more about the murder of George Tiller the Killer click here.

To read more about President Obama demonizing Pro-Lifers the same day that George Tiller the Killer was killed click here.

To read more of the Obama Administration categorizing Pro-Life groups as terrorists click here.

To read more by Ralph Peters of the New York Post on President Obama’s response to the Fort Hood Massacre click here.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Fort Hood Massacre, President Obama, and George Tiller the Killer

  • I agree Tito – the double standard is as blatant as it is ridiculous. The government and the media did nothing as pro-lifers as a whole were vilified by the left.

    We are not a protected group. Neither, for that matter, are innocent unborn children.

  • Agreed, the double standard is absurd. But should we avoid fooling ourselves into thinking that Republicans don’t do the same thing?

  • Let’s not forget how quick Obama was to condemn the Cambridge police in the Gate arrest.

  • Phillip – Also, how long it took him to barely criticize the Iranian elections and subsequent crackdown.

  • According to the NRO, the NY Times has published a piece describing the heroic Michael Mansoor as an example of a patriotic and selfless Muslim serviceman who threw himself on a grenade to save others.

    In its zeal to promote Muslim servicemen, the Times got one little detail wrong – Mansoor was in fact a devout Catholic.

    You can see how such a mistake would happen, given the problems that paper has with the Catholic faith. To their hive minds, devout Catholics = child molesting priests and “anti-choice fanatics”, not heroes, while Muslims are all noble and good.

  • From NRO:

    In this New York Times story on Muslims serving in the U.S. military, the Times presents Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor, who earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for throwing himself on a grenade to save his team members in 2006, as a Muslim. It quotes a Muslim Army reservist who cites Monsoor as an example of a Muslim service member who gave his life for his country, and the Times lets the assertion stand. But Monsoor was a devout Catholic, as his Department of Defense official biography clearly states.

  • Donna V.,

    Could you send me the link? Thanks!

    Joe & Pinky,

    Thank you, it had to be pointed out. It was obvious to me.

    Eric,

    Absolutely agree.

    Arlen Spector, then a Republican, made the remark of how the Catholic Church was intolerant towards science and brought up the Galileo incident. Can’t remember the context of which he spoke about this, so if anyone can remind me what it was it’ll make for a good follow-up article in the future.

  • wow, I just read that Times article. That’s a pretty douche-bag (pardon the language) move by the NYT. Really ticks me off that they were so desperate to find counter examples that they resorted (as usual, i guess) to outright falsehoods for which they will no doubt issue a correction that is hidden away among the folds of a later issue.

    Not to go off-topic, but I recently read a defense of Tiller’s killer somewhere (http://www.takimag.com/site/article/righteous_zeal_and_the_murder_of_george_tiller/).

    I mean, what does one do when a state-sanctioned serial killer is loose in the world? Isn’t there some context that allows for individual citizens to do something about those people? If there was a known serial killer in public and he had publicly stated his intentions to kill again, is there no recourse for the sane members of society?

    I think I might agree with Gottfried that Tiller’s killing was not necessarily murder. However, his killing will undoubtedly result in harder times for the pro-life movement, but I’m not sure that is enough to make the actual act immoral.

    Tiller had killed some 60 thousand innocent people. I have a hard time believing that tiller’s killer could be guilty of murder.

  • Highly theological, though. probably so much so as to render any treatment of it in this limited space more of a detriment to the understanding of it.

  • Sorry for not posting it earlier, Tito. In the updated version, Mansoor is referred to as a Christian:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/09muslim.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&hp

    With this added at the end:

    Earlier versions of this article misstated the religion and rank of Michael A. Monsoor and the act he performed that earned him the Medal of Honor.

Massacre at Fort Hood

Thursday, November 5, AD 2009

FortHood_SRPC_detail3x

13 have been killed and 38 wounded at the Fort Hood army post in Texas.  The alleged shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, is dead, and two alleged suspects have been taken into custody.  This is a major story and details are sparse.  May the souls of the dead victims rest in peace.  More details as they become available.

Update 1: Dead gunman thought to have been a mental health professional,  a psychiatrist. I have heard on Fox that he was assigned in the past to Walter Reed.

Update 2: Gunman was thought to have been a drug and rehab specialist who obtained his license to practice psychiatry in 2005.  According to the Army Times he was promoted to Major on April 22, 2009.

Update 3: More details here about the gunman.

Update 4: Gunman worked at the Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood.

Update 5: Gunman had received a poor performance evaluation at Walter Reed.  He was upset about a forthcoming deployment to Iraq.

Update 6: Colonel Terry Lee who had worked in the past with Hasan says that the gunman had made statements that Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.  He is being interviewed on Fox.  The Colonel also said that Hasan thought that after Obama was elected the war in Iraq would come to a swift end and he became frustrated that this did not occur.

Update 7: The two suspects taken into custody have been released.  I am hearing that they may have been attempting to subdue the gunman and were taken in for questioning about the incident.  Good!  That makes it much more likely that this is the work of just one deranged individual rather than a conspiracy.

Update 8: Now the local Congressman in whose district Fort Hood is located is stating that he has heard that another suspect has been brought in for questioning.

Update 9: The gunman’s name according to some reports is Nidal Malik Hasan and not Malik Nadal Hasan as initially reported.

Update 10: Here is info on the gunman on the Virginia Board of Medicine Practitioner Information page.

Update 11: According to a cousin of the gunman interviewed on Fox, Hasan was born and reared in this country.  He has always been a Muslim and is not a recent convert as was initially reported.  He joined the military against the wishes of his parents.  He complained about harassment to relatives that he alleged that he received from fellow soldiers in the Army because of his pro-Muslim views.

Update 12: Lieutenant General Bob Cone, the commanding general in charge of Fort Hood, at a press conference announces that Nidal Malik Hasan was wounded and is in custody, and was not killed as was initially reported.  He is also stating that Hasan was the sole shooter, and that no one else appears to have been involved.  He says that the slain and wounded soldiers were in an enclosed area awaiting medical and dental treatment.  A female civilian police officer shot and wounded Hasan.  She was wounded by Hasan and is in stable condition.  (Soon to be celebrated by the nation as a heroine I think.)

Update 13:  NPR has this report:  

A source tells NPR’s Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time.

Update 14:  Hasan is the son of Palestinian immigrants, both deceased. 

Update 15:  Reports that Hasan had come to the attention of federal law enforcement authorities six months ago because of internet postings advocating suicide bombings.  This seems to be the post in question:

“There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.”

Take this report with a boulder of salt until it is better confirmed.  However, if the authorities did believe that Hasan was posting on internet sites advocating suicide bombings six months ago, why didn’t the Army take steps to keep him away from troops, especially troops heading for Iraq or Afghanistan?

Update 16:  The brave female police officer who took Hasan down is Police Sergeant Kimberly Munley.  She pumped four bullets into the gunman in spite of being shot by him. 

Update 17:  Hasan shouted Allahu Akbar ( God is Great) before beginning his rampage.

Update 18:  Information about some of the victims here.  May they now be enjoying the Beatific Vision.

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Massacre at Fort Hood

  • I am sure Major Hassan being a psychiatrist would have known how to scam the security clearance evaluation. There is no known cure for what the Robert and Hugh at Jihad Watch calls the Sudden Jihad Syndrome. It follows that the rational course is to keep Muslims out.

  • Jesus, have mercy on the Major, his accompliances, and his victims.

  • Naturally, America and Christianity will be blamed, rather than Islamic theology and history. Bottom line, all Muslims are either openly violent or quietly wating for a reason to kill. Get them all out of our country. There is no ‘moderate’ Islam. Get them out.

  • Our son is stationed at Ft. Hood. Thank God that he is okay.

  • I disagree Mr. Toler. There are good and bad men and women among Muslims as there are good and bad men and women among Catholics. This incident seems to involve only one individual and it is unjust to condemn all Muslims in this nation as a result of it.

  • I can only imagine your relief Karen. My brother was stationed at Fort Hood while he was in the Army and I would have been out of my mind with concern today if he was still there.

  • I agree there Don. To expel or ban people from this country purely on the basis of their religion or personal beliefs, and NOT on the basis of actual terrorist actions or affiliations, would set an enormously dangerous precedent.

    Next thing you know, liberal Democrats would decide that all pro-lifers or all Catholics should be expelled from the country on the grounds that they are all “openly violent or quietly waiting for a reason to kill” abortion providers!

    It seems to me that this kind of violence usually comes from nowhere and there is no foolproof or infallible way to prevent it. The “warning signs” are almost always visible only in hindsight. Perhaps this man was mentally ill?

    God bless and protect our brave men and women in uniform wherever they may be 🙂

  • HA!

    A WOMAN took down the Muslim gunman!

    That’ll certainly tick off Muslims the world over.

    Prayers on the way.

  • This is a tragic and unconcsionable occurance.
    My heart and prayers go out to those killed, those wounded and those whose lives will never be the same because of this senseless and traitorous attack.

    May God have mercy on the dead, and grant His grace to the others affected.
    And my prayers for the perpetrator’s change of heart.

  • Based only upon that excerpt, I would find it difficult for anyone to have anticipated something like this. As a psychiatrist, it could have been taken as simply his analysis as to how suicide bombers see themselves, and frankly, the analysis he expresses is probably quite accurate. It could be taken as support/encouragement of suicide bombings, but it could also be taken as someone trying to explain the mindset of the other side (like investigators trying to get “into the mind” of a perpetrator) and making a theological point.

    I wonder how many of our debates on various theological issues would sound to outsiders.

  • It’s amazing that President Obama is telling everyone “not to jump to conclusions”, yet he calls out the National Guard when George Tiller the Killer was shot inside his church.

    Typical.

    Seems like the “main”stream media is coalescing around the fact that he had mental disorders as to the cause of the shooting. Absolutely nothing to the plain fact that he carried Muslim sympathies and is a practicing Muslim.

    Now all we need to do is ignore all the jihadist postings that Nidal did on the extremist Muslim websites.

  • A slight disagreement with Elaine: no one has a right to come to this country. Nor, indeed, to go to any country in the world. Moreover, there is a recent history of immigration policy banning people on the basis of beliefs held–e.g., communist and fascist belief were (are?) grounds to deny entry into America.

    I am *not* saying we should deny Muslims entry because they are Muslims. Indeed, there are many forms of the religion which are admirable, and likewise their adherents.

    But we can certainly can–and should–deny entry for those Muslims who insist on forms of sharia which threaten the constitutional order. We did no less for would-be communist subversives.

  • Why the emphasis upon his being a Mohamedian when his main source of distress seems to be the fact that he was to be deployed to Afghanistan or the Middle East. Army suicides have increased dramatically as a result of the unending and unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This man in his attempt at suicide just happened to take others with him.

    Why did the Army keep and promote this man despite his instability and let him treat soldiers with mental disorders? As sick as it sounds this reminds me of Arlo Guthrie’s medical/psychological exam for the draft during the Viet Nam War as relayed in his classic “Alice’s Restaurant”:

    “They got a building down New York City, it’s called Whitehall Street, where you walk in, you get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected. I went down to get my physical examination one day, and I walked in, I sat down, got good and drunk the night before, so I looked and felt my best when I went in that morning. `Cause I wanted to look like the all-American kid from New York City, man I wanted, I wanted to feel like the all-, I wanted to be the all American kid from New York,
    and I walked in, sat down, I was hung down, brung down, hung up, and all kinds o’ mean nasty ugly things. And I waked in and sat down and they gave me a piece of paper, said, ‘Kid, see the phsychiatrist, room 604.’

    And I went up there, I said, ‘Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL.’; And I started jumpin up and down yelling, ‘KILL, KILL,’; and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, ‘KILL, KILL.’; And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, ‘You’re our boy.’”

  • Awakaman,

    I had to Google Arlo Guthrie.

    I wouldn’t take any “philosophical” rants from him seriously.

    I don’t know who he is, but if you would have sourced the Holy Bible, a prominent theologian, Vatican documents, etc, I would take your posting more seriously.

  • Arlo is a Republican now Awakaman. (Yeah, I know, I couldn’t believe it when I heard it either!)

    His religion was clearly this guy’s motivating factor in regard to his view of being deployed to the Middle East. We are at war, and he supports the other side due to his religion.

    In regard to the Army, the Army paid for his education and he signed up of his own free will. He could have attempted to resign his commission and pay back the cost of his education.

    Of course all this is beside the point. I suspect the true trigger was that Major Hasan is also Major Wackdoodle, and he wouldn’t be the first shrink who is crazier than any of his patients. I am sure his counsel will attempt to use the insanity defense in his case and the facts will determine if they succeed.

  • “This man in his attempt at suicide just happened to take others with him.” Huh? Sure, just a coincidence or something.

  • Breaking News at noon CST:

    8 shot, 2 dead (early reporting) at an office building in Orlando, FL.

    Shooter is Jason Rodriguez and is still at large.

    Reports are sketchy so the numbers of who is shot and dead could go up or down once the hysteria settles.

    No motive yet.

    Office building is still in the process of being shut down.

    Office building is off of I-4, that’s all I hear and know.

    My personal assessment it could be work related.

    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/generalities/mass_shooting_in_orlando_142465.asp

    Straight from Orlando Fire & Police Dept.’s: So far confirmed no deaths, 6 shot.

  • Mike,

    The mainstream media is already trying to spin this away from a “jihad” type of act.

  • I’m curious about the shooter’s reason for joining the Army in the first place. What were his motivations, and what did he hope to accomplish in the Army?

  • Nautica,

    Not sure.

    Getting a fine education in medicine may have played a role in it.

    If I were wiser in my younger years, I would have have joined the Officer Candidate Program or even as a recruit after high school to take advantage of free education and training.

  • Ah, yes, I forgot about that.

  • A person who jumps off a building to commit suicide and lands on passersby below, just happens to take them with him; a guy who commits suicide by driving into a wall and hits people behind it, just happens to take them with him.

    A guy who opens fire on others and dies when he gets taken down by someone else (never turning the gun on himself) – he is not committing suicide and just happening to take a few with him – he intends to murder.

  • Tito:

    I guess I’m just showing my age and you yours in that you don’t know who Arlo Guthrie is. He had a daddy who’s name was Woody (google him). Arlo was a headliner at Woodstock (the first one in ’69)abd had many great classics in the 60’s and 70’s including “City of New Orleans” and “Coming into Los Angeles”, but his most famous song was his 20 minute long humourous anti-war song “Alice’s Restaurant”.

    Don:

    1) So Arlo’s a Republican. . . like party labels mean a whole hell of a lot any more when the Republican party can encompass Anarcho-libertarians such as Ron Paul, quasi-Democrats such as Scozzafava, and Trotskyite neocons, such as Kristol and Podhoretz.

    2) Don, the NYT reports that the Major has been fighting deployment and trying to get out of his military committment for the past 2 years.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/us/06suspect.html?_r=1&hp
    Given the draconian military retention policies currently in effect do you seriously believe he would have any success – especially a doctor. When I was an Army JAG 20 years ago (at a time of relative peace) persons in the medical MOS’s had absolutely no chance of getting out short of fragging their commander. Today they have ablutely no chance no matter how psychologically sick they are.

    Fianlly, Tito, I see no one else on this thread citing the great philosophers, papal encylicals or biblical quotes. All I see are people venting their anger and fear regarding Mohammedan boogie men. Let’s kill them all and let God sort them out and let’s hand Lord Bush Obama all of our liberties and freedoms to fight the terrorist who hate us due to our freedom I guess I’m held to a higher standard.

    I think Mr. Guthrie’s view of the military in relationship to mental instability is similar to that presented by Joseph Heller in Catch 22- the mentally unstable who unbothered by or attracted to the horror and destruction of war are allowed to serve in the military undisturbed and these want to avoid them can not get out of the military because their aversion to such horror and destruction show them to be sane. I think that this view of the destructive nature of a warrior’s life to one’s soul is much more in alignment with Catholic teachings then alot of other pro-war on “terror” rants that I read on this blog and others.

  • “I had to Google Arlo Guthrie.”
    Tito, Tito…you’re making me feel like a fossil.
    Interesting to hear Arlo’s come around though. I wonder when that liberal got mugged?

    I live in a military town, and I’m pretty sure this behavior isn’t typical of your average Muslim soldier. FWIW I’m also dubious of the allegations going around that religious harassment caused him to snap.

  • The mainstream media is going to stick to that angle to make “islamophobia” the real issue and not the deaths.

  • “All I see are people venting their anger and fear regarding Mohammedan boogie men. Let’s kill them all and let God sort them out and let’s hand Lord Bush Obama all of our liberties and freedoms to fight the terrorist who hate us due to our freedom.”

    No one here said like this, but hey–strawmen are fine fencing partners. In addition to being a hellish thing to say, a “kill ’em” mindset is as mindless as the “Islam has nothing to do with terrorism” mantra that gets trotted out whenever a self-identified Muslim commits an act like this.

    I’m sure there’s someplace in between the reflexive knee-jerking that might shed light. How about you?

  • “All I see are people venting their anger and fear regarding Mohammedan boogie men.”

    Was this murderer such a boogie man?

    How about those who were responsible for 9/11?

    The only “boogie men” I see here are those miraculously manifested by the ‘PC’ types who would dare manufacture such a bleached fiction that there is no such Mohammedan.

  • “Mike,

    The mainstream media is already trying to spin this away from a “jihad” type of act.”

    Of course, Tito, very predictable; but in all fairness it could be true. I’m a moderate. I say, it is even sillier to rule out jihad as it is to assume it. One thing for sure though — the idea that this was just a garden variety suicide that just happened to take a whole bunch of others with him is nuts. That *might* explain crashing an airplane or even a car, but shooting people? Give me a break, awakaman.

  • “Given the draconian military retention policies currently in effect do you seriously believe he would have any success – especially a doctor.”

    Yeah, I do and doctors getting out of the obligation is not that unusual:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/06/27/2009-06-27_fed_court_upholds_discharge_for_peacelovin_army_doctor.html

    If Doctor Fruitcake had sought my services, here is how I would have handled his case:

    1. He becomes a born again conscientious objector. He applies for the status and we have him give interviews telling how the wars in the Middle East and what returning troops have told him has caused him to say No to war.

    2. I have his relatives and friends besiege his CongressCritter.

    3. I go through his record with a fine toothcomb and find examples of how he has been treated unfairly by the Army. I am a proud Army veteran and trust me, as I think all Army vets could attest, the Green Machine treats everyone unfairly at one time or another.

    4. I have him live out his Islamic faith, talking about Mohammed while he is with patients and at medical meetings.

    5. I take out my violin and play up to the press the prejudice angle. According to Colonel Terry Lee Dr. Fruitcake was called harsh names by his fellow officers when he expressed his beliefs and the press would eat up the meme of neanderthal Army officers oppressing this poor peaceful Muslim psychiatrist.

    6. I give hints to the Army that Dr. Fruitcake is under a lot of stress and who knows what might happen unless we can get him out of the Army.

    7. I enlist the usual list of Useful Idiots of peace groups, radical groups, church groups, etc., to rally to the cause of this Doctor who has seen the light and who will not fight in Pharoah’s Army any longer.

    By the time I was done I think I could have gotten Doctor Fruitcake a good conduct discharge and maybe even forgiveness of his debt. As they say, this isn’t rocket science and I think any competent litigator could do the same.

    Of course Dr. Fruitcase wasn’t interested in getting out of the Army. In his twisted mind he was interested in screaming Allahu Abkar and murdering men and women who wore the same uniform he disgraced.

  • “5. I take out my violin and play up to the press the prejudice angle.”

    Wouldn’t it be far more effective to just have a string quartet nearby playing Barber’s Requiem?

  • “We certainly can–and should–deny entry for those Muslims who insist on forms of sharia which threaten the constitutional order. We did no less for would-be communist subversives.”

    I have no problem with that. In a case like that, you’re talking about someone who demonstrates unwillingness to accept our system of law, or is affilated with a group whose professed aims are subversive or illegal. That’s not the same as assuming that all Muslims by definition are potential terrorists.

  • “By the time I was done I think I could have gotten Doctor Fruitcake a good conduct discharge and maybe even forgiveness of his debt. As they say, this isn’t rocket science and I think any competent litigator could do the same.”

    Maybe he should have tried dressing as a woman… oh wait, that didn’t even work for Corporal Klinger back in the (fictional) Korean War and it would probably be even less likely to work today.

  • I had to google “Corporal Klinger”…

    …just kidding.

  • Section eights, mentally unfit, were much harder to come by Elaine back in the days when Uncle Sam needed every male who could pull a trigger and before society became consistantly stuck on stupid.

  • You make me feel very old sometimes Tito!

  • Maybe its just because he’s not married yet 🙂

  • Don:

    I knew Army doctors who tried every trick in the book to get out of their committment including being 150lbs over weight standards and being totally incabable of meeting any of the PT standards. The Army just got them special order uniforms.

    The fact that this Army “psychiatrist” was acting like a fruitcake for the past year and this did not lead anyone in the Army to seek his discharge should tell you something.

    Why can’t you and other folks just accept the simple fact that these silly neverending wars are having a disasterous effect upon US soldiers and their mental well being – no matter what their religion.

  • Well awakaman I cited you an actual recent case showing you how it was done by a doctor who became a CO when his precious skin was going to be shipped off to Iraq. There are a lot of ways for people to get around living up to the oaths they swore when they voluntarily joined the military.

    No one sought his discharge from the Army because Dr Fruitcake never sought it. Of course the Army should have had him under constant surveillance after his internet postings surfaced six months ago. I am sure that the inevitable investigation will reveal that the usual culprit, bureaucratic inertia, led to no action being taken.

    The wars we are fighting in the Middle East are neither silly nor never-ending, but necessary and winnable as Iraq demonstrates. Your attempt to make an anti-war argument out of the murderous rampage of Dr. Fruitcake is mistaken. His motivation was Islamic fervor as his cry before the slaughter commenced indicates, and probably paranoia which of course a paranoid psychiatrist would be unable to self-diagnose.

  • Don:

    1) Sorry I am not swayed by the anecdotal evidence you provided of one single doctor who it appeared had been fighting before army boards and in the federal courts for CO status for EIGHT (8) years before he received it. Rather, the military’s severe “stop-loss” policy is still in effect and will only be phased out gradually during the next 2 years.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/washington/19gates.html
    How, much do want to bet that 2 years from now there will be even more soldiers being held against their wishes under this program?

    2) Reports state that he did take actions to obtain a discharge and to prevent his deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. Perhaps he did not take the well reasoned path you suggested Don but we are talking about a man going down the path of madness.

    3) Don, the fact is that suicides among military personnel and veterans are at alarming levels, yet the Department of Defense does more to hide these facts than it does to deal with them.

    http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/31885

    Here we have a person who’s job it was to make our troops feel good about invading other people’s countries and killing strangers, and we’re surprised that he was capable of such an act.

    When my wife’s nephew was on his first tour in Afghanistan, he was the machine gunner on back of a Hum-v. The first couple of days they had him shoot every dog they saw so he would become numb to killing. No matter how noble the cause the chief purpose of our military is to train killers. . . and then we are surprised when they kill.

    4) Yes, Don, “silly and unending”. This case just goes further to show how our interventionist foreign policy is creating anti-Americanism both at home and abroad. Little third world stone-age warrior Afghanistan has been the death knell of many empires. . . my guess it will be where one more dies during that empire’s quest to prop up a corrupt government that allows big US oil to run an oil pipe line accross that nation.

    I also note that the big news in the paper and on the radio this morning was that the Major once said he was “a moslem first and an American second.” Horror of horrors.

  • Actually awakman evidence is also surfacing that Hasan attempted to contact al-Qaeda and the FBI knew about this prior to the shootings.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/09/abc-fbi-knew-hasan-tried-to-contact-al-qaeda/

    This is shaping up into a major story about whether this massacre was an act of Jihad, and, more importantly, why the Feds didn’t act against the fellow prior to him going Jihadal at Fort Hood. There is more here now I think than just a simple nut case and I will be posting more about it tomorrow.

  • Clearly a case of shell-shock by proxy.

    Unitarians do the same thing.

    Big Oil.

    The Crusades.

    Nothing to see here–move along.

  • Pingback: Fort Hood Massacre, President Obama, and George Tiller the Killer « The American Catholic
  • Awakaman:

    If the war in Afghanistan is “silly,” I would like to know what your policy response would be to an act of state-supported terrorism such as 9/11? Should we have had the FBI politely knock on the door of every hut in Helmand, serving search warrants to the suspected criminals?

  • J. Christian:

    We bombed the Taliban leadership and permitted opposing warlords to overthrow them. But. . . no. . . we have to go in and impose a modern western democratic state so everyone can have their Coke, Pepsi, Playboy Magazines and so their women can wear mini-skirts, vote and get abortions.

    Well now all we have done is increase the number of Taliban followers and turn previously friendly warlords against us. Our support of the Russian oppostion during the wonderful reign of Ronald the Great lead to the rise of the Taliban and our continued interference in this area of the world will only lead to their greater growth and prestige in the area.

  • we have to go in and impose a modern western democratic state so everyone can have their Coke, Pepsi, Playboy Magazines and so their women can wear mini-skirts, vote and get abortions.

    Oh, sure. That’s why Afghanistan’s shiny new constitution–with our full throated approval–enshrines Sharia as the supreme law of the land. Under Article 3 of that document, “No law shall be contrary to the beliefs and practices of Islam.”

    Which was why Abdul Rahman was in real danger of execution for apostasy from Islam, editors have been given hard labor for publishing articles criticizing stoning, translators of the Koran have been imprisoned for blasphemy, Shiite Afghan men can starve their wives if they don’t put out, and married women can’t attend school for fear of polluting unmarried girls with their sexuality.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC25Df02.html

    http://www.rsf.org/Editor-Ali-Mohaqiq-Nasab-gets-two.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,394522,00.html

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/afghan-husbands-win-right-to-starve-wives/

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/29/afghanistan.theeditorpressreview

    Yeah, that’s democracy whiskey sexy in action, all right.

    Look, the idea of trying to impose Western style democracy was stillborn from the start.

    But let’s not entertain any delusional fantasies that that’s what we’ve tried to do in Afghanistan. Because it’s not. In fact, it’s just the opposite–we’ve given the country over to a reduced-calorie version of the Taliban.