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

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by nenothtu
It's no different than what JJay55 was doing by falsely painting all muslims as "terrorists". Same thing.

Muslims will kill again just like they have attempted since Ft Hood on a daily basis. Be prepared.

Don't worry we are prepared.You know whens the next attack taking place?

Too bad that only 10 are allowed on the "ignore" option. There's more than 10 regular trolls here including Donny, and nonothtu. Glad to leave them behind to what the future holds for them. (psst, good job michael and watchman on keeping the troll occupied here and away from the other place).

I won't put you on ignore because i have a good laugh from your posts.

Keep up the good work.

"The Iranian Supreme Leader's representative in Britain has told Muslim servicemen and women to quit the Armed Forces, saying that their involvement in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is forbidden by Islam.
The cleric, personally appointed by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to be his special envoy to the UK, also urged Muslims to defeat the opposition to the Iranian regime and keep the 30-year-old Islamic Republic alive."

reply to post by JJay55


You know what they say about even a broken clock being right twice a day.



This is the second line, and here comes a 3rd saying I edited!

[edit on 14-11-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


In all fairness, it's difficult, but not impossible, to find a trrorist incident these days that DOESN'T involve a muslim. That's just the way the terrorist world trends nowadays.

With that said, just because most modern terrorism involves muslims, it doesn't logically follow that all muslims are terrorists.

To use an analogy involving another group, hopefully to clarify the matter, I'm a "hillbilly". Most incidents of moonshine manufacture involve hillbillies. Just because those two facts are what they are, doesn't make the leap of extending the logic to say that I am a moonshiner, simply by virtue of being a hillbilly.

mmiichael is correct in associating modern terrorism with islamic perpetrators in the main, but he's also correct in NOT making the connection that ALL muslims are terrorists.

JJay55 states that ALL islam is at fault, but mmiichael limits the association to it's proper venue, i.e. extremist muslims, not ALL of them.

It's unfair to paint him with the same broad brush that JJay55 paints the islamic community with. In doing so, one alienates a natural ally in arriving at the truth.

Originally posted by nenothtu
In all fairness, it's difficult, but not impossible, to find a trrorist incident these days that DOESN'T involve a muslim. That's just the way the terrorist world trends nowadays.

If you only look to MSM, then I'm sure. I posted a link earlier of all the school shootings that have happened in the past few years. One random example from that page is a man walking into an Amish school for girls and killing several young children (girls) and then shooting himself.

There are many examples of those kinds of tragic things from the past several years on that one link alone. But JUST BECAUSE they don't involve Muslims that can be construed as being on a holy war, those tragedies just aren't classified as "terrorism." They're just called "shootings."

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by nenothtu
It's no different than what JJay55 was doing by falsely painting all muslims as "terrorists". Same thing.

I never said that.

AHEM...

Originally posted by JJay55
reply to post by hungrydirt

 

Understanding Islam will help us fight this kind of terrorism. Denying Islamic theology is an error. Fard ayn describes his motivation to a T. Please educate yourselves on this behavior.

Originally posted by JJay55

The more of these guys that we put on trial then the more we will be educated about Sharia Law and Islam. There have been so many incidents in the US in the past few years that are indicators of the motivation of this type of behavior and it is on the increase.
Muslims have a duty to kill us. Especially since we moved into Afghanistan. Fard ayn is an obligation of muslims to act out and attack us with any means they can. This guy will admit to this, just like the muslim who ran his daughter down in an honor killing also in Texas a few weeks ago. Many cases and growing rapidly in the US.

Originally posted by JJay55

Oh yeah, we messed with muslims and they suddenly became violent over night and wanted to kill us.

Islam does not accept everyone's religion. It is against their religion to do so. So let's start there.

Originally posted by JJay55

This is probably true but has nothing to do with the motivation of this guy to open fire.
We need to realize that it is the duty of every muslim (fard ayn) to attack the West (non-believers) in any way that they can because of our presence in Islam. Very simple. This has happened over and over and we still don't understand this enemy that is right before our eyes.

Originally posted by JJay55

Understanding Islam isn't a hard thing to do. You can start with realizing that muslims do not think like us. Get out of the Western way of thinking for a change and open your eyes to this danger.

Originally posted by JJay55
Seriously, do you believe that if a muslim sets foot on US soil that he automatically becomes Westernized? His motives were Islamic theology, this is very simple.

Originally posted by JJay55

He didn't snap. He committed a conscious act according to his firm belief. That's very common and accepted in Islam.

If we don't educate the American public about Islam then more incidents like this will happen.

Originally posted by JJay55

Ok, let's stop this other myth right away. There is no such thing as a radical muslim. This guy was the normal muslim just like all the others.
There was nothing strange about him. He did exactly what he intended to do and what the plan of Islam is to do.

They are not like us. They are not plural (believing that all religions are good and equal and nice nice). They are obligated to kill non-muslims. It's their duty. Why is this so hard to understand?

Originally posted by JJay55

It is their duty to do this. This is normal for Islam. Muslim countries didn't cause him PTS, they gave him theology that is normal and good in their eyes. They are not like us.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by JJay55]

Originally posted by JJay55

He didn't want to fight against muslims because that's illegal in Islam. He followed Islamic rules before US law. This is common with muslims.

Originally posted by JJay55

Look at it from his point of view. He is a muslim. He got a job in America. His beliefs are still Islamic. If he were deployed to one of the 57 OIC countries then he is being asked to "fight" by America because according to his religion that is what is being asked of him.
For muslims Islam is superior to anything. That's an important step to understanding this theology.

Your own words, but you "never said that"? Your vitriol against islam in general has taken up 6 pages of this thread alone. ALL of the examples above are just from the FIRST page of your posts only.

Spare me your false and high-minded defensive hubris. As has been said, "God save us from the true believers". That means YOU, based upon your own words.

Really ashame that your existence is to destroy threads and cherrypick things for your owne personal agenda.

My "agenda" is arriving at the truth. YOU are the one who came in here kicking stools around. I fail to see how countering your vituperative rants with facts and logic makes ME a "troll".

Trolls ruin forums and annoy people. Maybe you can hang a pork chop around your neck to get the dog to like you. Good luck in your lonely existence.

You should look to that "troll" problem yourself. Nice with the unfounded personal insult. Is that the best you've got?

This thread is exhausted. There's not much more to talk about the Muslim Ft Hood killer who is another example of Islamic violence and what the future holds. Muslims will kill again just like they have attempted since Ft Hood on a daily basis. Be prepared.

More of the stuff you "never said". Moreover, it appears you are getting frustrated with the fact that your venom is not taking hold very well. Some of us are aware, some of us have actually dealt with muslims. Some of us see through your agenda.

Too bad that only 10 are allowed on the "ignore" option. There's more than 10 regular trolls here including Donny, and nonothtu. Glad to leave them behind to what the future holds for them. (psst, good job michael and watchman on keeping the troll occupied here and away from the other place).

Please do put me on ignore. I'll keep right on countering your baseless and broad stroke allegations, attempting to villify an entire group that you know NOTHING about. Furthermore, I expect I will see about the same amount of reasonable answers to the questions put to you while I'm on ignore.

There have been ZERO so far.

As far as "leaving me behind to what the future holds for me" goes, I suspect I've killed more muslims than you've ever even seen. It doesn't follow that I'm willing to engage in a wholesale slaughter of an entire population based solely on an assumed, and erroneous, notion that YOU PERSONALLY may hold concerning their ideology. Especially not on your say-so, given the error you've already proven yourself willing to propagate.

I pick my targets better than that, and tend to restrict myself to those who really DO present a danger. Not all of those have been muslims, and at times I've been right alongside them, fighting WITH them rather than against them. Whether my targets OR my allies are islamic doesn't even figure in to the equation. The actual danger an individual really DOES present, rather than your assumptive categorization of broad populations, does.

So please do "leave me behind" to my fate. I'll be fine unencumbered by your abject terror of the unknown.


[edit on 2009/11/14 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm not convinced by his [mmiichael] words alone. I have been reading between the lines, so to speak, and gauging his sentiments and where he puts emphasis in his posts as well. He was compiling a bunch of separate incidents that were related only by the fact that their perpetrators were Muslim. That strikes me as definitely bigoted.

I fail to make that distinction when I read about these sorts of tragic events, to pick the ones out that involve Muslims and set them aside as any different.

You 'allege' I am a racist for noting a series of domestic attacks on Americans by Muslims.

After encounters on other threads, I find your primary preoccupation is with discrediting the accepted version of 9/11 - that the US was attacked by extremist Muslim hijackers, an operation planned, funded, co-ordinated in the Middle East. Exemplary your recent thread outlining 20 outstanding questions on 9/11, where some members note these 'alleged' questions have been fully addressed and debunked years ago.

In your currently running thread you state:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
I believe Nidal Malik Hasan, the guy who shot up the Ft. Hood military base, was a Manchurian candidate trained by DARPA while attending VA Tech, the same school that hosted the most deadly school shooting in history and a subsequent brutal decapitation of another student only earlier this year. The same school was also accused of hosting military-funded mind control programs by victim Cathy O'Brien in 1995, and there are videos on YouTube of her presenting her story before a body of people.

Because of this, and because the man barely survived the shootings, I believe there are very good odds that he will be shot and killed before his case ever makes it to a trial. Or, if his case is held in a military court (also very likely, of course), then special "protections" will be evoked to prevent too much "sensitive" information from reaching public ears.

Now Major Hasan has not made any publicly available statements since the incident. Perhaps he genuinely feels he has done something rightful and justified. But you do not allow him the dignity of taking responsibility for his actions. Instead, like with 9/11 theories, it is, to you, an attempt to put blame on Muslims or the chosen ideology of some of them.

All blame is implicitly shifted to the US government, it's military or agencies, Israeli complicity, or combinations thereof. All with no substantiation.

I suggest efforts to exonerate Muslims of crimes they themselves have taken responsibility for, like 9/11, can be construed as of form of prejudice itself. The consistent overriding message – Muslims innocent, everybody else guilty.

Though it's now common in these discussions, I find this one direction standard of pointing the finger away from one source and at others malign and maybe a little suspicious.


M

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by nenothtu
In all fairness, it's difficult, but not impossible, to find a trrorist incident these days that DOESN'T involve a muslim. That's just the way the terrorist world trends nowadays.

If you only look to MSM, then I'm sure. I posted a link earlier of all the school shootings that have happened in the past few years. One random example from that page is a man walking into an Amish school for girls and killing several young children (girls) and then shooting himself.

There are many examples of those kinds of tragic things from the past several years on that one link alone. But JUST BECAUSE they don't involve Muslims that can be construed as being on a holy war, those tragedies just aren't classified as "terrorism." They're just called "shootings."

I see what you're saying, but can't agree with the premise.

The reason is this: terrorism is, by definition, a co-ordinated effort by a group, however loosely co-ordinated, to employ violent action in order to influence a government's policy, or an accepted social structure.

These other incidents, while being no less tragic, have no common linkage, no underlying theme in common with other acts, by other actors. While being violent, and tragic, they are more in the nature of "individual statements", rather than part of a co-ordinated effort, and so fall outside the purview of "terrorism" properly.

Better examples may be the activities of Greenpeace or the ALF as examples of non-islamic terrorist activities.

reply to post by mmiichael


I personally don't see how persecuting Muslims as if they are the sole murderers in this country is any different than persecuting the Jews for no particularly good reason during the 1930's. I see this country going down the same dark road, complete with all the zealots to back it just as the Nazis and other fascists of the time had their own.

I don't think moderators would allow a diversion onto 9/11 topics but yes, I do believe 9/11 was an inside job and I have yet to see any federal agency give a satisfactory account of all number of things that happened that day. And yes, I do suspect this guy was either a Manchurian candidate, or was aided by other gunmen, or both. It isn't hard to find inconsistencies with this new story when news media were reporting practically the whole first day of the shooting that the shooter was already dead. If you want to discuss the things that led me to believe this, you can check out another topic, Ft. Hood Shooter Graduated from VA Tech.

The Nazis had the German military stage a Polish attack on its own troops to give them (false) reason to invade Poland. If all citizens were so on the ball, it would have never worked. But the sad truth is that, just as Hitler basically said himself (along with many of his officers), masses of people are stupid and will go along with big lies easily, out of sheer inability to entertain the truth.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The reason is this: terrorism is, by definition, a co-ordinated effort by a group, however loosely co-ordinated, to employ violent action in order to influence a government's policy, or an accepted social structure.

If that's the case, then I haven't seen the appropriate changes in governmental policy or social structure to justify using that definition.

These other incidents, while being no less tragic, have no common linkage, no underlying theme in common with other acts

Yes, they do, and that commonality is that these are all killers. They go out and shoot multiple people, and then often kill themselves as well. Whatever the specific rhyme or reason, we can hopefully agree none of them are psychologically healthy, and that is the REAL reason they do this.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I personally don't see how persecuting Muslims as if they are the sole murderers in this country is any different than persecuting the Jews for no particularly good reason during the 1930's. I see this country going down the same dark road, complete with all the zealots to back it just as the Nazis and other fascists of the time had their own.

All this is in your head. One of the key points raised with Major Hasan was that despite his open statements of allegiance to Muslim interests above his
duties as a military office in the US forces, he was tolerated even promoted.

In a less open-minded system he would have been accused of treason.

I think it can be argued very persuasively Muslims on the whole are not persecuted in the US.

Comparison to Jews in Germany is onerous and revealing of the arguments put forward as justifications. The US govt does not advocate mass executions of Muslims.

Muslims have been welcomed as immigrants and share all rights of American citizens. There are even have their own strong special interest lobby groups and organizations to address grievances of the Muslim population, like CAIR.

The point being avoided is that there are some Muslims in the US, integrated
as deeply as Major Hasan, who feel their loyalties are to political ideologies that promote the destruction and deaths of American citizens, property, military forces. This extends to Muslim religious leaders and charity organizations who actively work against American interests.

Some argue American open-mindedness and tolerance is being grossly abused by some Muslim citizens. I don't find reason to disagree.

A few thousand Americans killed on their home turf as a result of a series Muslim ideologically driven actions cannot be dismissed.


M



[edit on 14-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by nenothtu
The reason is this: terrorism is, by definition, a co-ordinated effort by a group, however loosely co-ordinated, to employ violent action in order to influence a government's policy, or an accepted social structure.

If that's the case, then I haven't seen the appropriate changes in governmental policy or social structure to justify using that definition.

There isn't any special reason that, just because terrorism is employed, the entity targeted by that terrorism is bound to give in to it. Terrorism can be, and has been, employed without achieving the desired results. It's still terrorism, though, because that is the aim of the effort.

These other incidents, while being no less tragic, have no common linkage, no underlying theme in common with other acts

Yes, they do, and that commonality is that these are all killers. They go out and shoot multiple people, and then often kill themselves as well. Whatever the specific rhyme or reason, we can hopefully agree none of them are psychologically healthy, and that is the REAL reason they do this.

The mental state of the perpetrator is not the defining issue of terrorism, the co-ordinated effort to achieve a specific goal is. These "lone-wolf" killers lack a common goal.

They're just junk-yard dog mean killers.

In the matter of Mr. Hassan, the goal of his actions has not been adequately aired as yet. Yes, he may have shouted "Allahu Akbar", but the question remains, was his religion the CAUSE of that, or was it a convenient excuse for his actions? Mr. Hassan is the only one who can answer that, regardless of the speculations being put forth.

[edit on 2009/11/14 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by nenothtu
In the matter of Mr. Hassan, the goal of his actions has not been adequately aired as yet. Yes, he may have shouted "Allahu Akbar", but the question remains, was his religion the CAUSE of that, or was it a convenient excuse for his actions? Mr. Hassan is the only one who can answer that, regardless of the speculations being put forth.

Unlike your average isolated murderer or terrorist, Major Hasan was a highly visible person working simultaneously as a military officer and medical professional. Due to the nature his work, reports and assessments were made on him regularly.

He made little effort to conceal his socio-political feelings and loyalties. How he will explain his actions in the aftermath of the killing spree last week remains to be seen. But we already have clear indicators from him and others who worked with him as to his feelings of obligation and loyalties as an American of Muslim heritage.


M

[edit on 14-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
All this is in your head.

I wish it would be that easy to dismiss everything I have seen, but unfortunately it's not, and all I ever get from you when faced with the same information is dismissal and politically-instilled defense mechanisms.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by nenothtu
The reason is this: terrorism is, by definition, a co-ordinated effort by a group, however loosely co-ordinated, to employ violent action in order to influence a government's policy, or an accepted social structure.

If that's the case, then I haven't seen the appropriate changes in governmental policy or social structure to justify using that definition.

There isn't any special reason that, just because terrorism is employed, the entity targeted by that terrorism is bound to give in to it.

Nor is there any reason to believe shooting a bunch of soldiers to death is going to result in any sort of policy change whatsoever except to crack down on that sort of thing from ever happening again. I can't see how anyone would do this and seriously believe they would get their way as far as any policy change is concerned. It goes against everything we are taught since children about social order.

The mental state of the perpetrator is not the defining issue of terrorism, the co-ordinated effort to achieve a specific goal is.

And I'm not seeing a very coordinated effort towards any particular goal here. Only senseless killing. What goal do you think this guy was realistically trying to accomplish by shooting all these people?

[edit on 14-11-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by mmiichael

All this is in your head. One of the key points raised with Major Hasan was that despite his open statements of allegiance to Muslim interests above his
duties as a military office in the US forces, he was tolerated even promoted.

This to me is strong circumstantial evidence of a Manchurian Candidate type conspiracy. It is said that Hassan received counseling during his internship at Walter Reed because of a number of unspecified problems and attitudes.

Yet what was he being counseled on and why, was he being purposefully led in this direction and encouraged to speak out in regards to his feelings as evidenced in his thesis presented on Islamic Duties in the U.S. Military?

Was he actually being encouraged by a ‘progressive’ army to voice these things while all the while a black operation was planned to utilize him as a patsy and a fall guy?

That the man was promoted to higher rank speaks of reward not punishment!

Inquiring minds want to know!

This is a conspiracy no doubt about it Michael.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Nor is there any reason to believe shooting a bunch of soldiers to death is going to result in any sort of policy change whatsoever except to crack down on that sort of thing from ever happening again. I can't see how anyone would do this and seriously believe they would get their way as far as any policy change is concerned. It goes against everything we are taught since children about social order.

Personal opinion. I think Major Hasan 'allegedly' shooting fellow military personnel on a US base is going to have serious ramifications among the military and civilian population.

The default American sentiment of giving benefit of a doubt to anyone will be diminished. Those who suffer will be ordinary citizens of Muslim extraction who just want to carry on with their non-political lives, maybe even join the military.

I would say an extra layer of diligence and scrutiny in hiring practices, and assigning security positions is inevitable.

Unlike with 9/11 where the perpetrators and planners were mostly thousands of miles away in foreign lands, we have an American citizen of high status who put in a position of trust in the nation's defense. He may be an extreme exception, but a terribly memorable one. No one will want to see the same mistake made again.

Every Muslim in the service will be given extra scrutiny. Muslims will be reluctant to join the service given the bad PR.

New fears, justified or not, will emerge. The notion of infiltration will be on a lot of minds. Unfortunate for a lot of innocent people, but guilt by association is a very human trait.


M

Originally posted by mmiichael
I think Major Hasan 'allegedly' shooting fellow military personnel on a US base is going to have serious ramifications among the military and civilian population.

The default American sentiment of giving benefit of a doubt to anyone will be diminished. Those who suffer will be ordinary citizens of Muslim extraction who just want to carry on with their non-political lives, maybe even join the military.

You just went out of your way to agree with exactly what I said:

Nor is there any reason to believe shooting a bunch of soldiers to death is going to result in any sort of policy change whatsoever except to crack down on that sort of thing from ever happening again.

And the rest of the quote you apparently didn't even comprehend before you responded to it:

I can't see how anyone would do this and seriously believe they would get their way as far as any policy change is concerned.

We are not in disagreement about what kind of change is going to result from this.

I could have told you this before this shooting even happened, if someone simply asked hypothetically what such a shooting would result in.

Anyone living in this country should have enough sense to know what we are both talking about is exactly the only consequence that would ever result from this in America.

So the question remains, what goal did this guy think he was going to accomplish by shooting all these people? How could this be a "coordinated effort" if it only stands to make all Muslims look bad?

[edit on 14-11-2009 by bsbray11]

He is so right, it hurts:

Originally posted by mmiichael

Unlike your average isolated murderer or terrorist, Major Hasan was a highly visible person working simultaneously as a military officer and medical professional. Due to the nature his work, reports and assessments were made on him regularly.

He made little effort to conceal his socio-political feelings and loyalties. How he will explain his actions in the aftermath of the killing spree last week remains to be seen. But we already have clear indicators from him and others who worked with him as to his feelings of obligation and loyalties as an American of Muslim heritage.


M

[edit on 14-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Agreed. From all reports I've seen so far, he went further off the rails as time progressed. Even a muslim recognized this one one website I read, by stating "That brother was RADICALIZED pretty severely!" in reference to the unfolding chain of events as presented to date, and making note of the particular imam Mr. Hassan had gotten involved with.

I'm not saying it WASN'T terrorism, or that it WAS. I'm saying the investigation should proceed to determine root causes, and net effects. All indications so far are that it was a "single combat" variety of terrorism event, precipitated by an increasingly radicalized mind. Even his co-workers noted the increasing radicalization, and no action was taken, probably out of misguided "political correctness".

A more effective, and more proactive approach, in my opinion, would have been to pull him out of any duty stations, and evaluate his mental state. If done early enough in the process, valuable insight could have been gained into the radicalization process, and this tragedy could have been averted regardless of insights gained.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


That guy is cracked out.

Seriously, that's the kind of person that would end up getting banned on ATS. How much more emotionally unbalanced can you get?