Workplace violence or jihad?

May 21, 2013
MFS – The Other News: Former counter terrorism head: FBI never called Ft.Hood 'Workplace Violence'.

Elaborate »


Work place violence? When a foreign indoctrinated #Muslim does what his religion tells him to do.

February 15, 2013
Members of Congress Demand Obama Classify Ft. Hood Attack an ‘Act of Terrorism’

creeping
It was jihad. By a soldier of allah (SoA).
Fort Hood Shootings

via Members of Congress Demand Obama Administration Classify Ft. Hood Attack an ‘Act of Terrorism’ – ABC News.

In the wake of an ABC News story detailing claims by victims of the Fort Hood shooting that they have been neglected by the military and ‘betrayed’ by President Obama, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee has sent a letter to his fellow members of Congress demanding that the Obama administration classify the attack as a terrorist act and provide full benefits to the victims and their families.

“It is time for the administration to recognize the Fort Hood shooting for what it is—an act of terrorism,” wrote Rep. Michael McCaul, R.-Texas, in a letter cosigned by Rep. Frank Wolf, R.-Virginia. “To date, the Department of Defense and the Army classify this attack [as] ‘workplace violence,’ despite mountains of evidence [that] clearly proves the Ft. Hood shooting was an act of terror.”
The letter recommends that members of Congress view the ABC News report, “which highlights the broken promises made to the victims of that attack by the Obama Administration. The video contains never-seen-before footage of the terrorist attack and moving interviews with several of the survivors.”
“As this news piece makes clear,” wrote McCaul and Wolf, “the result of this inexcusable [workplace violence] classification … is that victims and their families have not received the same recognition or medical and financial benefits as those wounded or killed in war.”
On Tuesday, Rep. Wolf took to the floor of the House to urge members to watch the ABC News report, and said Ft. Hood was “clearly a terrorist attack.”
“While the Obama administration has designated the attack that killed all those people as workplace violence, the survivors cannot get assistance,” said Wolf. “Secretary of Defense Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey, Attorney General Holder and the President of the United States have failed, failed the people and continue to fail the people that were wounded and killed, and their families at Fort Hood.”

More: Congressman Reintroduces Bill to Help Ft. Hood Shooting Victims

The Congressman whose district includes Ft. Hood is reintroducing a bill that will help victims of the 2009 shooting at the Texas Army base receive full benefits and make them eligible for the Purple Heart or the civilian equivalent.
“Shortly after the shooting, I introduced The Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act, which would award both military and civilian casualties of the Fort Hood attack combatant status,” said Rep. John Carter, R.-Texas. “It became clear early on that the Obama administration was reluctant to officially refer to the November 5, 2009 attack on Fort Hood as a ‘terrorist attack.’”
Carter announced the reintroduction of the bill in the wake of an ABC News investigation detailing claims by victims that they have been neglected by the military. In a report that aired on “World News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline,” former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said she felt “betrayed” by President Obama and that he broke a promise to make sure the victims would be well taken care of.

WATCH Exclusive Video of Fort Hood’s Aftermath
READ the Fort Hood Victims’ Lawsuit


The Next Bin Laden

May 15, 2011

Zawahiri betrayed Osama bin Laden: Saudi paper…“We firmly recognize that the umma [nation]of Muhammad is a nation whose destiny is independent of its leaders, no matter how great,” said American-born al-Shabaab commander Omar Hammami about the death of Osama bin Laden. For terrorists like Hammami, ending the life of bin Laden hasn’t ended the jihad against America.His statements match the mantra echoing across jihadi forums, as branches of al-Qaida and its allies pledge new terror attacks. Although bin Laden may be dead, the jihad lives on

Putting aside the rhetoric, al-Qaida is not an anarchist group, despite the loose connection between its regional branches. As long as al-Qaida lacks a clear central leader, it risks being lost in unending attacks without reason. That’s contrary to the group’s desire to establish a new Caliphate or at least oust the West from Muslim lands.
Rule by al-Qaida’s Shura Council, the consultative body of the Pakistani/Afghani branch, remains a strong possibility in the short term. But in the long term, jihadi groups will look to a single leader or emir, to set policy and direct the organization. If that doesn’t happen, the scattered al-Qaida branches that we know today will have little to unify them.
Bin Laden’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is widely considered the best positioned to seize the reins. However, U.S. intelligence estimates see him as an unpopular leader who lacks the charisma of bin Laden. “Zawahiri is obviously the presumed successor, but there are strong indications that he is not popular within certain circles of the group,” the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior intelligence figure as saying. “It is, of course, anathema to al-Qaida to hold free and fair elections. If free and fair elections [were conducted], Zawahiri would most likely have a fight on his hands.”
Alongside Zawahiri are a cast of other characters. The biographies below point to the most likely candidates, those with the reach and ideology to reunite the organization around a central figure:
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Osama bin Laden’s longtime deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri is the most likely candidate to take over al-Qaida, despite his reported unpopularity. Since the beginning, Zawahiri has been an important ideological force in al-Qaida, releasing regular internet videos espousing the organization’s mission. He also played a key role in refocusing al-Qaida’s efforts away from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and towards the “far enemy,” the Americans and the Jews.
Zawahiri’s jihadist roots trace back to Egypt where he was a founding member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), a radical group committed to overthrowing Egypt’s secular government. Zawahiri developed a close relationship with bin Laden during the Soviet-Afghan war and, in 1998, he officially merged EIJ with al-Qaida. In his capacity as second-in-command of al-Qaida, Zawahiri, officials say, was responsible for the planning of 9/11, the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. The U.S. government has offered a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to Zawahiri’s apprehension.
There is speculation that al-Qaida has not officially named Zawahiri as its new leader because of doubts surrounding his ability to lead as effectively as his predecessor. Zawahiri has a history “of alienating his colleagues, fighting over dogma, even within the Islamist movement,” said journalist Steve Coll, author of Ghost Wars and The Bin Ladens. “And as a communicator, he is less effective. His books are turgid and dogmatic.” Zawahiri also is said to lack the charisma and appeal that bin Laden possessed, and is seen as a “divisive” figure within al-Qaida’s ranks.
Nevertheless, the Islamic State of Iraq (formerly al-Qaida in Iraq) has already pledged its allegiance to Zawahiri, and a former EIJ member, Tawfiq Hamid, warned against underestimating the probable new leader. “He’s much more powerful as a leader – much more organized,” Hamid said. “When you listen to him, you can tell clearly that he has the ambition and is dedicated 100 percent to achieve this mission.”

Ilyas Kashmiri

Touted as “as the most effective, dangerous and successful guerrilla leader in the world” by intelligence agencies, Pakistani terrorist Ilyas Kashmiri heads the 313 Brigade, the military wing of al-Qaida in Pakistan. He is suspected of involvement in a number of high-profile terrorist attacks including: the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks that resulted in the deaths of 166 people at Mumbai’s train station, the Taj Mahal Hotel, and a Jewish center; and a suicide bomb attack on a top secret CIA base in the eastern Afghan province of Khost in December 2009 that killed at least eight Americans. He is also believed to have been the mastermind of a plot to attack the offices of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in retaliation for the newspaper publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad in 2005, and a 2010 plot for a series of “Mumbai-style” attacks in European cities.
Kashmiri has been named for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks in the terrorism indictment of David Coleman Headley. Court documents contain hints of connections between Kashmiri and al-Qaida and of Kashmiri’s desire to launch additional mass casualty terrorist attacks. In his first-ever interview with Asia Times in 2009, Kashmiri voiced his support for al-Qaida’s war against the United States and the West, and warned that the 2008 Mumbai attack “was nothing compared to what has already been planned for the future.” Kashmiri directs attacks in South Asia, while simultaneously assisting in plots against the West.

Cartoonist Molly Norris
has gone into hiding on the advice of the FBI
after receiving death threats from Islamic extremist
Anwar al-Awlaki.

In the wake of bin Laden’s death, Kashmiri “will probably be the operational mastermind and most dangerous,” said former CIA officer Bruce Riedel. Kashmiri is considered a dark horse to replace bin Laden because of Zawahiri’s unpopularity. However, according to U.S. government sources, Kashmiri may not even seek al-Qaida’s leadership. Until now, Kashmiri has acted as more of a behind-the-scenes military commander and has had minimal media exposure. He has also played a small role as an influential ideologue or recruiter.

Born in Yemen, but living much of his life in America, Awlaki has been referred to as “the translator of jihad.” He played an active role in over a dozen plots, including the Christmas Day Detroit flight bomb plot and the Fort Hood shootings. In addition, Awlaki’s writings and speeches on jihad have influenced jihadi plots in the United States, Britain, Canada, and elsewhere.
Awlaki has a high public profile, especially in comparison to other al-Qaida leaders. He produced a series of popular, English-language recordings throughout his own radicalization process, which remained in circulation well after he embraced jihad. In addition, his blog, use of video conferencing, and email communications, made him the most accessible terrorist leader. This legacy has continued through Inspire magazine, an English-language publication that features Awlaki’s latest statements, and keeps him in the jihadi public eye.
Although he is one the most active players in terrorism against Americans, Awlaki has little chance of succeeding bin Laden. His influence among English-speaking jihadists aside, Awlaki is not even the military or spiritual leader of his local branch of al-Qaida, al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). His encouragement of lone wolf terrorism, which he states should be carried out in a would-be terrorist’s home country, also differs from the top-down approach of al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Leave a Comment » | al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, Al-Zawahiri, Anwar al-Awlaki, AQAP, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Bin Ladin, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Fort Hood, Hammami, Ilyas Kashmiri, Mohammad, Mumbai, Osama Bin Laden, USS Cole | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Fake Hate Crimes: An Islamist Weapon

September 13, 2010

Over the recent Fourth of July weekend, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) interviewed attendees of the 47th annual Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention about their experiences in dealing with “Islamophobia.” Shortly afterwards, on July 6, CAIR called on the FBI to investigate an act of arson at a Georgia mosque, saying that hate crimes were increasing because of a “vocal minority in our society promoting anti-Muslim bigotry.” The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) referred to it as one of the “incidents of Islamophobia [that] are on the rise in this country.” However, police later arrested a Muslim suspect.

As Daniel Pipes has documented for years, Islamist organizations in the West are quick to label crimes as anti-Muslim hate crimes as part of their effort to make Muslims feel under attack and to paint themselves as Muslims’ protectors. For example, immediately following the Fort Hood shooting, CAIR asked Muslims to respond by donating to it. “We need financial help to meet these crises and push back against those who seek to score political points off the Muslim community in the wake of the Fort Hood tragedy,” the fundraising pitch read. To no one’s surprise, an anti-Muslim backlash did not ensue.
Cutting through the propaganda requires understanding the ways in which crimes are misrepresented as hate crimes — and why. There are two main culprits to consider: Muslims who stage fake hate crimes and Islamist organizations that seek to exploit them.
Why would anyone fabricate a hate crime against himself or his mosque? History indicates a pair of common motives.
In some cases, the faker has an obvious political goal of demonstrating the supposed prejudice against Muslims. A classic example occurred in 2008, when a 19-year-old female Muslim student named Safia Z. Jilani at Elmhurst College in Illinois claimed that she had been pistol-whipped in a campus restroom by a male who then wrote “Kill the Muslims” on the mirror. The alleged attack occurred just hours after she spoke at a “demonstration called to denounce the anti-Islamic slurs and swastika she had discovered … in her locker.” A week later, however, authorities determined that none of this had taken place and she was charged with filing a false police report.
Similar incidents recently unfolded overseas. A Muslim community leader in London named Noor Ramjanally reported that he had been kidnapped by members of the quasi-fascist British National Party; he also said that he had received death threats and his home had been firebombed. His claim received widespread attention, causing him to boast, “I have got the whole UK Muslim community behind me now.” Ramjanally later was arrested for faking the crime. Furthermore, last year in Australia, a prominent imam, Taj Din al-Hilali, told police that his mosque had been vandalized. When confronted with the security tape, which shows that he is the one who kicked in the door, he insisted that it had been manipulated.
In other cases, individuals are driven to fabricate hate crimes not for political reasons, but to cover up more mundane criminal activity. Take the bizarre story of Musa and Essa Shteiwi, Ohio men who received media attention in 2006 after reporting several attacks on their store, the third being with a Molotov cocktail. A fourth “attack” then occurred, when an explosion was set off and badly burned the father and son, injuries from which they later died. CAIR highlighted it as a hate crime. However, investigators found that the two had set off the explosion themselves after they poured gasoline in preparation for another staged incident and one of them foolishly lit a cigarette. The pair had hired a former employee to carry out the previous attacks as part of an insurance fraud scheme.
Now let us turn to the motives of groups such as CAIR for exaggerating the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims.
First and foremost, Islamists try to undermine and delegitimize their opponents by placing blame upon them for hate crimes. For example, a 2008 CAIR report attributes an alleged increase in hate crimes — “alleged” because the claimed increase is wholly contradicted by FBI statistics — to “Islamophobic rhetoric in the 2008 presidential election” and people who are “profiting by smearing Islam.” Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is specifically rebuked for titling a campaign ad “Jihad.”
CAIR’s 2009 report takes aim at the anti-Islamist film Obsession, a bête noir among promoters of the hate crime narrative. To cite one example of this approach, on September 26, 2008, law enforcement was notified that a 10-year-old Muslim girl at the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton had been attacked with pepper spray. A member of the board immediately attributed it to advertisements for the documentary. However, the FBI found no trace of chemicals in the mosque or on the alleged victim; the pepper spray was discovered inside the mosque four days later. It concluded that there was no evidence that a hate crime had occurred.
Islamist groups also use the fear created by their publicizing of alleged hate crimes and anti-Muslim sentiment to try to mobilize the community into opposing counterterrorism programs. As Daniel Pipes has noted, CAIR started down this path a decade and a half ago, when it described the prosecution of World Trade Center bomb plotter Omar Abdel Rahman and the arrest of Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook as hate crimes.
Similar tactics remain in play. In February 2009, the American Muslim Task Force and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) condemned the FBI after a story broke about the use of an informant in a mosque. They accused the government of an anti-Muslim conspiracy, saying that the informant was paid to “instigate violent rhetoric in mosques,” and threatened to end outreach efforts with the FBI. Then, in October 2009, a Michigan-based, pro-terrorist imam named Luqman Ameen Abdullah, who had been preparing his followers to wage war against the U.S. government, opened fire when the FBI tried to arrest him for criminal activity. Abdullah died in the shootout, but CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA) are attempting to attribute his demise to foul play.
These groups assume the worst of the FBI’s intentions and try to make the Muslim community feel as if it is threatened by its own government committing state-sanctioned hate crimes. True to form, attendees of the ISNA convention this past July were told how the FBI supposedly is targeting Muslims and advised that they should not talk to FBI personnel without a lawyer.
In summary, while real anti-Muslim hate crimes deserve the harshest of condemnation, claims about anti-Muslim hate crimes always should be taken with a grain of salt. CAIR and other Islamist groups thrive off of convincing Muslims that they are under constant assault from roving bigots and an oppressive state. Individual Muslims then feel empowered to fabricate hate crimes in order to paint themselves as victims.
For Islamists, the fear, isolation, and suffering of the Muslim community are nothing more than weapons to enhance their own prestige and pursue their political agenda.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). This article was sponsored by Islamist Watch.

noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | BNP, CAIR, Canadian Muslims, Fort Hood, Muslim American Society | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


The Saudi Camel in the Room

November 26, 2009

Meanwhile the same US military brass which covered up Nidal Malik Hasan’s violent Islamism, both before and after his attack, is sending signals that the real threat to the lives of US soldiers is Israeli housing. In fact of course Israeli houses have not killed anyone. Houses rarely do unless they fall on a wicked witch in the fabled land of Oz. It is killers, not houses, that kill. Hasan was an enemy from within. One of those friendly Religion of Peace types whose poor sensitive feelings every level of government has spent so much time nurturing. Yet none of it prevented him opening fire on the unarmed soldiers he was supposed to care for. Instead all the years of tolerating his growing homicidal rage sent him the signal that his anger was justified and that he could act with impunity.

Today, ISNA is privileged by the Obama administration; its president, Ingrid Mattson, appeared at the Obama inauguration, and was invited to the White House iftar, or Ramadan fast-breaking meal. She was accompanied to the iftar by Imam Yahya Hendy, the Islamic chaplain at Georgetown University. Hendy, it turns out, knew Nidal Hasan when the latter served at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., where Hendy also officiates as a chaplain.

“We should be glad that the authorities have moved to shut down the financial dealings of the Iranian clerical dictatorship in the U.S. , as represented by the Alavi Foundation. And we should be relieved that groups like HLF and the other terror supporters have been curbed. But until the real nature of ISNA, MSA, and ICNA is exposed, with their leaders fully investigated, and, where appropriate, charged and tried, Americans will remain disarmed in the face of the radical Islam – on our own soil.”

Senate Committee called on the IRS to collect financial information on 24 Islamist groups operating in the U.S.:

Al-Haramain Foundation

Alavi Foundation

Benevolence International Foundation

Global Relief Foundation

Help the Needy

Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development

Human Appeal International

Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America

International Islamic Relief Organization or Internal Relief Organization

Islamic African Relief Society and/or Islamic American Relief Agency

Islamic Assembly of North America

Islamic Association for Palestine

Islamic Circle of North America

Islamic Foundation of America

Islamic Society of North America

Kind Hearts

Muslim Arab Youth Association

Muslim Student Association

Muslim World League

Rabita Trust

SAAR Foundation and all members and related entities

Solidarity International and/or Solidarity USA

United Association for Studies and Research

World Assembly of Muslim Youth

Most of these organizations are obscure for ordinary, non-Muslim Americans even today. But with the exception of the Iran-directed Alavi Foundation, which was the object of an assets seizure proceeding this month, and leaving aside the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and a few other absent players, the list provides a map of the “Wahhabi lobby” of radical Muslim proponents in American. These organizations are financed by, and in some cases act as direct agencies of, powerful institutions in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, in tandem with their allies in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Blogburst logo, petition

Tom Burnett Sr:

A military trial will do the same thing–give them justice, give them a chance to talk–but not out, you know, in the public.

Nicely framed and edited by KSTP Minneapolis:

Second Burnett interview here. If only our government, with all its resources, could make 1/100th the sense of this honest patriot, but honesty and patriotism seem to be completely absent from the Obama/Holder makeup. Mr. Burnett says he will fight.

Mr. Burnett is also trying to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son’s grave

Video expose of what was originally called the Crescent of Embrace design, contains footage of Mr. Burnett and Alec Rawls (author of this blogburst post) at last year’s Memorial Project meeting:

Leave a Comment » | CAIR, Fort Hood, Islam, ISNA, MAS, Muslim Brotherhood, Wahabi | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Rubin Reports: Why I Murdered 13 American Soldiers at Fort Hood: Nidal Hassan Explains It All to You "

November 14, 2009

“How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so. You’ve seen reports of a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what’s most amazing of all is this:

Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people—including the president of the United States–to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.

It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.

It is quite a good talk. He’s logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there’s still a note of ambiguity in it. He’s still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.

In a sense, Hassan’s lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated–rather than swept under the rug–more people will die.

In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics. .

Follow along with me and you’ll understand everything.

Hassan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5]. Ironically, if an American journalist or professor said this he’d be accused of Islamophobia.

Now here’s Hassan’s central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims. And Hassan himself says that it’s getting hard for Muslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously, Hassan was deciding that he couldn’t do so.

He then quotes the Koran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hassan then gives four examples of Muslim soldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow American soldiers (which Hassan would himself do), one accused of espionage (but was acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment to Iraq. [Slide 13]

Quoting the Koran, Hassan next provides a number of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If they do, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72 virgins, there’s one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don’t they will suffer torments of Hell.

Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of “defensive Jihad” which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return.

And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, “Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly and justly” with those who fight Muslims.” [Slide 40]

If Nidal Hassan believed this and would follow it, he must—to be a proper Muslim in his eyes—pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers he treated. Think about it. To have done so, Hassan would have had to sympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him if he’d been fighting…Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that was precisely his problem.

Being ordered to ship out to one of these countries, Hassan now had to decide: which side are you on? Would he choose the side of Allah and the Muslims, to be rewarded in Heaven? Or would he join with the infidels, to be punished with Hell and to betray his religion? He made his decision.

It is interesting that no Muslim debate has developed over a very simple issue: What if two groups of Muslims are fighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslim allies? After all, Americans are not going to Iraq or Afghanistan simply to “kill Muslims” but to defend Muslims from being killed. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians had no problem with using Western troops to save them from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991, for example. The Iraqi and Afghan governments, made up of pious Muslims, do the same thing.

Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take this position more easily. But for Islamists the problem is not some abstraction but knowledge that they are fighting a battle to seize control of all Muslim-majority states and indeed perhaps of the entire world.

The true problem, then, is not that some Muslims help infidels kill Muslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists. But Hassan never considered this point, which could be quite persuasive to other Muslims in Western militaries.

So, in his thinking, how might Hassan have escaped from that stark choice? Hassan answers that question. Quoting the Koran, he indicated that if the Americans ended the wars, then that would be okay and no killing would be necessary. [Slide 42]

Another alternative is if the Americans accepted Islam or agreed to become subservient to Muslim rulers (dhimmis) and paid a special tax [Slide 43-44].

The third alternative would be if the Muslim Messiah came, destroyed Christianity as a false religion and set off the post-history utopia. [Slide 45]. He didn’t mention another part of this description, which was the murder of all Jews.

A digression is appropriate here. Hassan, although a Palestinian, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews. This is one more reminder that this struggle isn’t all just about Israel. But it also tells something important about Hassan which also applies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hassan is an American. As such he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. He doesn’t support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That’s why he is an Islamist and why he supports a generalized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida.

As one moderate Muslim from Canada pointed out, the clothes he wore the day before committing his Jihad attack was not (as some sources put it in a silly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but the clothing of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is an al-Qaida Jihadi, having changed sides in the War on Terror.

Hassan was no fool or blind fanatic. Indeed, he presents a sophisticated view. For example, he quotes contradictory Quranic verses, one suggesting that all religions can enter Heaven; another that all non-Muslims will go to Hell [Slide 47].

His conclusion takes on tremendous significance in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes:

“If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the `infidels’; i.e., the enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.”

And of course, these groups did so convince Hassan. [Slide 48]

Why? Hassan tells us:

“God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell. Muslims may seem moderate (compromising) but God is not.” [Slide 49]

And at the very end, he proposes what might have been his own escape route:

“Recommendation: Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as `Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” [Slide 50]

If that had existed for Hassan, I think, he would not have killed people. This proposal is worth debating, though it has negative implications too, of course. But then he had other options. He could have resigned his commission, deserted, or refused deployment as a conscientious objector and gone to prison. In fact, Hassan himself cited individuals who had done the last two.

The answer must be in a mix of psychological factors and the fact that he did see himself as a Jihad warrior in the end. The existence of the former in no way negates that of the latter.

The fact that Hassan’s lecture has not been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debate is a true example of how impoverished are the “experts,” journalists, and politicians at dealing with these issues. Of course, without exploring the Islamic factor, they’re wasting everyone’s time. They’re also going to be wasting quite a few lives.”

Physician Profile for Dr. Nidal M. Hasan, MD

Address:

36000 Darnall Loop

Fort Hood, TX 76544

Request an Appointment

Map data ©2009 Google – Terms of Use

Personal Facts

Personal Facts:

Male

Years Since Graduation: 6

Experience / Training

Medical School:

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine
Bethesda, MD 2003

Internship:

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward Herbert School of Medicine
Bethesda, MD

Residency:

Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Washington, DC 2007

Fellowship:

USUHS/WRAMC – Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry
Bethesda, MD 2009

Undergraduate School:

Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 1997

Disciplinary Actions

HealthGrades has examined disciplinary actions within the last five years from the Office of Inspector General and 50 state medical boards.

HealthGrades could not detect any disciplinary actions for Dr. Nidal M. Hasan, MD
as of 11/14/2009.

Note: HealthGrades reports on state and federal disciplinary actions (if any) from the previous five years.

Malpractice History

HealthGrades did not find any closed malpractice claims for
Dr. Nidal M.
Hasan, MD
in the states of California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, or West Virginia.
Learn More
Note: HealthGrades obtains physician information from a variety of sources. Some information that is not designated as HealthGrades verified has been reported by the physician.

Leave a Comment » | Fort Hood | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Rubin Reports: Why I Murdered 13 American Soldiers at Fort Hood: Nidal Hassan Explains It All to You "

November 14, 2009

“How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so. You’ve seen reports of a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what’s most amazing of all is this:

Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people—including the president of the United States–to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.

It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.

It is quite a good talk. He’s logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there’s still a note of ambiguity in it. He’s still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.

In a sense, Hassan’s lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated–rather than swept under the rug–more people will die.

In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics. .

Follow along with me and you’ll understand everything.

Hassan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5]. Ironically, if an American journalist or professor said this he’d be accused of Islamophobia.

Now here’s Hassan’s central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims. And Hassan himself says that it’s getting hard for Muslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously, Hassan was deciding that he couldn’t do so.

He then quotes the Koran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hassan then gives four examples of Muslim soldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow American soldiers (which Hassan would himself do), one accused of espionage (but was acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment to Iraq. [Slide 13]

Quoting the Koran, Hassan next provides a number of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If they do, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72 virgins, there’s one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don’t they will suffer torments of Hell.

Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of “defensive Jihad” which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return.

And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, “Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly and justly” with those who fight Muslims.” [Slide 40]

If Nidal Hassan believed this and would follow it, he must—to be a proper Muslim in his eyes—pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers he treated. Think about it. To have done so, Hassan would have had to sympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him if he’d been fighting…Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that was precisely his problem.

Being ordered to ship out to one of these countries, Hassan now had to decide: which side are you on? Would he choose the side of Allah and the Muslims, to be rewarded in Heaven? Or would he join with the infidels, to be punished with Hell and to betray his religion? He made his decision.

It is interesting that no Muslim debate has developed over a very simple issue: What if two groups of Muslims are fighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslim allies? After all, Americans are not going to Iraq or Afghanistan simply to “kill Muslims” but to defend Muslims from being killed. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians had no problem with using Western troops to save them from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991, for example. The Iraqi and Afghan governments, made up of pious Muslims, do the same thing.

Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take this position more easily. But for Islamists the problem is not some abstraction but knowledge that they are fighting a battle to seize control of all Muslim-majority states and indeed perhaps of the entire world.

The true problem, then, is not that some Muslims help infidels kill Muslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists. But Hassan never considered this point, which could be quite persuasive to other Muslims in Western militaries.

So, in his thinking, how might Hassan have escaped from that stark choice? Hassan answers that question. Quoting the Koran, he indicated that if the Americans ended the wars, then that would be okay and no killing would be necessary. [Slide 42]

Another alternative is if the Americans accepted Islam or agreed to become subservient to Muslim rulers (dhimmis) and paid a special tax [Slide 43-44].

The third alternative would be if the Muslim Messiah came, destroyed Christianity as a false religion and set off the post-history utopia. [Slide 45]. He didn’t mention another part of this description, which was the murder of all Jews.

A digression is appropriate here. Hassan, although a Palestinian, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews. This is one more reminder that this struggle isn’t all just about Israel. But it also tells something important about Hassan which also applies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hassan is an American. As such he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. He doesn’t support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That’s why he is an Islamist and why he supports a generalized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida.

As one moderate Muslim from Canada pointed out, the clothes he wore the day before committing his Jihad attack was not (as some sources put it in a silly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but the clothing of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is an al-Qaida Jihadi, having changed sides in the War on Terror.

Hassan was no fool or blind fanatic. Indeed, he presents a sophisticated view. For example, he quotes contradictory Quranic verses, one suggesting that all religions can enter Heaven; another that all non-Muslims will go to Hell [Slide 47].

His conclusion takes on tremendous significance in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes:

“If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the `infidels’; i.e., the enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.”

And of course, these groups did so convince Hassan. [Slide 48]

Why? Hassan tells us:

“God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell. Muslims may seem moderate (compromising) but God is not.” [Slide 49]

And at the very end, he proposes what might have been his own escape route:

“Recommendation: Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as `Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” [Slide 50]

If that had existed for Hassan, I think, he would not have killed people. This proposal is worth debating, though it has negative implications too, of course. But then he had other options. He could have resigned his commission, deserted, or refused deployment as a conscientious objector and gone to prison. In fact, Hassan himself cited individuals who had done the last two.

The answer must be in a mix of psychological factors and the fact that he did see himself as a Jihad warrior in the end. The existence of the former in no way negates that of the latter.

The fact that Hassan’s lecture has not been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debate is a true example of how impoverished are the “experts,” journalists, and politicians at dealing with these issues. Of course, without exploring the Islamic factor, they’re wasting everyone’s time. They’re also going to be wasting quite a few lives.”

Physician Profile for Dr. Nidal M. Hasan, MD

Address:

36000 Darnall Loop

Fort Hood, TX 76544

Request an Appointment

Map data ©2009 Google – Terms of Use

Personal Facts

Personal Facts:

Male

Years Since Graduation: 6

Experience / Training

Medical School:

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine
Bethesda, MD 2003

Internship:

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward Herbert School of Medicine
Bethesda, MD

Residency:

Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Washington, DC 2007

Fellowship:

USUHS/WRAMC – Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry
Bethesda, MD 2009

Undergraduate School:

Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 1997

Disciplinary Actions

HealthGrades has examined disciplinary actions within the last five years from the Office of Inspector General and 50 state medical boards.

HealthGrades could not detect any disciplinary actions for Dr. Nidal M. Hasan, MD
as of 11/14/2009.

Note: HealthGrades reports on state and federal disciplinary actions (if any) from the previous five years.

Malpractice History

HealthGrades did not find any closed malpractice claims for
Dr. Nidal M.
Hasan, MD
in the states of California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, or West Virginia.
Learn More
Note: HealthGrades obtains physician information from a variety of sources. Some information that is not designated as HealthGrades verified has been reported by the physician.

Leave a Comment » | Fort Hood | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon