November 8, 2009

Hasan "should have been gone," says Joe Lieberman, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security.

Lieberman promises to ask the hard questions about why Nidal Malik Hasan was tolerated despite warning signs. And let no one be in denial: The warning signs were beyond clear.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe....

Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.

Another, Dr Val Finnell, who took a course with him in 2007 at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, did complain about Hasan's "anti-American rants." He said: "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do. He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out. I really questioned his loyalty."
It is pathetic not to be able to distinguish between discrimination again Muslims and seeing that something is wrong with a particular individual who is a Muslim. It is thoroughly inept to think you have to choose between fighting terrorism and avoiding invidious discrimination.

It would seem that the Army was vulnerable to Rule 4 of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals":
Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.
Of course, we should live up to our own rules. The key is to have good rules and not to distort your own rules out of fear of erring in one direction when there are multiple interests at stake. I imagine that Hasan thought his colleagues were complete idiots to let him get away with the outrageous things that he — a psychiatrist! — said.

107 comments:

avwh said...

Lieberman's going to be a thorn in the side of Obama and the Dems before he's done, isn't he?

Good for him....

Maguro said...

Agree completely and I'm pleased to see Lieberman address this. The fact that Hasan held a commission in the US Army while doing nothing to conceal his radical Islamist beliefs is an absolute disgrace. The DoD leadership - starting at the very top - needs to be held accountable for this.

Alex said...

Althouse sounds particularly outraged the way Obama is handling this "incident of violence". Maybe we should just get past it and focus on health care!

Alex said...

The way you defeat Saul Alinsky's rules is you change the rules in the middle of the game to counteract his rules. I'm pretty sure some wise Chinese philospher-king already has thought of this 2000 years ago.

Synova said...

I don't think that many people understand what *regulations* mean in a military setting.

Like any large organization or institution, *regulations* take away nearly all possible exercise of individual judgment or authority. Faceless people process your promotions, and those are nearly never on some officer's personal judgment. It's very much about avoiding favoritism. The regulations against any sort of discrimination in the military are unforgiving.

There is no such thing as a "suggestion" or "guideline" about anything.

There is also a parallel system of working around those rules... but those only work as long as a pretense of not being aware of them can be maintained by those in charge.

I would like to point out to those that may not realize it....

The officer that gave Hasan a poor performance review ENDED Hasan's career. Granted, it was a slow-motion way to get rid of someone unsuited to wearing the uniform and Hasan was supposedly not interested in staying in the Army past the point he could resign his commission *anyway*. But if he *had*, it would be difficult for him to do so, and near impossible to be promoted again.

Rialby said...

It ain't going nowhere friends. Reid and Pelosi cannot expunge the criminals in their own ranks (see: Dodd and Rangel). The only way this goes forward is if they can make political hay out an investigation into who is and who is not a loyal American. That appeases their Left-leaning base but pisses off the rest of us who see real danger in a system that avoids confronting potentially lethal threats for the sake of political correctness.

MnMark said...

It is pathetic not to be able to distinguish between discrimination again Muslims and seeing that something is wrong with a particular individual who is a Muslim.

What about when a Muslim is a believer who believes that the Koran is the word of God, and that when the Koran commands him to kill the infidels, he then goes ahead and kills infidels.

In other words, when he is being a "good Muslim" - a devout Muslim, and Muslim who follows the commands of the Koran.

Does that make him a person who has "something wrong" with him? By liberal standards, it does. By devout Muslim standards, it does not.

So it's easy to criticize his superiors for not being able to distinguish between discrimination and stopping someone who has "something wrong" with him, but the problem is that being an actual devout Muslim IS what was wrong with him. Therefore, to stop him, you HAD to discriminate against him BECAUSE of his religious beliefs.

This is the ridiculous twist liberals get themselves in when they try to pretend that Muslims are just another harmless variety of religious believer, like a Christian or a Buddhist.

avwh said...

"Reid and Pelosi cannot expunge the criminals in their own ranks (see: Dodd and Rangel)."

They can't or they won't?

I'm not aware either have even tried. (Most transparent & ethical Congress ever, remember?)

Alex said...

avwh - to be fair, even Glenn Beck is not going after Rangel, since there are bigger fish to fry like defeating PelosiCare.

Alex said...

This is the ridiculous twist liberals get themselves in when they try to pretend that Muslims are just another harmless variety of religious believer, like a Christian or a Buddhist.

Ah but you see the lawyers have made sure that you can't make that judgment call based on reality, because it's discriminatory and we can't have THaT. Fuck lawyers.

Ann Althouse said...

@MnMark If the particular individual's understanding of his religion is that he needs to side with the enemy or that he needs to kill us, then we can and should respond to exactly that. Labeling something religion doesn't give him immunity. But it's wrong to treat a person who is a Muslim as if he is already buying into all of those things. That's the distinction that must be made. Too bad if that is hard to do.

From Inwood said...

Don't ask, don't tell applies to PC issues apparently.

Prof A: Good that you are taking the trouble to keep this up & a great summary. Clear & concise.

As NRO notes, the Army’s handling of this guy was another example of

“Another One for the ‘Better Screwed than Rude’ File.”

According to Mark Steyn

“Anwar al-Awlaki and his chums have bet that such a society is too sick to survive. Watch the nothing-to-see-here media driveling on about pre-post-traumatic stress disorder like gibbering lunatics in a padded cell, and then think whether you'd really want to take that bet.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/ 11/08/09 @ 2:48 PM

Jason (the commenter) said...

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.

All those officers were cowards, and they got innocent, brave people killed.

When someone says crazy stuff that could get people killed, you confront them, and take the danger onto yourself for the good of others who may not be prepared to face it.

All the officers who did complain, God bless you.

Synova said...

Perhaps they could enact a regulation that does not allow personal preferences to impact normal social expectations and kicked him out because he refused to take group-photos with the women in his unit. Or perhaps failing to cooperate with normal social expectations could trigger a mandatory psych evaluation.

There is a very strong compulsion toward participation in non-work social obligations in the military already and it's not necessarily a good thing. (Would most civilians put up with this? I think not.)

But I really can't see any *good* way to make a rule that penalizes anyone for what they think or say.

Someone linked a regulation the Army has against belonging to any organization that teaches hate or racial discrimination that was aimed at white supremacists that could possibly apply... except that it would have to be applied to a *religion* and would have to be applied to ALL Muslims in the military who would likely have to pro-actively show that they belonged to a reasonably liberal faith.

A "you've a right to your religious faith but not a right to serve in the military" might work for radical Islam and Westboro Baptists both, but would also be a problem for those wanting to propose that *anyone* has any sort of right to serve in the military.

Which they don't... but it's not likely a rule that would be uncontroversial.

Maguro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

Well, it's early yet, so there's a chance that a real look will be taken.

But if the past is guide, I'm not optimistic.

Unfortunately we started down the wrong road with the 9/11 Commission Report. Embedded in those endless documents were two unspoken deals:

1. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans shall blame the other.

2. Congress shall not blame itself nor shall anyone examine the role of Congress in the disaster. (This is the same rule now being applied to the 2008 financial meltdown.)

Actually, it is to be expected that those in power will evade and deflect responsibility. The diffusion and evasion of accountability is one of the primary skills of the modern politician.

One might hope that the press or even the blogosphere would shine a light on the evaders. Unfortunately the legacy media is too witness, lazy, distractible and suggestible to focus on an important and complex subject for very long. And the New Media, including the so called blogosphere, still lacks the resources, credibility and widespread exposure to fill the gap.

Thus liars, cheats and fools continue to thrive in American politics.

Maguro said...

Synova - "Regulations" are no excuse. How many regulations did a nutcase like Hasan violate on a regular basis? He was violating his Oath of Office for sure.

The fact is that the DoD has absorbed the stupid PC creed that the most important thing is to avoid offending members of designated victim groups at all costs. In this case, the cost of not offending Maj Hasan was 13 dead soldiers and many more wounded.

I'm sure this problem is worse in the medical and JAG corps - where officers are really civilian professionals in uniform - than it is in line units, but it is unacceptable anywhere in the military.

Sec Gates needs to show some leadership and accountability here. He doesn't hesitate to fire subordintes who fail to perform, so he needs to step up and hold himself to the same high standards because this is not an Army problem, this is a DoD-wide problem

Synova said...

And don't think that the Flying Imams winning their suit isn't important in relation to this.

The message is loud and clear.

Any one objecting to a Muslim person acting in a disturbing way is *wrong* and discriminatory according to the law.

David said...

In the post above I should have said that the legacy media is "witless" not "witness."

But of course you knew that.

Synova said...

"Synova - "Regulations" are no excuse."

"Regulations" are part of the non-civilian reality of the military.

Not an excuse.

But it's naive to suppose that *better* regulations are a solution or that *new* regulations won't involve changes to the entire organism.

It's easy to say... make *this* commonsense rule. But it is very like making a change in DNA in a finger without considering that the same change will be made in every single cell in the entire body and not bothering to figure out what that DNA change will do in the belly or brain.

Jason (the commenter) said...

David: 1. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans shall blame the other.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing. This is about cowards in the military. They'll try to blame political correctness, but there have been cowards of this sort long before political correctness ever existed.

Nomilk said...

On the chat shows today, Lieberman was the only stand-up guy. Lindsey Graham was worthless. And Gen. Casey, who apparently is drunk on the diversity Kool-Aid, was a goddam disgrace when he repeated a variant of this line over and over:

"And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

WTF!?! The Army Chief of Staff would rather sacrifice the lives of our troops than some PC virus that has now jumped species from the universities to the military. Has the world gone mad?

David said...

The Flying Imams were praying ostentatiously and acting boorishly to annoy people. At least this fact gave the court some colorable excuse for its perfection-by-hindsight decision. If the accounts are true, Hasan was praising suicide bombers, suggesting that mayhem and murder of "infidels" was appropriate, inflicting his religious and political views on his patients and (probably) violating military regulations through his political advocacy. This over a considerable period of time. Huge differences and no possible excuse for the Army not to investigate carefully.

gbarto said...

One thought here: This guy appears to have been around for awhile. So while Pelosi, Reid and Obama aren't doing much to keep us safe, this guy should have been gone long before Obama took office.

The most interesting thing is the mention here and there that he'd hoped we'd withdraw. He got upset when he found out he was going there instead of the troops coming home. Is he just another one of those rubes that Instapundit is always referring to?

JAL said...

But I really can't see any *good* way to make a rule that penalizes anyone for what they think or say.

Correct me military dudes and dudesses if I am wrong, but don't soldiers (and sailors, and marines, and airmen) swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

Yup. Here it is:

The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


While there is a PC mentality in parts of the military deconstructing this would meet some resistance.

Hasan is guilty and WAS guilty of failing to meet the requirements of the basic oath.

Synova said...

The Constitution guarantees that people are protected in their personal beliefs and convictions.

*Until* they act.

Things are slipping some lately, but we still frown on the notion of thought crimes.

traditionalguy said...

We are wrestling with a culture that totally despises us. Until we realise that, nothing will make any sense. No matter how nice and fair a non-muslim acts towards muslims, they only see weakness and continue to despise us. Once that becomes clear, then we can understand that the muslims living among us have a constant fear that we will decide to rise up and act back at them in the same hostile way. So muslims usually lay low and talg in farsi until the day that they are ready to restore Peace from their tense situation by either converting us, enslaving us or killing us off. All you need to do is study the way that the muslim world is acting right now towards non-muslims in the darfur region of western Sudan. That is their exact plan for you and me. No wonder we make them nervous as long as we still have weapons.

JAL said...

General Casey is a disgrace.

wv object
I object to the leadership of the US Army being able to mouth off about "diversity" while people are planning funerals for those killed because allegiance to diversity over common sense and UCMJ.

SteveR said...

If you are around the modern Army, that someone like that could avoid actual punishment (meaning discharge) is easy to foresee. Take the average PC insanity that goes on in most private institutions and place it into an organization where bureacrats fill out careers making big deals out of anything that can be judged a violation, the resultant crap that you have to wade through is incredible.

Please don't use common sense trying to explain this.

former law student said...

A sudden thought -- Were they seen as warning signs or a way for a malingerer to get out of the service? Maybe Hasan's comments were seen as too over-the-top to be taken seriously, especially in conjunction with his attempt to resign.

As a former M*A*S*H viewer, I am reminded of Cpl. Klinger's non-stop attempt to be discharged from the service for cross-dressing.

Maguro said...

Synova - I just retired from the USAF last year so I know what regulations are.

In fact, the military has so many regulations that Maj Hasan himself was undoubtedly in violation of numerous regulations himself. He was clearly violating the oath of office (which is kinda important) but undoubtedly there were others as well. The proselytizing could have been grounds for UCMJ action, particularly if he disobeyed direct orders to cease and desist.

What was missing in this case was not the "right" regulations, but rather the will to enforce them.

edutcher said...

Nomilk said...

On the chat shows today, Lieberman was the only stand-up guy. Lindsey Graham was worthless. And Gen. Casey, who apparently is drunk on the diversity Kool-Aid, was a goddam disgrace when he repeated a variant of this line over and over:

"And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

WTF!?! The Army Chief of Staff would rather sacrifice the lives of our troops than some PC virus that has now jumped species from the universities to the military. Has the world gone mad?


You broke the code.

Casey's hardly another Douglas MacArthur.

Interesting to note that Joe Lieberman is the conscience of the Democrat Party, but he isn't a Democrat anymore.

Kev said...

But it's wrong to treat a person who is a Muslim as if he is already buying into all of those things. That's the distinction that must be made. Too bad if that is hard to do.

Except according to a paragraph in the main post, this should have been easy:

Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."

Doesn't it go beyond "thought crimes" if you're actually saying this stuff? That quote alone sure seems to render him unfit for military service.

former law student said...

Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."

Doesn't it go beyond "thought crimes" if you're actually saying this stuff? That quote alone sure seems to render him unfit for military service.

The Army's chaplains are next to go -- their very motto puts God before Country.

Ann Althouse said...

I don't think "Muslim first and American second" is that significant. Don't most serious religious persons put God before their country?

Kev said...

I don't think "Muslim first and American second" is that significant. Don't most serious religious persons put God before their country?

I see your point, but doesn't it depend on which type of Muslim he's professing to be--the kind that lives a quiet, daily life of practicing his religion and not bothering others, vs. the kind who takes seriously his religion's holy book's apparent commandment to kill all nonbelievers? It seems like the latter should raise the red flags I mentioned earlier.

(And in complete fairness--the closest I'll come to bowing to PC here--I would expect the same red flag to be raised for someone of any religion whose scriptures call for the death of nonbelievers. Do any other religions do that?)

Synova said...

"Synova - I just retired from the USAF last year so I know what regulations are.

In fact, the military has so many regulations that Maj Hasan himself was undoubtedly in violation of numerous regulations himself.
"

No doubt.

Which gets to the area of "and who isn't?"

I'm not *disagreeing* with you and I'm not all that interested in getting into a discussion of what to enforce or not enforce of those entirely excessive regulations and how those decisions are made that would confuse civilian people, in which you would undoubtedly tell me I'm full of it and I'd concede.

There is no doubt in my mind that officers unwilling to risk appearing to be intolerant let slide what should have been acted upon. I don't doubt for a moment that if Hasan had not had the cover of being a Muslim that his behavior would have been addressed.

lucid said...

>>>Ann
The problem is that he took the "Muslim" and the "American" to be directly opposed to each other, requiring him to go to war as as Muslim against Americans. He seems to have communicated that clearly enough. If someone believes his religion requires acts of violence against his fellow citizens, is that belief protected until he acts?

I do think we are having problems making medieval approaches to religion fit a secular, Anglo-American legal tradition.

Alex said...

I don't think "Muslim first and American second" is that significant. Don't most serious religious persons put God before their country?

Ann - there is a BIG difference between how Christians put God before country and how Muslims do. For Christians, God helps them to defend America. For Muslims, Allah is there to help them destroy the American infidel. I can't imagine any Muslim soldier in the US army who doesn't have it in the back of his mind that he's killing his fellow Muslims over in Iraq & Afghanistan. They're all suspect.

MnMark said...

Ms Althouse wrote: But it's wrong to treat a person who is a Muslim as if he is already buying into all of those things. That's the distinction that must be made. Too bad if that is hard to do.

How will you know if he's buying into all that? Are you going to set up some sort of panel that will examine the written and spoken statements of Muslims to determine whether they have crossed some line? "The Muslim may express beliefs A, B, and C, but may not express beliefs D, E, and F or they will be considered a threat." Are we going to become experts in Muslim theology? This is number-of-angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory.

This isn't just "hard", this is impossible. I think you have to be honest and admit it IS impossible, and that you are being disingenuous when you say "too bad if it's hard." In this case, saying "too bad if it's hard" is the equivalent of saying "we just have to put up with a certain percentage of us being murdered every year."

There are only two realistic paths that can be taken here. One is to say, "we will never prejudge a Muslim to be a danger just because he's a Muslim." That route dooms us to a never-ending stream of these killings, growing worse and worse as the muslim population grows, because we have no way of knowing who is and who isn't a dangerous muslim. The other is to say "Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. There may be Muslims who are no danger, but we can't tell them from the ones who ARE a danger, and there is no benefit to us from having muslims here that outweighs the costs in lives lost by enduring that danger. Therefore, until such time in the future as Islam morphs into something that is no danger to us, we cannot accept Muslims living in our lands."

The only question is how many more of us have to be murdered before well-meaning people like you admit that the "we can't discriminate" policy regarding muslims is unworkable.

daubiere said...

"Therefore, until such time in the future as Islam morphs into something that is no danger to us, we cannot accept Muslims living in our lands."

unfortunately, we as a nation have inexorably chosen your first scenario. theres no turning back now. we will keep getting bombed shot and killed until such time as our nation, as will all liberal western nations, completely submits. face it, the age of the enlightenment is waning. china, with its brutal intolerance of radicals of any stripe, will rule the world. reason is weaker than power and violence. the united states lost its will to survive when it chose to hold tolerance of "diversity" in higher regard than love and maintenance of our founding principles.

i stress again, there is no going back now. pandoras box is open.

Lem said...

The only question is how many more of us have to be murdered before well-meaning people like you admit that the "we can't discriminate" policy regarding muslims is unworkable.

I dont think its a good idea to fight terror by going back on the principles that have this country the beacon of freedom around the world.

We start prosecuting peoples religious beliefs, the terrorist will have won.

Nomilk said...

i stress again, there is no going back now. pandoras box is open.

Chuck Heston agrees: the world has gone mad.

PatCA said...

Great post.

Will this incident with Lieberman as the "one honest man" finally kill political correctness?

Roost on the Moon said...


Of course, we should live up to our own rules. The key is to have good rules and not to distort your own rules out of fear of erring in one direction when there are multiple interests at stake.



I wish this Althouse was in charge of running this blog.

Robert said...

When I was in Okinawa, I saw Muslim guys in kaftans walking along the beach and being friendly with US some African American Military personnel, like they were buddies. I followed them to the local supermarket and back to the place they were staying which offered an unobstructed view from less than 800 yards of the planes taking off from the airbase. Muslims in kaftans in Okinawa, Japan????? I reported them to the local NCIS to the ridicule of Intelligence officers in my office. But I reported them because god (the good one) forbid they shot one of those down from an shoulder fired SAM delivered by boat and I didn't say anything.

You have to understand, middle east muslims in Okinawa, Japan???? Never knew what happened.

Bruce Hayden said...

re: 9/11 Commission - we all knew that it would be a whitewash when the Democrats put Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie S. Gorelick on the commission. He is a well known, no-holds-barred, political operative who was put on the commission to protect the Clintons (which he did very successfully). But worse, Gorelick is one of the main contributors to the successful 9/11 attack. It was she, working near the top of the Reno Justice Department who implemented the famous "Wall" that prevented different parts of the FBI from communicating about terrorism threats, or for them to talk to the CIA about same. And with her on the Commission, there was almost no investigation into the DoJ's role in thwarting effective intelligence gathering about possible terrorism attacks, because to have done so would have attacked her personally.

The insanity is that after that fiasco, where did she go next? The next place she popped up nationally was on the Board at Fannie Mae. A lawyer who had little banking experience before then, but plenty of experience politically. But, it turned out that many of the Board members were Democratic party operatives, just like Goerlick.

Cedarford said...

Posted the after the shootings on the website of Nidal Hasan's former Imam in Virginia (now in hiding in Yemen as a wanted terrorist):

Early this morning, after Awlaki's name was publicly linked to Hasan's, a posting on Awlaki's site was titled “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing.”

In it, a writer claiming to be Awlaki described Hasan as a hero and "a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."

"Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal," the writer said.

vbspurs said...

OT, but I did want to say that I find it hugely disappointing (but so readily believable given this man's ideology) that the US President will not be present at the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall today (9 Nov). Medvedev, Gordon Brown, even Lech Walesa will be there. I'm sure many others will too, celebrating when Europe finally was healed by the schism of communism.

But the President of the United States, whose two predecesors Kennedy and Reagan had the most iconic moments speaking in front of said wall, of any foreign leader, chose to give this event a pass.

I hope Ann blogs about this, but just the same I'll say that I've discerned a pattern in Barack Obama. If he's not the star of the show, he doesn't show up or tune in. Could be why according to Robert Gibbs he was watching the HBO special on his 1st year anniversary as President instead of the elections returns.

Ugh.

Cheers,
Victoria

LoafingOaf said...

MnMark said...
There are only two realistic paths that can be taken here. One is to say, "we will never prejudge a Muslim to be a danger just because he's a Muslim." That route dooms us to a never-ending stream of these killings, growing worse and worse as the muslim population grows, because we have no way of knowing who is and who isn't a dangerous muslim. The other is to say "Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. There may be Muslims who are no danger, but we can't tell them from the ones who ARE a danger, and there is no benefit to us from having muslims here that outweighs the costs in lives lost by enduring that danger. Therefore, until such time in the future as Islam morphs into something that is no danger to us, we cannot accept Muslims living in our lands."

I don't believe that someone who intends to go on a mass-murdering shooting spree just "goes off" out of the blue without lots of warning signs beforehand. This individual guy was raising eyebrows and red-flags for awhile.

(BTW, I think you raise a flag about yourself with the outlandish things you're saying here: Your hardcore bigotry, and your feverish proclamation that all Muslims should be deported, is crazy talk from a place of hatred. You're more likely to commit a horrible act of violence than most people I come across, Muslim or otherwise.)

LoafingOaf said...

daubiere reads MnMark's crazy talk and gets worked up like someone being persuaded by a KKK rally:
"Therefore, until such time in the future as Islam morphs into something that is no danger to us, we cannot accept Muslims living in our lands."

unfortunately, we as a nation have inexorably chosen your first scenario. theres no turning back now. we will keep getting bombed shot and killed until such time as our nation, as will all liberal western nations, completely submits. face it, the age of the enlightenment is waning. china, with its brutal intolerance of radicals of any stripe, will rule the world. reason is weaker than power and violence. the united states lost its will to survive when it chose to hold tolerance of "diversity" in higher regard than love and maintenance of our founding principles.

You need to calm down, dude. Take two weeks off from reading the right-wing blogosphere, or something.

LoafingOaf said...

Anyway, it's pretty embarrassing for the U.S. Army that this all happened. They spent a half a million dollars to educate a deranged lunatic into a licensed psychiatrist with high Army rank and Army base security clearances.
Incredible.

HelenParr said...

You also must understand that the professional corps of medical doctors, dentists and veterinarians are NOT the same Army as all the rest. It's a different entrance, rank/time structure, promotion board. Even their generals still wear branch insignia {which means they're not really 'general' officers, but always doctors and dentists). They're doctors first, soldiers second.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Right now, CNN is doing a bit about how horribly concerned they are about a "possible backlash against Muslims" in the millitary. Their evidence of problems: A Pajamas Media writer said that she knew that the shooter was Muslim (was she wrong?) and there are some Muslims who have served honorably (does anyone doubt that?). They keep hinting about harrassment, implying that there is a long history of this, but gave absolutely NO actual stories or reports of it really happening.

No concerns about why Hasan actually did what he did ("motives unknown").

kentuckyliz said...

Re the doctors first thing: if Hasan only joined the military to get a free medical education and desired to bolt at the first opportunity, assuming he didn't commit these mass murders as a terrorist act, can you imagine how successful he'd be as a private sector psychiatrist?

Where the free market determines his business and licensing boards outside the military won't be so bashful about reprimands and yanking licenses.

If he started proselytizing his patients and barking the Islamoid line, they would file complaints with the board in a jiffy and even sue him.

Assuming he could keep a client base.

He'd pretty much have to set up practice in Dearborn.

It's a bad idea to think that you can get something valuable "free" from the military without having to fulfill an obligation that might include being deployed in war.

I remember in Gulf I the college student reservists being called up. "All I wanted was to have college paid for!" Boo freakin' hoo.

LarsPorsena said...

Would they got rid of him if he was a member of the Univ. of Wisc. faculty?

cookasia said...

Alex and Ann: Christians put God before country, but nowhere NOWHERE does the New Testament tell believers to go out and murder nonbelievers. So maybe it is a radical Muslim thing....murder...but it surely isn't Christian or Jewish or Bahai......

grapp said...

AAlthouse writes: "@MnMark If the particular individual's understanding of his religion is that he needs to side with the enemy or that he needs to kill us, then we can and should respond to exactly that. Labeling something religion doesn't give him immunity. But it's wrong to treat a person who is a Muslim as if he is already buying into all of those things. That's the distinction that must be made."

Here is the mistake you're making, Ann. Islam is NOT like either of the world's two great religions: Judaism or Christianity. There is no such thing as a "particular individual's understanding of his religion" in Islam. What there is is the Koran and what it teaches, and interpretation is not left to the individual but to the imam who follows the teachings of a particular ayatollah. That's why Ayatollahs hold such a sway over the behaviors of Muslims and can bring a government to its knees. In some cases, the "particular individual's understanding of his religion" of these ayatollahs have created schisms such as Shi'ism, Sufism, Ahmaddiya, etc. Even then, within these various isms the people are not expected to have a "particular individual's understanding of his religion". They have to toe the line and follow the teachings they are given rather than try to interpret the koran for themselves. Christians are encouraged to be Bereans, to search the Scripture to know, to think so they will have an answer. Muslims must LEARN the koran BY HEART so they may parrot it. Thinking about it is left to the imam and the ayatollahs who feed the imams.

Because one cannot NOT BELIEVE the koran and be a good Muslim, and because they are made to memorize it and not interpret it, every Muslim has already bought into what Hasan believes; they will not condemn his actions because he is doing what the koran commanded. The difference between Hasan and the others is that they have not yet acted on the teachings of the koran. Therefore, the distinction that should be is a temporal one with regard to the Muslim's action: not yet.

This guy at Hasan's mosque (Akvert or something like that), the one who was handing out flyers to get people to believe differently than Hasan does, is disregarded because he's not in line with koranic teachings. He needs to be careful lest somebody take his head.

grapp said...

Here is Hasan's imam's take on the murders: "The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal’s operation.The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy." Read the rest here: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=10066

cookasia said...

Loafing Oaf: How's this, buddy, from Pope Benedict, and not from some nutty Imam; nothing here about murdering nonbelievers:

Christ is looking for men and women
who will help him to affirm his victory using his own weapons:
the weapons of justice and truth,
mercy, forgiveness and love.


His Holiness, Benedict XVI

Chase said...

I agree with Victoria above.

Obama may have had a tin ear in his immediate handling of the Ft Hood crisis, but he has said the correct things and is giving repeated honor to both the slain and all of those serving.

A far more serious issue is his refusal to be involved - and his not explaining that lack of involvement - in the ceremonies celebrating the coming down of the Berlin Wall. The iconic evidence of the end of Soviet Domination os eastern Europe. Freedom for tens of millions of people.

Shame on you, President Obama. Shame on you.

Pogo said...

The only lessons I have learned from the Hasan mass murder and the 'flying imam' circus is that the US military cannot or will not protect its own soldiers, and the US justice system cannot or will not protect US citizens.

I could go on about the primary duty of any nation being self-defense, and that the inability to do so illegitimizes a government, and all that sort of 1760s stuff.

But it hardly matters. No one takes words like that too seriously anymore. Obama's administration will do nothing about this.

'Diversity über alles' means we're sliding into barbarism, bit by bit.
We are, each of us, on our own.
Best to act accordingly.

EnigmatiCore said...

The officer that gave Hasan a poor performance review ENDED Hasan's career. Granted, it was a slow-motion way to get rid of someone unsuited to wearing the uniform and Hasan was supposedly not interested in staying in the Army past the point he could resign his commission *anyway*. But if he *had*, it would be difficult for him to do so, and near impossible to be promoted again.

Well, then, everything worked absolutely perfectly and there is nothing to be learned here, nor anything to be changed, since clearly Hasan had been taken care of with that poor performance review.

grapp said...

"Ann Althouse said...I don't think 'Muslim first and American second' is that significant. Don't most serious religious persons put God before their country?"

Actually, the Christian take on this is more complex. God has given us a conscience, and governments and laws that we should heed ... UNLESS we are asked to do something contrary to our faith. THEN, we obey God and not government.

In context: if I'm a Christian and intern at a hospital and the law says I must perform abortions, then I vigorously dissent from that law because it asks me to take a human life wantonly. If I'm in the military and the command is to go and kill in war, then I must go and kill because we fight not for ourselves but for the country. We have the just war theory.

We are always children of God, true, but we are also citizens of countries to whom we pledge allegiance. That oath, once taken, cannot be broken. It is an oath. In the taking and keeping of the oath is the nod to God.

AllenS said...

You are correct, Pogo. We are rotting from the inside out.

The Drill SGT said...

Synova said...The regulations against any sort of discrimination in the military are unforgiving.

You are talking about the general anti-discrimination stuff and are correct at one level however....

There is a separate chammel and method to deal with Hassan's. The Security process. When you hold a clearance the DoD is interested in whether you make statements that indicate disloyalty to the US. The security works are more than willing to take complaints and follow them up.

PS: JAL, the oath you cited is for enlisted persons. Officers take this oath: I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

PPS: Althouse said...Ann Althouse said...
I don't think "Muslim first and American second" is that significant. Don't most serious religious persons put God before their country?


Althouse, that demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding about what makes Islam different. Christians also have this "render unto Caesar" thing. The Temporal and Spiritual are clearly split. Islam is ultimately both a spiritual and a political ideology. It drives to establish a Caliphate to rule the Dar al-Islam (e.g. them) and wage Jihad against the unbelievers in the Dar al-Har, the House of War (e.g. us)

The Drill SGT said...

PPPS: Casey was disgusting....

Fred4Pres said...

Hasan should have been gone for being a poor psychiarist alone.

Florida said...

Ann, you really don't realize the extent to which Alinsky #4 is devious.

I see it this way: Hasan was trying to get out of the military that had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate him as a six-figure doctor. They were about to require their payment in the form of his service overseas.

That's the sole reason they wouldn't let him out. He owed them both time and money.

Muslims have figured out that the U.S. military will pay for your college education; and then when you've graduated you can just start saying crazy shit about the Koran and maybe they'll let you out of your obligation.

Meanwhile, bingo! you've got a five-start US college degree that guarantees you a life of wealth and riches back in your home country (or even a six-figure life right here in the United States).

Hasan was "crazy" for a good reason ... he wanted a Section 8. Just like Max Klinger wore dresses to get out of Korea.

Hasan was pissed off they wouldn't give it to him and were shipping him overseas; and that's why he went off the deep end.

We'll be vulnerable to this strategy and risk until we realize that we cannot allow members of a religious cult to be in our military.

Florida said...

Alinsky Rule #4:

If you're a terrorist, where is the best place to train?

Well, consider this: Why receive third-rate training in the hot Afghanistan desert ... making yourself vulnerable to Predator drone missile attack?

Why not train right here in the United States where it's relatively cool and you're going to get top-notch training from the best military outfit in the world?

On top of that, they'll pay you to go to college. Once you get your degree, you can spout off some nonsense about beheading unbelievers and then they'll let you go.

You can go for the good life in the US and if it doesn't work out for one reason or another, you can join the Jihad having received the safest, and best, training available.

Muslims getting free training and education in the US military is a win-win.

For the other side.

HT said...

There's no such thing as the Democrat Party.

traditionalguy said...

Politically correct treatment of a cadre of terrorists like the Saudi warriors on 9/11 requires that we not speak out boldly that they are enemies planning our murder until the moment that they start the killing of innocent (But to them only filthy scum) American citizens. This is because our tradition refuses to fight gods/religions that live among us peacefully. In fact we welcome them. Why? Because our tradition began when we were confident that our God could overpower their god, just like we were once confident that our free markets if defended from communist destruction could overpower Communisim in Berlin. We became losers in these confrontations the day we gave up our own Christian faith and our own free market faith. Today our Great Leader is a Marxist true believer who bows to the powers of 2 billion oil rich Mohammedens and carefully avoids any expression of a real Christian faith in a victory over them. Ergo, the day we elect Sarah Palin will be the day we regain our courage and start winning the battle for survival again.Small wonder half of the "opinion news pieces" we are being fed today are stories about how bad a person the shameful Sarah Palin has become these days.

Paco Wové said...

"No concerns about why Hasan actually did what he did..."

It was the gun that did it. It's a known cop-killer.

MadisonMan said...

I'd be more impressed with Lieberman if he had been asking the hard questions before the shooting.

Florida said...

"It was the gun that did it. It's a known cop-killer."

You know, the most ironic thing about this ridiculous media meme is that, in fact, the cop lived.

The cop was shot by a "cop killer gun" that - oops - didn't killer her.

Florida said...

"I'd be more impressed with Lieberman if he had been asking the hard questions before the shooting."

But you don't understand the rules. If you ask the "hard questions" before the shooting, then you're just a racist Islama-phobe. If you ask the "hard questions" before the shooting begins, you have a mental illness and require re-education.

Only after the enemy has achieved its goal can we ask the "hard questions" in Barack Hussein Obama's America.

Democrats are on the enemy's side. They are traitors who hate America and want to see us defeated and killed. That's why they've set up the rules of the game to guarantee that the enemy can achieve its goals long before we are ever permitted to ask the "hard questions."

MadisonMan said...

Florida, I don't buy into that. If you ask the hard questions, then you are a leader.

Lieberman is being a politician, cynically using this to advance his own horn-blowing. Perhaps if he did this quietly, behind the scenes, I could think better of it. To expect a politician to avoid the opportunity of a microphone, however, is to expect two beautiful 70-degree days on a weekend in November: You will almost always be disappointed.

The Crack Emcee said...

"I imagine that Hasan thought his colleagues were complete idiots to let him get away with the outrageous things that he — a psychiatrist! — said."

If he doesn't, I do.

Florida said...

ABCNews Breaking:

Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda

"U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News."

They've infiltrated our military and are killing us from inside our own country, with our own guns, with our own ammo, and we see Barack Hussein Obama not doing anything about it. Don't ask. Don't tell. Shhhhhh. Secrecy.

"Don't rush to judgment," says Hussein Obama.

Florida said...

"If you ask the hard questions, then you are a leader."

No. The Democrats have set it up so that if you ask the "hard questions" before the mass murder starts, then you're a racist and you'll lose your job and your home. They'll use DSS to take your kids from you.

I don't blame people for quietly acquiescing when the enemy has infiltrated our wire and is running the country.

Maguro said...

I'd be more impressed with Lieberman if he had been asking the hard questions before the shooting.

Sure, but you take what you can get. The alternative is to gloss over the hard questions with diversity pabulum and let it happen all over again.

And maybe the next guy is a B-52 pilot instead of a shrink with two Berettas. The military gives people access to incredible destructive power, the least they can do is make sure that those people aren't on the other side.

Finally, I don't give a shit if Liebs is grandstanding or not, the DoD leadership needs to address this issue in a public way. If it takes a grandstanding politician to make that happen, so be it.

Florida said...

"Lieberman is being a politician, cynically using this to advance his own horn-blowing."

See, you just proved my point.

On the one hand, you criticize Lieberman for not asking the "hard questions" before the successful completion of Hasan's operation.

Then when he does ask the hard questions, you accuse him of treachery.

You and your friends are revealing yourselves as the one, true enemy.

Florida said...

"And maybe the next guy is a B-52 pilot instead of a shrink with two Berettas."

You know, that may be our saving grace. One can only hope that when that B-52 pilot drives his nuclear-tipped aircraft into the halls of Congress (as they tried to do on 9/11) then maybe we can dispense with the politically-correct pleasantries and get on with the task at hand.

Jon said...

Is it any wonder we were losing the Iraq War, with General Casey in charge?

Florida said...

"Is it any wonder we were losing the Iraq War, with General Casey in charge?"

But General Casey isn't in charge.

Commander-In-Chief Hussein Obama is in charge.

Is it any wonder that we're losing when Hussein is taking a dive and throwing the game?

Shanna said...

How will you know if he's buying into all that? Are you going to set up some sort of panel that will examine the written and spoken statements of Muslims to determine whether they have crossed some line? "The Muslim may express beliefs A, B, and C, but may not express beliefs D, E, and F or they will be considered a threat." Are we going to become experts in Muslim theology? This is number-of-angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory.

This isn't just "hard", this is impossible.


Is it really hard to draw the line at someone who is verbally advocating the murder of infidels in front of witnesses??? Really?

Roger J. said...

Since Bob Gates fired the Air Force Secretary and Air Force Chief of Staff last yearm, will be interesting to see if he steps up to the plate and resigns. Don't hold your breath, however.

sierra said...

Just a minor grammatical point. It should be: "non-believers should be beheaded or have boiling oil poured down their throats." Otherwise, it would be fine to say non-believers should have boiling oil poured down their throats and be beheaded. That would work.

PatCA said...

I don't think "Muslim first and American second" is that significant. Don't most serious religious persons put God before their country?

Sure, but no other religion other than radical Islam has declared war on us, has killed and maimed so many of our countrymen. No Catholic or Protestant clergy lecture us to fight the United States, physically and spiritually. No other religion states world domination as its end. So, big differences.

Oligonicella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...

Roger J. -- Can you provide more context? Was there a security scandal in the Air Force I forgot about?

Oligonicella said...

daubiere --

"Therefore, ... there is no going back now. pandoras box is open."

To you and all your ilk who throw your hands up in despair and attempt to get everyone else to capitulate, I move your piece from the white to the black side of the board and say "Piss off and fuck you."

(Had a typo in my invective)

Father Martin Fox said...

Re: other religions

You can find passages in the Old Testament that are read as justifying killing unbelievers--and there were times in history when Jews and Christians did just that. However, it's been awhile since that was an issue; when popes, bishops and pastors start doing it, then let's talk about that. Same with the Jews.

Re: "cop killer gun"

In what way is gun control relevant--are there folks who actually think we need gun-control for members of the military?

Father Martin Fox said...

re: gun control...

I answered my own question; of course there probably are advocates of gun-control for the military. Better question: who thinks we should take them seriously?

Roger J. said...

FLS: they were fired over the unaccounted for nuclear weapons transport flight. Rightly so (and I am not trying to compare the two incidents--just the punishments meted out.)

Just as Casey and the Sec Army should be if Gates is to be consistent.

Maguro said...

FLS: they were fired over the unaccounted for nuclear weapons transport flight. Rightly so (and I am not trying to compare the two incidents--just the punishments meted out.)

That was the official reason. The real reason is that Moseley continued to advocate for additional F-22s and Gates wanted to kill the the the F-22 program.

MnMark said...

Shanna wrote:Is it really hard to draw the line at someone who is verbally advocating the murder of infidels in front of witnesses??? Really?


Shanna, don't you suppose we already HAVE a rule like that in the military? Don't you suppose that if this guy hadn't been a muslim he would have been called to account for that sort of violent, treasonous talk long ago?

Yet the rule obviously was not enforced with this guy. Because he was a muslim and people were tippy-toeing around him.

Now suppose we actually started to enforce such a rule, and suppose the muslims in the military like this guy took the rule seriously and shut up.

Does that help us? No. We still don't know what they actually believe.

The fundamental problem is that we are allowing into our military and our country members of a cult who have been taught that it is their obligation to subjugate us by any means necessary. The liberal approach to this problem is to hope and trust that muslims won't actually take those parts of their religion seriously. This is as crazy as it would have been for Israel (supposing it had existed when Hitler was alive) to allow Nazi party members to emigrate there and even join the Israeli military. Would that have been sensible? What possible gain from having Nazis emigrate there could have outweighed the threat - no, the CERTAINTY - that a percentage of them would take it upon themselves to be "devout" Nazis and kill some Jews?

The Crack Emcee said...

"The Democrats have set it up so that if you ask the 'hard questions' before the mass murder starts, then you're a racist and you'll lose your job and your home. They'll use DSS to take your kids from you."

As someone who has first-hand experience with this phenomena, I can tell you that payback goes far, far beyond what most people think is happening out there. What goes on in politics ain't the worst of it, but what's going on in our own communities: I was faced with defiantly skeptical politicians, police, lawyers, doctors, feminists, friends, neighbors, and on and on and on - when my wife's beliefs were clearly off-the-wall and dangerous - but, as far as these other believers were concerned, I was going to pay - had to - for being correct.

The evidence of a herd mentality - protecting delusional thinking - is all around us, and can best be seen when surrounding spiritually-influenced crime because (while no one may agree with whatever silly belief led to an act) THEY DESPERATELY FEEL THE NEED TO PROTECT WHATEVER SILLY BELIEF THEY HOLD THEMSELVES. Defending logic, or critical thinking, is just a bridge too far. So, while I attack NewAge, for instance, the Jesus folks are still going to argue against not believing - because they have to protect their savior.

How the rest of you live like this, and think it's some way for us to escape the awful, awful problems these stupid beliefs present to us, is waaay beyond my pay grade.

Personally, I think it's insane - and shameful.

You've got no one to blame but yourselves.

The Crack Emcee said...

"One can only hope that when that B-52 pilot drives his nuclear-tipped aircraft into the halls of Congress (as they tried to do on 9/11) then maybe we can dispense with the politically-correct pleasantries and get on with the task at hand."

Exactly. That's the only thing that seems to bring these fools to their senses. Never beforehand.

"On the one hand, you criticize Lieberman for not asking the "hard questions" before the successful completion of Hasan's operation.

Then when he does ask the hard questions, you accuse him of treachery.

You and your friends are revealing yourselves as the one, true enemy."


Yep. That's exactly what we face. If you guys would listen to the people who are telling you what we're dealing with - instead of dissing the very idea that anyone can understand it because you don't - we'd be able to find our way out of this mess (If you click that link, and watch the video, listen to when he says something like "you can tell them the truth, and show them evidence, and they will no longer believe you").

Once America understands this threat, which is both internal and external, then we'll start to get our act together again.

The Crack Emcee said...

"No other religion other than radical Islam has declared war on us,...No other religion states world domination as its end."

Bullshit. NewAge does it every day (does anyone not believe that global warming/healthcare/etc. legislation is anything more than attack on the power of the U.S.?) but in solipsistic thought-stopping language most find acceptable or compelling. All of it has it's roots in 1970's NewAge ideas that are now flowering because Boomers are in charge.

Folks - Pogo, especially - "I have met the enemy and it is us."

The Crack Emcee said...

"The rule obviously was not enforced with this guy. Because he was a muslim and people were tippy-toeing around him."

Now, replace the word "muslim" with the religion (or "spiritual" belief) of your choice, and - BAM! - welcome to my world.

Where are the "serious" challenges to the "vortex" claims of Sedona, Arizona or any of the other NewAge "power spots" in the world? Where are the "serious" challenges to homeopathy - Aka "water' - being "studied" out there? (Where's the "serious" challenge to homeopathy even being part of our pharmacopia?) I can run through so much of this stuff - all of it guilty of harm, including murder or treason, to one extent or another - and ain't nobody "seriously" saying shit about it, even after it's danger becomes clear.

My question, to "serious" people, remains the same - and it's the most important "hard question" this type of situation calls for:

What's wrong with y'all?

The Crack Emcee said...

"The fundamental problem is that we are allowing into our military and our country members of a cult who have been taught that it is their obligation to subjugate us by any means necessary."

Yes indeed, we have.

The inflitration of NewAge thinking into our culture is behind the reaction to this guy. Or do you think there's any other way this tip-toeing around another dangerous cult would be allowed to happen?

traditionalguy said...

Crack...The use of psychics (more commonly commonly known as witch doctors) by the CIA and special military operaions to get ahead of the USSR in using these insider Nazi's captured in 1945, in the same way we used the German Rocket Scientists, seems to be a true story. It is not a joke, and they tested these special dark powers on people instead of on goats. There is circumstantial evidence that this was how many experimental assassins like Son of Sam and Charley Manson were "Created". Today we see that Muslim Immans can also do this Creating. I have wondered how the DC sniper got his motives and his orders.

The Crack Emcee said...

TG,

"The use of psychics (more commonly commonly known as witch doctors) by the CIA and special military operaions to get ahead of the USSR in using these insider Nazi's captured in 1945, in the same way we used the German Rocket Scientists, seems to be a true story. It is not a joke, and they tested these special dark powers on people instead of on goats."

No, the goats came later - yet another Boomer "gift" to the rest of us - but not during the Iraq War as the movie says (liberals will do ANYTHING, tell ANY lie, to put a blemish on that conflict - apparently even if it includes dissing their own belief system).

"There is circumstantial evidence that this was how many experimental assassins like Son of Sam and Charley Manson were 'Created'. Today we see that Muslim Immans can also do this Creating. I have wondered how the DC sniper got his motives and his orders."

You're making a leap into conspiracy theory I wouldn't (except for the killing, the D.C. Sniper's outlook ain't so different from the black theology I was raised with).

From Inwood said...

Prof A

That was bery Socratic of you to try to defend Muslims when none of them is really condemning the Major & a critical mass is actually applauding him.

You forced intelligent people like MnMark & others to refine their arguments & now they have & those of us who already knew what was happening, can now express ourselves much better.

Even C4 made a contribution without his usual Joos reference!

So, remember when VD Hanson said the following:

While there is sometimes talk of backlash and anti-Muslim hysteria since 9/11, I don’t think the number of Muslims attacked or killed is comparable to the number of non-Muslims killed by Muslims who evoked Islam in some way as a catalyst for their angers. Nor do we see comparable serial Christian, Hindu, or Jewish-inspired attacks either against mosques and Muslims or the policies of the United States government, either by single actors or more active and organized plotters.”

we didn't want Muslims to be able to say that MnMark was attacking them in an equivalent manner now, did we?

After your comments, MnM & other commenters have refined their thoughts so that even Muslims will understand that we are not insensitive to their needs. Good show.

Oh, BTW, that incident of graffiti on some mosque. I mean that's the moral equivalent of killings, right?

mavzoley said...

мультфильм
электронная почта без регистрации

mavzoley said...

мультфильм
электронная почта без регистрации