At Least 7 Dead, 12 Wounded in Shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas

Originally posted by merkava

Mate, who teaches you all this stuff?

Those pakistani troops fighting with taliban are not muslims?

The northern alliance fighting taliban are not muslims?

The afghan and iraq democratic army are not muslims?

Muslim leaders around the world fighting extremism are not muslims?

Muslims scholars condoning extremism are not muslims?

Muslim scholars taking a fatwa out on extremism are not muslims?

The sufis fighting against extremist Al-shabab in somalia are not muslims?

Hamas rejecting al-qaeda ideoligy and having a fire fight with them are not muslims?

Saudi kings are not muslims?

Muslims living in the west and following Western laws are not muslims?

They all should be killed in the eyes of true muslims?

Than who is a true muslim?

The one out of 1.6bil muslims who straps bomb to himself is a true muslim?

I think you're on to something. Since there are those here who insist that the only "true" islam is of the exremist variety, I think that's evidence enough that we've been infiltrated by jihadist talibs in this thread, who ALSO contend that those "other", non-fundamentalist muslims aren't muslims at all.

Come to think of it, I've heard Pakistani sunnis contend that Iranian shia weren't REAL muslims, since shia can practice taqiyya, and sunni aren't allowed to lie...

Hmm... islam may not be quite so monolithic as some here love to claim....

[edit on 2009/11/10 by nenothtu]

reply to post by Protoplasmic Traveler


Protoplasmic Traveler,

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Concerning this posts of yours just above and concerning the Talmud.

I know that in Islam they have their Talmuds. They may call them by a different name...but they are in effect Talmuds. The Talmud is not part of the Law of Moses and did not originate with these instructions to the Hebrews. They were snuck in privily and attempted to take over and hijack the Hebrew religion.

Hebrews have their Talmud. A system of rules for getting around the rules. The Muslims have their Talmuds by what ever name or rules they adopt to get around the rules.

Christians too have their Talmuds...called Commentaries...ie..Matthew Henry, Ironsides, Larkin..and others. Many of them in contradiction to what is given in the New Testament. Rules or commentaries to get around the rules.

The interesting part of this is that few Believers know this about any of the religions.....including Christianity. Amazing but true.

On the part of the Hebrews..I know that the Karaites reject the Talmud and do not approve of those following it so one must be careful when trying to put all Hebrews in one box. Same for all the other religions.

This knowledge is kept from the bulk of peoples..even by their priests/preachers/pastors. For some reason they do not want their flocks so educated in this knowledge

For all that matter...Politics is Talmudic..as set of rules for the insiders and another set of rules for outsiders. You just never let outsiders know that there is another set of rules in play. Feudalism is Talmudic as well..rules for the rulers or insiders and another set of rules for outsiders or the profane.

Most people have never heard of such a concept because it is never taught at the altar where most worship...the television and movie theater.
This line of thinking is foreign to most.

As I stated ..under such Talmudic reason it is permissible to treat a non Saint differently from a Saint as a Mormon. A heretic differently from a Roman Catholic, A fellow muslim differently from a infidel. A Jew differently from a non Jew.

Do all people do this..no they don't. But most people with television/movie educations don't even know this dogma exists..hence are never aware of it.

The classic example of a Talmud taking place in the Bible is from John Chapter 8 where the Pharisees bring before Jesus the woman caught in adultery...in the very act. They ask Jesus ..What say you Rabbi??

Most preachers pay attention to Jesus forgiving the woman and telling her ..go and sin no more.

But something else happened here for which most preachers never mention to their flocks. the Hebrew position under Talmudic doctrine and dogma..stated that women get stoned for adultery and men do not. These Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery .in the very act..before Jesus. They did not bring the man. You cannot catch a woman in adultery ..in the very act... without catching also the man.

The Law of Moses stated that "They both shall be stoned." for adultery..meaning more than one ...two. Yet the Pharisees brought only this woman.

What is not taught by most preachers/pastors, and priests to their flocks is that the Pharisees disobeyed the Law of Moses and had secretly superimposed another Talmudic Law over the Law of Moses as if it was the Law of Moses when it was no such thing.
The Pharisees had counterfeited The Law Of Moses....God's Law ..and by this had secretly and privily switched to another god..not the God of the Olde Testament. Not the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

This is the Nature of a Talmud...and most peoples haven't a clue.

It is also the nature of the Body Politic...who have also switched Gods ..secretly and privily and told no one they have done this.
This can be demonstrated if you know the history.

Beware of what passes for logic and reason...intellect..it too can be Talmudic. Secretly and privily.

Thanks,
Orangetom

For those who said the alleged shooter should have been kicked out of the millitary, what leads you to believe this would have solved the problem or prevented anyone from being killed?

[edit on 10-11-2009 by EMPIRE]

Originally posted by EMPIRE
For those who said the alleged shooter should have been kicked out of the millitary, what leads you to believe this would have solved the problem or prevented anyone from being killed?

[edit on 10-11-2009 by EMPIRE]

The fact is that the "alleged shooter" - are you serious? - is on record as being troubled by his upcoming deployment to the middle east and the possibility of having to fight against other muslims. His own relatives have given interviews saying this. So, remove the cause and hopefully you stop the tragedy.

Of course, it does not guarantee that the "alleged shooter" wouldn't have figured out another reason to use his religion to murder innocent people, but this is currently all we have to go on.


[edit on 11/10/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by orangetom1999


I am learning a lot from your post, tom.

People don't seem to realize how much Christianity has evolved, even since I was a child.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

I am learning a lot from your post, tom.

People don't seem to realize how much Christianity has evolved, even since I was a child.

And you could have added:

instead of still having its laws and beliefs mired in the 7th century.




Just like there was a "Protestant Reformation" back in the 1400's for the Christian faith, the world clearly needs one for the muslim faith.

reply to post by centurion1211

The fact is that the "alleged shooter" - are you serious? - is on record as being troubled by his upcoming deployment to the middle east and the possibility of having to fight against other muslims.

I know it may pain you to see alleged shooter, but this man is a citizen of the United States, who at one time served his country with dignity, and deserves due process. Therefore, he is an alleged shooter and innocent until proven guilty. It's a tough pill for you to swallow, but more importantly, tougher for the family to swallow, but that is the law.

His own relatives have given interviews saying this. So, remove the cause and hopefully you stop the tragedy.

How do you "remove the cause?" Do you simply kick him out of the millitary? Ok, lets say you kick him out of the millitary, now what happens? Have you taken into account that doing so could have led to him feeling abandoned by the country he served? Could the feeling then be used as more fuel to kill more people?

Of course, it does not guarantee that the "alleged shooter" wouldn't have figured out another reason to use his religion to murder innocent people, but this is currently all we have to go on.

See above.

reply to post by EMPIRE


You are attempting to hide behind a legal definition, which of course is true "in the eyes of justice". My comment simply meant that EVERYONE knows this guy was the shooter.

It sounds like the "alleged shooter" didn't want to be in the military any more. Possibly removing that source of conflict with his religion might have given him the peace not to go through with his plan.

All useless conjecture at this point. Just as you might feel about my comment that if not here, he might have used his religion to justify killing someone else.

reply to post by centurion1211

You are attempting to hide behind a legal definition, which of course is true "in the eyes of justice".

No, Im not attempting to hide behind anything. This man is an alleged shooter and our laws say he is innocent until proven guilty. No matter how you want to slice it, to spin it to suit your petty agenda, the man was first a citizen of this country, served it, and is afforded due process.

My comment simply meant that EVERYONE knows this guy was the shooter.

How does "EVERYONE" know this? I wasn't present when the shootings happened, you weren't present when the shootings happened, we don't know the full story yet, and even if he IS the shooter, he is STILL afforded due process.

It sounds like the "alleged shooter" didn't want to be in the military any more.

You can type it in quotations all you want, but until he has been tried in a court of law, or admits to doing what he is accused of, it is alleged that he commited the acts and up to prosecutors to prove their case. That's the law and I'm sorry that you're hurt by the law, but it is what it is.

Possibly removing that source of conflict with his religion might have given him the peace not to go through with his plan.

Again, how do you remove the source? Do you simply kick him out of the army? Then what? He gets kicked out of the army, further devotes himself to fanaticism and spirals out of control to the point where he kills three times as many people as he did. Again, how do you remove the source?

All useless conjecture at this point. Just as you might feel about my comment that if not here, he might have used his religion to justify killing someone else.

See above, and you're using circle logic to avoid the question.

reply to post by EMPIRE


Right. He's totally innocent until the exact instant a jury or military tribunal finds him guilty. Like I said, that's in the eyes of the law, but not necessarily in reality. BTW, do you know if military justice works the same way? A side issue: will the military have the cojones to execute him if found guilty, or will they worry about stirring up more radical muslims? If placed in a military prison, could the military keep him alive?

Are you actually trying to claim that you haven't formed any opinion whatsoever as to the guilt of this person?

Think of all the things that would have to have happened if it turns out he is really innocent. Like no one at the scene recognized him. That the first responders thought he was the shooter by mistake (even though he shot one of them, too) and shot the wrong guy, etc. etc.

reply to post by centurion1211

Right. He's totally innocent until the exact instant a jury or military tribunal finds him guilty.

I didn't make the laws, but regardless of how you feel he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He may have killed 101 people and someone may have video tapped it all, that does not mean he should be presumed guilty as our laws say he should be presummed what? Innocent.

Like I said, that's in the eyes of the law, but not necessarily in reality.

The eyes of the law should be the only thing that matters here not your personal opinion, not the medias opinion, not my opinion. I'm looking at it strictly from a legal perspective and have no bias. Yes I feel for the victims, but I have to go by the law, regardless of what anyone says, and those who truly seek to uphold the law will do the same thing. This is NOT the case where you simply throw caution to the wind and present a case full of emotions. If there is ever a case where it should be done by the books, this is the case, because if it isn't right, there will be civil rights issues being brought up. Which leads to more delays, which leads to more technicalities, which may lead to an outcome that may not sit well for the families of the victims.

BTW, do you know if military justice works the same way? A side issue: will the military have the cojones to execute him if found guilty, or will they worry about stirring up more radical muslims?

The following link will shed light on military justice.

www.au.af.mil...

In regards to them executing him, they may do it and I don't think it's a matter of stirring up more radical muslims. Short of blowing up Mecca and the Kabba Stone, there is nothing more you can do to stir more radical muslims.

If placed in a military prison, could the military keep him alive?

Now? Probably if they kept him in some form of isolation.

Are you actually trying to claim that you haven't formed any opinion whatsoever as to the guilt of this person?

I feel for the victims who've lost their lives, I feel for the families and friends of the victims, and I feel for the familiy of the alleged shooter. I do not know if this man killed anyone as I was not there, have no evidence to go on other then what has been provided by the media, etc. I've done no independent investigation of my own, have not interviewed anyone, etc. Therefore, the only thing I can say is until more facts come out, I can't form an opinion and hold the belief that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Think of all the things that would have to have happened if it turns out he is really innocent. Like no one at the scene recognized him. That the first responders thought he was the shooter by mistake (even though he shot one of them, too) and shot the wrong guy, etc. etc.

It could have been a case of everyone shooting everyone while the real shooter was sitting back picking them off. Based on what has come out so far is that likely? No, but again that is based on what has come out so far, and a lot of stuff that came out such as multiple shooters, sniper rifles, etc only clouds the issue.

And now for the issue you completely avoid:

Again, how do you remove the source? Do you simply kick him out of the army? Then what? He gets kicked out of the army, further devotes himself to fanaticism and spirals out of control to the point where he kills three times as many people as he did. Again, how do you remove the source?


[edit on 10-11-2009 by EMPIRE]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

I am learning a lot from your post, tom.

People don't seem to realize how much Christianity has evolved, even since I was a child.

I am happy to be of help in your learning Stormdancer.

I must however disagree with you in one regard. Christianity has not evolved. I think humans have de evolved ...particularly in the misuse of Christianity and the Way of Jesus the Christ for Remission of Sins.

Alot of what is often termed as "The Traditions of Men" have been substituted for New Testament instructions for Believers and also for the conduct of the Church. Many of these Traditions are Talmudic in their nature...put in privily and often...without the knowledge and undertanding of most "Christians."

Christianity is not complex when you contrast this with all the works one must do to be a good Hebrew or an obedient Muslim...or any other religion and practice.

Hope this helps Stormdancer,

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

I am learning a lot from your post, tom.

People don't seem to realize how much Christianity has evolved, even since I was a child.

And you could have added:

instead of still having its laws and beliefs mired in the 7th century.




Just like there was a "Protestant Reformation" back in the 1400's for the Christian faith, the world clearly needs one for the muslim faith.

Yes, thanks for the help.

reply to post by orangetom1999

I must however disagree with you in one regard. Christianity has not evolved. I think humans have de evolved

You should start a topic and enlighten me,

"The Taliban claimed there would be more attacks like the Fort Hood shootings unless Washington ends it policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a report. It also described the US army psychiatrist who carried out the massacre in Texas as a "hero".
The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist websites, said it had picked up a Taliban message praising the attack."

Maybe it's just me.....

If the man did not want to be deployed:

1) he should have never joined the military and soaked up all the benefits.
2) He was a major, could he not have resigned his commission and left the military.
3) Ok, he did not want to go, if he needed to kill himself, ok, why kill 12 and wound 30+ others???

reply to post by mrmonsoon


These are all questions that hopefully and thankfully in the fullness of time constitutional courts of law will answer definately based on the conclusions of the real and true evidence.

Whether it's the Taliban looking to exploit this issue or a Yemanise Imam looking to exploit this issue, or hawkish war mongerers looking to exploit this issue, or bigots looking to exploit this issue, the media for ratings or politicians for votes looking to exploit this issue, idle specualtion is just that idle speculation. Exploitation for political purposes is just that exploitation for political purposes.

Constitution loving Americans know we have a vital and all important 3rd branch of government called the Court System where every American is innoncent until proven guilty in a Court of Law.

Speculation and exploitation aren't considered evidence in a court of law.

Only facts are considered evidence.

It's natural to question but it can be deadly to assume.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I am making no assumptions.

I am presenting question's that "NEED" to be asked in the military court.
(I read yesterday, this would be tried in a military court).

I believe the answers to these questions will tell us much more than all the news bluster.

[edit on 11/11/2009 by mrmonsoon]

Oh yeah, here we go:
"Police arrested 22-year-old Abdul Walid Hamid of Hayward on the evening of Wednesday, Nov. 4, after he reportedly tore a crucifix from a person's neck and scared others at Stoneridge Shopping Center.
Hamid, an employee at a mall kiosk near Starbucks, has been charged with battery, terrorist threats and grand theft.

According to reports, Hamid was yelling "Allah is power" and "Islam is great" while holding a pen in a fist over his head. Witnesses said he shouted anti-Christian comments, said police."

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Maybe it's just me.....

If the man did not want to be deployed:

1) he should have never joined the military and soaked up all the benefits.

He joined millitary way before 9/11,after 9/11 he realised what was coming and wanted out.But there was no 'out' as US was busy planning 2 new wars.

2) He was a major, could he not have resigned his commission and left the military.

Nope would have been court martialed.

3) Ok, he did not want to go, if he needed to kill himself, ok, why kill 12 and wound 30+ others???

The fear of going to war with muslims made him go nuts.He was apparently being harassed for being a muslim by fellow soldiers.

Don't know why he shot the soldiers though. Maybe he shot those that harassed him? Or maybe he shot them because he didn't want to see them fighting his muslim brethren in afghanistan?

Don't forget there are about 4000 muslim soldiers in US army.

One thing for sure, hes gona meet the same fate as john allen muhammad.