Thanks to freeper Grampa Dave for pointing to this thread and article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2381556/posts
#
HOMENEWSWORLD NEWSNORTH AMERICA
USA
“Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut”
SNIPPET: “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.”
By Nick Allen in Fort Hood
Published: 5:00PM GMT 08 Nov 2009
SNIPPET: “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.”
Note: The following post is a quote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2381724/posts
Ft Hood massacre: Good order and discipline demands loyalty to our nation
911FamiliesForAmerica.org ^ | November 8, 2009 | Tim Sumner
Posted on November 8, 2009 2:01:08 PM PST by Sergeant Tim
Major Hassan’s actions Friday clearly had something to do with him being a Muslim and to state otherwise is akin to a willful suspension of disbelief.
One day back when I was the Operations Sergeant for an Army Provost Marshal Office in Europe, the Provost Marshal (a Major) called me on the carpet for signing off on an investigation where I determined the charges were founded and agreed the facts indicated the named subject had committed the crime for which he was cited. The Major disagreed yet, by his words, revealed he had been unduly influenced into dropping the charges. When I stood by my decision, he said I was “being disloyal” to him. I replied, “My first loyalty is to the nation and while I owe my superiors loyalty, I owe an equal amount to our subordinates, the ones you, Sir, and I lead, including the Military Police who investigated the matter. The witness statements and investigator statements substantiate as reasonable the belief crimes took place and the subject committed said crimes.” The Major then threw the case folder at me, striking me in the chest, and told me to have the Military JAG Office review the case; the JAG agreed with my assessment and the charges stood. Not long afterward, the Major relieved me of duty and placed an unfavorable evaluation in my record.
The details of what followed I will not reveal as it was the prelude to a sad and unfortunate end to that Major’s Army career; a subsequent command investigation vindicated my actions and cleared my record. I write of this solely to illustrate a mindset each member of our military must have. Rarely during my twenty years of Army service did I encounter anyone without an unwavering sense of duty to nation or lacking in moral courage in the face of adversary. From all I see, admittedly from afar, that sense of duty and mindset remains strong among those who wear our nation’s military uniforms. Yet that is what so disturbs me about reports of the behaviors of Major Nidal Malik Hasan prior to the massacre Friday on Fort Hood and the reaction from the current Army leadership:
General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding 30 others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”
With due respect to General Casey, the publicly known facts indicate what happened on Fort Hood was an attack by Major Nidal Malik Hasan driven by his acceptance of extremist tenants found within the Muslim faith. He expressed prejudicial beliefs, based upon those extremist views, to fellow soldiers prior to the incident indicating his disloyalty to the nation.
It is the duty of every soldier to report such behavior and, when reported, it becomes the responsibility of commanders to determine whether the behavior meets the standards of good order and discipline necessary for continued Army service.
Loyalty is first owed to our nation. Yet beyond that are thirteen dead and thirty-eight wounded and a military wondering if the command failed them. While a fair adjudication of Major Hasan’s case is owed him, we owe all who serve the Army far better than to ignore indiscipline within the ranks, be it from a Muslim or one holding with any faith.
What our troops don’t need now or ever is someone shoving four stars into their eyes while telling them to ignore such behaviors should they observe them in the future. I hope at least one soldier with less rank on their collar has the moral courage to step onto General Casey’s carpet and say that to his face.
Hat Tip:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199506.php
November 08, 2009
“Major Hasan: “Jihad means holy war””
By Barbarossa at November 8, 2009 12:17 AM
#
Note: Excerpting doesn’t do this article justice. Please read the whole thing.
Thank you. -Cindy
#
Blogs and Stories:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-07/major-hasans-hidden-militancy/full/
“Inside the Gunman’s Mosque”
by Asra Q. Nomani
SNIPPET: “Not long ago, inside the quiet library of the Muslim Community Center here in Silver Spring, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C., Golam Akhter, a local Bangladeshi-American civil engineer, 67, got into a fierce debate with a young Muslim doctor over how to interpret the concept of “jihad” within Islam. Akhter argued, “Jihad means an inner struggle, fighting against corruption and injustice.”
The young doctor responded. “That’s not a correct interpretation. Jihad means holy war. When your religion isn’t safe, you have to fight for it. If someone attacks you, you must fight them. That is jihad. You can kill someone who is harming you.”
A closer look reveals a complex picture of a young first-generation American Muslim man living a life of dissonance between his identity as an American and his ideology as a Muslim who had accepted a literal, rigid interpretation of Islam.
The conversation would be just another theological debate, interesting but irrelevant, except that the doctor was Maj. Nidal Hasan, 39, the gunman in the tragic Fort Hood rampage. After being posted to Walter Reed Hospital as a psychiatrist, Hasan called the Muslim Community Center his local mosque.”
I
SNIPPET: ““So many times I talked with him,” said Akhter, a community leader who is sort of like a mosque gadfly, challenging congregants to reject literal, rigid interpretations of Islam. “I was trying to modernize him. I tried my best. He used to hate America as a whole. He was more anti-American than American.”
Despite all the conversations, Akther said, “I couldn’t get through to him. He was a typical fundamentalist Muslim.””
SNIPPET: “Hasan answered back: “It is written in the holy Quran. If a believer has any question about the Quran, then he is not a true believer.”
To argue for jihad as holy war is to accept strict adherence to verses such as this one (2: 216), translated in the Noble Quran as: “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it.” That translation is published by the government of Saudi Arabia.
Another time, the engineer and the doctor debated the question of whether a thief’s hand should be cut off, a punishment laid out in a literal read of the Quran (5: 38). Akhter made the historically accurate point that Umar, the second caliph after the death of the prophet Muhammad, suspended this punishment during a time of famine. Hasan listened and then responded, “That’s not for everybody. Only Umar can interpret that. We have to follow the Quran in total.” Hasan’s strict adherence to literal readings of the Quran betrays his leanings to extremist Islam.”