Robert Spencer discusses the Fort Hood Jihadist

[Gman]

I thought this was very informative..

The mainstream media has been shamefully misreporting this story as usual. Ideology orthodoxy prevents them from stating the obvious truth: this was a jihadist attack. Robert Spencer lays down the truth.

Please watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJjXp4pd ... r_embedded#

[zoegirl]

good vid Gman, that's pretty sobering

[topic]

What makes this video more enlighting than any other? it is nothing more than just another persons perspective.A radical one at that, since he views the event from a totality perspective of the war , "a war on terrorism" (what does that actually mean?who is it actually refering too - all terrorism or only that which the U.S. goverment view as terrorism?) and not as an isolated incident.
My greater concern is why did not the U.S. Army do somthing about this guy before he did what he did?
If we are to believe the reports on what this guys 'strong' view points was prior to the incident, and also the actions he took prior to this incident;' as many are now saying he did, then where is the accountability of the Army to have re-acted to these clear signs of mental breakdown or conflict with his personal ideals?
I do not know the guys history but if he is as stated a "Major" in the U.S. Army, then he was not a fly-by-night, but must have been with the Army for many many years, and a psychologist. This indicates he is 1. in a position of authority of over approximatly 84% of military personal. He holds in the secular world a position of authority as being a doctor and psychologist.
It would be erroneous to say it was a jihad or Muslim situation, unless clear,precise and objective findings are forth coming. If it is not such an event, then the greater error is not to address the underlying cause, which could affect others in a similiar destructive manner.If it is found it was a jihad attack, then the findings should be addressed in a totally differant manner.
The referance to the findings would address NOT one (person) who has just enlisted, but one who as been in the military for a considerable amount of time,has a clear authoritive directive and who then by definition clearly understands the position and responsability of being part of a military establishment
I do not condone what he did whether he was a Muslim or not! The act is abhorent no matter what faith or non-faith he had, however to have an uneducated opinion and believe it is the answer, says more about that persons views than of the most grievous situation that has developed.

[Gman]

It would be erroneous to say it was a jihad or Muslim situation, unless clear,precise and objective findings are forth coming. If it is not such an event, then the greater error is not to address the underlying cause, which could affect others in a similiar destructive manner.If it is found it was I do not condone what he did whether he was a Muslim or not! The act is abhorent no matter what faith or non-faith he had, however to have an uneducated opinion and believe it is the answer, says more about that persons views than of the most grievious situation that has developed.

Ah, topic.. I take it you are not familiar with the Koran and it's teachings. If you would like I could walk you through it. As for the erroneous accusation, this Major in the army sold all his possessions before the attack. Also when he went online he did not use the computer from his home. He went to his neighbor's computer. Plus this guy was a hard core Muslim. What does all this tell you? Although more evidence needs to come in, I think the evidence it pretty conclusive.

Also,

"Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learned. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organizations. "

Seriously. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out..

[topic]

I take it you are not familiar with the Koran and it's teachings. If you would like I could walk you through it.

Thank you for the kind manner in which to instruct me in the ways of the Qur'an but there is no need.

I read and understand what you have said, yet your conclusion to my view is no greater nor less valide. My point of the post was to highlight that to come to an immediate conclusion gives and has no emperical value of the situation. It is only part of the equation of how this situation developed, and does not come to any conclusive end on why and how it happened in a totality of cause, from the military perspective or his own personal prespective.

In your reply you do what i have seen as expected from someone who views this situation as a jihadist incident. You have not addressed any of my other comments but hark solely on the one objective you have in your mind - all acts by Muslims must be and in themselves an act of terrorism and do does not address the frailty of the human condition.

I am not disregarding the option that it could be a jihadist attack, what i am saying to just focus on one aspect of a possable reason, brings a narrow view and could/can miss the interaction of the situational

[topic]

i did not see the second part to your post so i will reply to it now.

attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists,

This is 2009, this happened in 2001, only 8 yrs differance. Does it only take 7 years to be a Major in the U.S. Army?

This again is what i am talking about. Why was such a man permitted to be in the Army without addressing these concerns? My experiance in military life is that psychologist are evaluated often in regards to the stress of their work, does this happen in the U.S. Army?

Again it is not enough to just say it was jihadist without proof, all you are giving at this point is conjecture and nothing more. Yes it could lead to a positive finding and conlcusion - which if you read in my first post is what i am saying. However to automatically come to this conclusion is as stated again an erroneous finding.

Seriously. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out..

Again subjective narrowness of findings. I say this from a clinical perpective, so i ask you not to take my statement as personal - i would not do such a thing, and if i ever did, i would make it more than clear.

An Astrophysicist would not come to the immediate conclusion you have , so i do not see the connection, even if in the figurative.

[Gman]

In your reply you do what i have seen as expected from someone who views this situation as a jihadist incident. You have not addressed any of my other comments but hark solely on the one objective you have in your mind - all acts by Muslims must be and in themselves an act of terrorism and do does not address the frailty of the human condition.

What other comments are you referring to? Also, I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists. That is just silly. But I will say this, if one adheres to the strict teachings of the Koran, you will pretty much come up with the same logical conclusion.

I am not disregarding the option that it could be a jihadist attack, what i am saying to just focus on one aspect of a possable reason, brings a narrow view and could/can miss the interaction of the situational

Yes, while all the evidence is not in, most of what happened here follows the same line of Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a convert to Islam, who rolled a grenade into a tent filled with other soldiers in April 2003.

[topic]

What other comments are you referring to?

1. What makes this video more enlighting than any other?,
2. "a war on terrorism" (what does that actually mean?who is it actually refering too - all terrorism or only that which the U.S.
goverment view as terrorism?),
3. why did not the U.S. Army do somthing about this guy before he did what he did?
4.where is the accountability of the Army to have re-acted to these clear signs of mental breakdown or conflict with his personal ideals?

I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists. That is just silly

That is not what i said,you have misquoted me. I said ---

[="topic"]hark solely on the one objective you have in your mind - all acts by Muslims must be and in themselves an act of terrorism and do does not address the frailty of the human condition.[/quote]

most of what happened here follows the same line of Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a convert to Islam, who rolled a grenade into a tent filled with other soldiers in April 2003.

Again you are coming to a conclusion by association and not by emperical evidance. Again, and i do not know how many times i have to say this - i am not disputing that it could be a jihadist attack,but (and again) to come to the immediate conclusion is frought with error.

You have concluded that one muslim kills , then it is clearly and obvious (without emperical evidance) that this attack is the same and with the same motive(s). Yet you do not look at or are not willing to look at the other aspects of Dissimilarity of the two persons in question.

And again ---- if you only look at what you believe and not what the evidance shows, you will do more damage than good, because you are not addressing the questions that need to be addressed.
You are saying in effect, this guy was a muslim extremist and so was the other guy, therefore, only muslim extremists will do this kind of act, but is that actually true? or just subjective conclusion to suit your view point on such subject matters?

In the end if your view is with no emperical evidance, then of coarse you can have that view, i do not support such views and would want a more balanced and as i said before clear, precise and empirical evidance to make up my mind on the subject matter. I believe to do othewise is mearly knee jerk reactions.

[zoegirl]

I agree that the army should have done something, but you are also not seeing the big picture there.

What outcry would there have been had the discharged him, what labels would be flying with regard to prejudice and bias?

While there were some incidents (proselytizing, strong statements), would these be enough to discharge him?

I also wonder why he was still in the army but I also have to wonder if, with his mindset, this type of event was inevitable. Say, for instance, he was discharged, what makes you think that would have prevented an attack such as this?!? He would still have the bitterness towards the war, the hatred towards the west. I doubt whether simply removing him form the fort and the army would have prevented some sort of attack from happening.

[topic]

you are also not seeing the big picture there.

Thats an assumption not a reality.In what manner do you base your view? If you read my posts you would see clearly that i have highlighted more than one option to the incident, with a wider scope of causality.

What outcry would there have been had the discharged him, what labels would be flying with regard to prejudice and bias

First and foremost you would not have 13 brave soldiers dead and another 31 injured.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_hood ... ng_suspect

If this is an accurate view on HASAN, take particular note half way down the report, which i will highlight ---

quote --- In an interview with The Washington Post, Hasan's aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, Va., said he had been harassed about being a Muslim in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and he wanted to get out of the Army. She said he had sought a discharge for several years, and even offered to repay the cost of his medical training-- unquote.

If this is a true and accurate report, then many questions which i have highlighted on my posts needs to be addressed. It is not to find an 'escape goat' but to find the cause and try to correct the flaw.It is the law of the land that should then take the avenue required to address who then is responsable!

The broad directive for the military to act on a soldier is vast. There are far more options they can/could take than just merely Dishcharge him (which in fact is a last option) as you suggest. How do you know that such out cry would happen?The labels of prejudice and bais are fleeting! There are many incidents that have caused disruption in the general public, but then have faded away from public view.

While there were some incidents (proselytizing, strong statements), would these be enough to discharge him?

If the evidence quoted by the now many observers, who have stated what he did, said and acted on, this would have been more than enough for the Military to have acted on. If you have an understanding of military law you would understand this.

but I also have to wonder if, with his mindset, this type of event was inevitable.

and

what makes you think that would have prevented an attack such as this?!?

These are hypotheticals, and hold no value as we will never know. Saying that it could be suggested his main issue was being deployed to Iraq, if this is the case, the Army has a great amount of avenues to persue that could accomidate such issues and maintain the integrity of 'active deployment to a war zone' with unbais decision . These are addressed with C.O.'s. ( Conscientious Objectors) both by United Nations Human Rights Committee general comment 22, Para. 11 and the U.S. Selective Service System.

I doubt whether simply removing him form the fort and the army would have prevented some sort of attack from happening.

If the evidence is conclusive as stated in why he acted in the manner he did, i suggest he may well have not. Either way both views are worthless as we will never know, and you cannot have value on mere speculation.

peace

[cslewislover]

I need to go through this thread and read the links, but one thing stands out to me. While the man should've been able to get out of the army, in my opinion, his frustration over this is no reason to kill a bunch of innocent people. Whether he did it out of frustration or if he had a secondary motive, jihad, there's no excuse for killing people like that. One can be forgiven of it, yes, but to do it puts your own problems above others' and even makes them out to be more important than life itself. Yeah, a little vent this morning, lol.

[zoegirl]

Absolutely Vicki,

I hate when we start excusing behavior by trying to explain why someone commits a heinous act like this.

The AMish shooting event several years ago in Pennsylvania showed two different approaches to the event. An entire collection of psychologists, journalists, and scientists tried to explain *why* he did it, offering all sorts of views as to how this act was brought about. As if the events in his life somehow were responsible for his choice of entering an Amish schoolhouse and shooting the kids and teachers.

And yet, when the mennonite and the Amish were interviewed, their simple response was not to try to excuse his behavior but simply to say "there are evil people in the world". That's it...he was wrong.

There are plenty of dissatisfied people in the army who never go on a rampage. BOttom line, he CHOOSE to shoot innocent people. People who in know way were responsible for his being in the army.

Perhaps he wouldn't have done so if he were out of the army...we will never know. Should they have given him a dishonorable discharge?? absolutely. Would this have prevented this outrageus and heinous act?....not necessarily and doubtful. He was willing to shoot innocent people... cowardly and evil.

[Gman]

1. What makes this video more enlighting than any other?,

Did you really listen to the video? The media is not going to strictly say that this was a jihad attack. Do you think this is the first time this has ever happened? When did they ever conclude it was jihadist?

2. "a war on terrorism" (what does that actually mean?who is it actually refering too - all terrorism or only that which the U.S.
goverment view as terrorism?),
3. why did not the U.S. Army do somthing about this guy before he did what he did?
4.where is the accountability of the Army to have re-acted to these clear signs of mental breakdown or conflict with his personal ideals?

And invoke racial profiling? Again, because they have to be politically correct. And of course there is fear. The military doesn't want this to turn into an Army verses the Muslim (theology) conflict. And to be perfectly honest with you I don't think they should either or there will be more carnage. So in this case they are doing the right thing. Understand?

hark solely on the one objective you have in your mind - all acts by Muslims must be and in themselves an act of terrorism and do does not address the frailty of the human condition.

The frailty of the human condition is not the catalyst driving the issue here. Although who is to say that is doesn't spark the already frail condition?

Again you are coming to a conclusion by association and not by emperical evidance. Again, and i do not know how many times i have to say this - i am not disputing that it could be a jihadist attack,but (and again) to come to the immediate conclusion is frought with error.

You have concluded that one muslim kills , then it is clearly and obvious (without emperical evidance) that this attack is the same and with the same motive(s). Yet you do not look at or are not willing to look at the other aspects of Dissimilarity of the two persons in question.

And again ---- if you only look at what you believe and not what the evidance shows, you will do more damage than good, because you are not addressing the questions that need to be addressed.
You are saying in effect, this guy was a muslim extremist and so was the other guy, therefore, only muslim extremists will do this kind of act, but is that actually true? or just subjective conclusion to suit your view point on such subject matters?

Ok, with that we will need to study the Koran... This is salvation in Islam according to the Koran.

There is no guarantee of Paradise even if you do good works all your life. It all depends on what Allah decides.

However, there is only one way to guarantee entrance into Paradise and this makes the perfect motive for suicide bombers and jihad fighters. The only way to know for sure that you will get into Paradise is to die in jihad-to die while fighting the enemy of Islam.

Jihad simply means that Muslims must fight the enemy of Allah until the enemies die or the Muslims die. The word jihad actually means "struggle." Jihad has even been defined in legal terms by Islamic fiqh as follows:

[Jihad] is fighting anybody who stands in the way of spreading Islam. Or fighting anyone who refuses to enter into Islam (based on Surah 8:39).

Sura 9:111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans… When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied… Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute).. And our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." Book #53 Hadith # 386

Simply put, if you die in jihad, you don't even have to go to the grave and wait for judgment; you go directly to Paradise. Jihad is really a legal contract between Allah and the Muslim. If the Muslim fights, Allah rewards him in the afterlife.

Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Here after fight in the Cause of Allah, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allah, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward. Surah 4:74, QURAN

In reference to those who fight jihad, the Quran also says:

For them Allah has got ready Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success. Surah 9:89,QURAN

Also when a person dies in jihad, a different burial procedure is followed. After a regular person dies, his body is washedand dressed nicely, as if going to the mosque. When a person dies in jihad, his body is not washed or given clean clothes. That person goes into the coffin just as he died. The blood is a witness for him in front of Allah-a sign of honor. Muslims believe the angels will treat him as a special person to Allah.

Western media have poked fun at the Muslim understanding of Paradise (heaven)-virgins for men to enjoy and so forth-but it is much more significant to recognize that dying in jihad is the only way a Muslim can be assured of entering Paradise at all. This is why you see Muslims leaving their own nations to fight jihad in other countries. Their motivation is religious, which is much more dangerous than a political motivation."

Hope this helps in the understanding of jihad. Please remember, this is not a direct attack on Muslims. I'm only pointing to some of the doctrine of the Koran and why it can be dangerous to both muslims and non-muslims...

In the end if your view is with no emperical evidance, then of coarse you can have that view, i do not support such views and would want a more balanced and as i said before clear, precise and empirical evidance to make up my mind on the subject matter. I believe to do othewise is mearly knee jerk reactions.

So you don't think the crazy nuts who slammed planes into our buildings wasn't based on their theology? What about Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a convert to Islam, who rolled a grenade into a tent filled with other soldiers in April 2003 or the other nuts who recently were caught? Or the Denver man at the center of an alleged New York bomb plot, Najibullah Zazi, that has admitted he has ties to al Qaeda and is in negotiations to plead guilty to a terror charge, a senior law enforcement official told ABC News?

What do you think was the motivation here? Do you think they had a bad hair day or something?

[ageofknowledge]

A formal definition of a worldview would be the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. In other words, a worldview is how one sees life and the world at large. It includes one's comprehensive conception of reality, the universe, the world, and humanity (Wikipedia, 2009).

Each person has a worldview which they exercise to make sense of life and interpret the world around them. Depending on how well a person's worldview aligns with reality determines whether or not their worldview brings them clarity or a distortion of reality and hence their decision-making ability.
Palmer (1998) explains:

"Through our worldview, we determine priorities, explain our relationship to God and fellow human beings, assess the meaning of events, and justify our actions." A person's worldview provides a general context for life, including a vision of what one considers authentically real.

More than just an interpretive lens, a worldview perspective shapes, influences, and generally directs a person's entire life. Because people behave as they believe, their worldviews guide the development of the values that inform their decisions and actions.

Each person who seeks to live a balanced and meaningful life based on realistic values must think about basic and critical questions. One's worldview attempts to answer them, functioning like a chart to navigate the journey of information critical to life. A worldview can be seen as a "road map" that supplies directions that guide a person's life decisions (Samples, 2007).

I recently conducted primary research using survey and interview techniques as some of you may remember for a paper on contemporary worldviews I wrote. My primary research revealed that 100% of the respondents felt their beliefs influenced their decision-making to some degree.

What a person believes influences their decision-making and behavior (which has wider consequences beyond one's own life affecting others and ultimately society and our world).

As Christians, we believe God is directing history toward a new or restored creation where he reigns in love over a redeemed people who live in harmony with each other. The teaching of scripture is that all humanity is loved with an everlasting love which invites, calls, and motivates us to draw near to our Creator in love and to live our lives in a living relationship with God. However, most of the people in the world are not Christians and have all sorts of ideas about God, religion, life, and spirituality which for good or evil affect the decisions they make in how they live their lives to the politics they support.

Non-Christians often have radically different perspectives. In Islam, there is but one way to be assured entrance into paradise and it is not a Christian one.

People's beliefs affect how they raise their families, how they function in society, and they interface with political institutions. Family normally provides the context for personal living and is the first place which basic values are formed. Society widens the circle of influence upon one's life where manners, values, habits, associations, and attitudes that allow a people to function in the routine of life are developed. Government is the institution that makes human interaction work on a larger scale. It creates and maintains the infrastructure necessary for societies to function. Government possesses for its population questions about national allegiance, taxes, war, and legal prescriptions. Family, society, and political organization offer both guidance and restraints upon a person. These benefits and restraints are governed by a host of factors. Some work better than others. Some are rooted in truth while others are not. Desirable results are rooted in truth. The culture wars are over what this truth is and how it should be implemented (Enochs and Lynn, 2007).

It's also important to point out that moral obligation is incompatible with ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is incoherent as a system and fails as a foundation for which a person or society can base moral values. Subjectivist ethics also fail to account for mankind's conscious awareness of moral obligation. Moral obligations are more than passing or culturally imposed impulses. In the end, the relativist approach to morality collapses because it lacks an adequate metaphysical basis like that found in Christianity. Yet this is the direction the secularist wishes to take us. But secular humanism does not provide a satisfying spiritual substitute for humanity's deepest spiritual fulfillment needs and eventually failing and creating an environment for the rise of false religious systems like Islam.

People's beliefs really matter influencing their decision-making which has an impact on the choices they make, how they interact with others, society, government, and ultimately our world. Since relativism cannot provide the basis upon which to ground these beliefs, worldviews that claim to possess this capacity must be properly qualified so accurate decision-making can occur leading to desirable results for individuals, their families, society and government, and ultimately the world.

[Gman]

"Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut 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."

"One of Hasan's neighbours described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: "I'm going to do good work for God" before leaving for the base."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... s-cut.html