Posted on 11/10/2009 6:19:50 PM PST by topfile
“A pained Diane Sawyer was wishing aloud that Nidal Malik Hasan were named “Smith.”
You betcha. If a white guy did it, Sawyer the slut would be calling for jihad against every white honkey male in America.
Sorry, Di. Go take a fast ride in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel.
Many, If not All of the So called “Progressives” Believe the Lie that,
If we were Nice to the Muslims we would not be having all this Violence.
They claim to be concerned that any reaction to the Violence will create more Jihadis.
This Ignores the Historical facts.
Muslims Don’t need any actions on our part to Hate Us.
It is Inherent in their belief System.
For example consider the Following:
“Several Muslim countries along the North African coast had established the tradition of plundering the ships of European and American merchants in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, capturing the crews and then demanding ransom from the respective governments for their release.
In a joint message to their superiors in Congress, Adams and Jefferson described the audacity of these terrorist attacks, pirates leaping onto defenseless ships with daggers clenched in their teeth.
They had asked the ambassador from Tripoli, Adams and Jefferson explained on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified:
“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of the prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [Islam’s] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners....”
This event occured between 1784-1789 while Jefferson was ambassador to France and Adams (2nd president) was ambassador to England.”
So, according to Islam the mere fact of Not being a Muslim earns you a death Sentence. No Agressive actions against Islam are necessary.
Willfull Ignorance of a Death Threat is Suicide.
Some people have speculated that Hasan and Obama have similar motivation... a deep seated hatred of white people. Hasan is like nearly every other Muslim that I have met. They insist on getting extra breaks for praying yet you find them in strip clubs paying for lap dances.
[A pained Diane Sawyer was wishing aloud that Nidal Malik Hasan were named “Smith.”]
If this remark were merely a typical example of main stream media stupidity, we would all be laughing. But we are not because Sawyer’s remarks also illustrated a persistent denial on the part of our multiculturalist government elite concerning the active recruitment of terrorists in the west by agents a bloodthirsty radical Muslim sect. The main targets of these recruitment efforts are, of course, Muslim immigrants and converts.
Muslim immigrants should be expected to accept our system of rule of law and individual freedom. Ditto for Mexican or any other immigrant who wants to live here legally. It comes as an insult to members of such groups that this is not expected of them.
A mentally disturbed Muslim U.S Army officer officer keeps popping off with treasonous comments about the United States and is observed to be communicating with foreign enemies, and the reaction by fellow officers is... what ? Pity? Bemused contempt? Recognize this whack job for what he is, then take his actions as seriously as you would have if his name had been “Smith”.
In many ways this has become the most lasting and disturbing part for me. The reaction of the media seemed orchestrated not merely cautious. No news organization was immune.
This is the Islam not of the innocent Iraqi citizens
Suppose that this is not a radical interepretation of Islam at all. Could Hasan's action simply be the ultimate outcome of a true and honest understanding of the religion?
Odd, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution is just as I remembered it:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. . . .
Shooting our soldiers, communicating with the imam of three of the 9/11 hijackers, arguing on behalf of suicide bombing: sounds like levying war, adhering to our enemies, and giving them aid and comfort, to me.
Did you follow the link and read my fuller exposition of why insisting on calling the attack terrorism is unhelpful to policy?
Thank you! I wonder when this happened...it sounds like he’s been pretty radical for a long time, although he may have been a little quieter about it when Bush was president.
I consider the Fort Hood attack a more serious act of terrorism than even 9-11. 9-11 was an attack on obviously soft targets. Military bases are supposed to be hard targets. Hasan has just shown the terrorists of the world that our military bases are soft targets. Expect more such attacks, maybe more destructive ones.
>http://www.constitution.org/js/js_339.htm<
It is “common legal wisdom” that it is almost impossible to obtain a conviction for a charge of treason.
“No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
“It confines it to two species; first, the levying of war against the United States; and secondly, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
But if the intent of Hasan’s action was to disuade Americans from joining the military, soldiers from deploying to war, etc; then it most certainly was terrorism, even if against a “hard” or “ligitimate” target.
Either way he was on his own personal jihad, terrorist or murderous makes little difference other than as a glimpse into his deranged and addled brain.
I can't answer as to "true and honest" without devolving the thread into one of those "true understanding" slugfests that make the Religion Forum essentially uninhabitable. My own understanding of Islam is fairly limited, based on a couple of turns through their holy works and a non-exhaustive reading of their history. Compared to doctors of Islam who spend their lives on it, it's a drop in a bucket.
But I can say that although jihad is not one of the Five Pillars, it is certainly regarded as at the very least a call to evangelism within one's own belief, and outward toward both believer and non-believer, and that this is interpreted extensively in terms of warfare by several schools of Islam, not just the Salafi/Wahhabi that we've heard so much about.
That blurs into rules of warfare that originally had little to do with religion per se and everything to do with what activities were allowed for those espousing it. The strictures against the killing of the innocent are quite explicit and resolutely ignored by "doctors" of Islam who do an end-run around them by declaring that non-believers don't count as "innocent," despite numerous historical examples that they were so regarded during the great Arab expansions of the seventh century. A number of Islamic scholars have pointed out that blatant cheat and been marginalized or murdered for their trouble.
I think the bottom line is that it doesn't really matter much to us, the targets of the violent and militant war-lovers. As long as it's the interpretation they believe in and they're willing to kill to prove it, the relative truth of the matter is rather academic. It seems sad to have to say it here in the new millennium, but these are people we have to kill because they would have it no other way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.