Robert Spencer discusses the Fort Hood Jihadist

[cslewislover]

Wow . . . why was this guy still in the military???

Actually, from the quotes that are in that article, it was this whole political correctness thing that let him remain in the military. He obviously did not agree with the US objectives or the military, and he said he was about to do God's work on his way out the door. This guy was a jihadist, whether he acted alone or not.

[topic]

Gman,
We are talking about this incident and none other. What you are doing again and again is bringing a connection that could or could not be there. In your view (as i can only percieve by these posts), any aggresive act by a Muslim MUST BE a jihad.The findings in the other 2 incidents brought EMPERICAL EVIDENCE that it was a jihad, so for me, through reading this evidence i know it was a jihad - so on those two points we agree.

On this incident we will not know the truth for at least a month if not longer.If and again i say 'IF' THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS IT WAS DONE IN THE SPIRIT OF JIHADIST INTENT, then i will agree it was a jihadist attack, but at this stage there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that this is the primary cause.There is clearly conflicting information on this guy,and what brought him to the act he did, this does not in anyway excuse what he did,but it again may lead to findings that on the surface may not be the root cause.

We could look at the incident from a psychological perspective but for some reason, you and it now appears others also, will not accept or even permit an investigation from this view point. In your view, your findings would be so narrow that it would not be of any value in STOPPING AN ACT OF SUCH ABHORENT VIOLENCE from happening again.

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?

Yet none-the-less it is a frailty.

In regards to your information on what a jihad is to the Muslim faith and how it brings one immediatly to Paradise, i again thank you for so kindly bringing this to my attention, but as stated before i am aware of the Qur'an.

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

I do not know what intent you have in stating this?If in the inquisitive i have already answered at the top of this post.If you are however trying to show your awareness is greater than mine, please do not belittle yourself nor me. Are we not having a discourse on a situation and trying to listen, hear, absorb one anothers views? Or is it simply in your eyes, you are right, i am wrong and anything i say has no insight or value?To do so would bring disappointment.

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

To question the motives of such an act in noway deminishes nor belittles the abhorents of the act.If you are suggesting that by my view i am -quote " excusing behaviour"- unquote, you clearly do not understand my discourse on the matter. I have from the start of my posting stated again and again that it was and is an abhorent act. I further stated that it did not matter what faith or non-faith a person has.

In fact i was not doing this but merely questioning Gman as to why this video had more value than any other at this point in time and why it had to be motivated through the only act he clearly believes - jihadist.

Wow . . . why was this guy still in the military???

Exactly the point of my observation and the view i am only trying to establish. There appears more to what has happened simply than it being a jihadist motive.

Gman if you wish to continue this discourse i have no problem with it, but it must head in a direction. So far all that is being said is the same thing over and over again - the dog chasing its tail, one could say

peace

[cslewislover]

Well, you should read the article from the UK that Gman posted, and there's a related article there about how Hasan liked Anwar al-Alwaki as well. Hasan went to Mosque every day. His religious views and beliefs were obviously very influential in every aspect of his life, and if the UK article is correct, he had very very very negative views of non-Muslims.

[Gman]

Gman,
We are talking about this incident and none other. What you are doing again and again is bringing a connection that could or could not be there.

Nonetheless we have to look at all factors and all relevant cases.

In your view (as i can only percieve by these posts), any aggresive act by a Muslim MUST BE a jihad.

No.. What I'm saying here is that the ideology is jihadist in nature. Not the people, it's the religion when practiced to it's fullest.

The findings in the other 2 incidents brought EMPERICAL EVIDENCE that it was a jihad, so for me, through reading this evidence i know it was a jihad - so on those two points we agree.

Ok...

On this incident we will not know the truth for at least a month if not longer.If and again i say 'IF' THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS IT WAS DONE IN THE SPIRIT OF JIHADIST INTENT, then i will agree it was a jihadist attack, but at this stage there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that this is the primary cause.There is clearly conflicting information on this guy,and what brought him to the act he did, this does not in anyway excuse what he did,but it again may lead to findings that on the surface may not be the root cause.

Well let's look at the evidence we have so far.

1. Major Nidal Malik Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.

2. He sold all his possessions before the attack.

3. When going on the internet, he always used his neighbors computer, never his own. Also while he was on the internet, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades in the cause of Allah.

4. He once told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut.

5. He once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

6. He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.

7. 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."

8. Hasan yelled "Allahu Akbar," Arabic for "God is Greatest" just before the shooting in which 13 people were killed and 30 wounded.

9. His act mimics other terrorists such as Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar or Najibullah Zazi that were also jihadists.

10. His actions fall in line with the Koran's teaching for salvation or paradise.

I don't know but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Although not all the evidence is in, I believe we have probably a 90% certainty here.

We could look at the incident from a psychological perspective but for some reason, you and it now appears others also, will not accept or even permit an investigation from this view point. In your view, your findings would be so narrow that it would not be of any value in STOPPING AN ACT OF SUCH ABHORENT VIOLENCE from happening again.

I'm not denying that something psychological happened here. But given that this guy was a psychologist makes me wonder. Also who said that I wanted to stop the investigation? I never said that..

Yet none-the-less it is a frailty.

No it is not frailty.. Now it seems you want to stop the investigation. It's probably the fact that he was being deported to the war that perpetuated the issue even more. Much like adding fire to gasoline.

I do not know what intent you have in stating this?If in the inquisitive i have already answered at the top of this post.If you are however trying to show your awareness is greater than mine, please do not belittle yourself nor me. Are we not having a discourse on a situation and trying to listen, hear, absorb one anothers views? Or is it simply in your eyes, you are right, i am wrong and anything i say has no insight or value?To do so would bring disappointment.

First off, I simply added the topic/video with no real opinion of mine. Second, you called it (my post) a erroneous accusation and an uneducated opinion. So, if you want to debate this more I'd me more than happy to.

In fact i was not doing this but merely questioning Gman as to why this video had more value than any other at this point in time and why it had to be motivated through the only act he clearly believes - jihadist.

Oh, like this is something I came up with? What about Lieberman and other congressmen that think this way too?

Gman if you wish to continue this discourse i have no problem with it, but it must head in a direction. So far all that is being said is the same thing over and over again - the dog chasing its tail, one could say

peace

Fine by me... Again I'm not saying that this is "the" complete answer to the question. Although I would say that it is probably the most plausible. Besides, give it a few weeks and it will probably be forgotten just like the others. Until it happens again and then we will say, why did this happen? Just like the dog chasing his tail. Yes...

[topic]

Again I'm not saying that this is "the" complete answer to the question.

Then i have misunderstood you, my observation of the discussion concluded that you did.

Although I would say that it is probably the most plausible.

I agree with this, but from what i have read there appears to be more to it than a man who just wants to go to paradise. I say this in referance to the article you posted from the U.K. and the one i posted. Reading these , there are more than enough 'infered' evidentiary findings by military personnel, to bring this to the attention of their superiors. The question(s) i want to know the answer too are 1. Was his sole intention to do the jihad for paradise, or 2. Did he believe all his avenues trying for a discharged from the military and/or not being deployed to Iraq had come to a dead end and he acted in the only final option he saw that was acceptable?

Nonetheless we have to look at all factors and all relevant cases.

Again i agree but i would look at a connection only after the thorough emperical evidence is found and then tie the pieces together, if indeed there was a connection.

But given that this guy was a psychologist makes me wonder.

My personal experiance with Military psychologists is that they are under an extreme amount of intensity, that can equal a soldier in a conflict. Generally military psychologists are debriefed regularly incase the stress becomes too great.I have known military psychologists to snap with violent outcomes, ( i have actually be on the recieving end )but i must stress - not in any extent in the manner Hasan did.

Also who said that I wanted to stop the investigation? I never said that..

And you never did, nor did i say you did.Again you misquote me, what i said was ----

We could look at the incident from a psychological perspective but for some reason, you and it now appears others also, will not accept or even permit an investigation from this view point.

Clearly you want an investigation but from again my observations the idea of psychological investigation did not sit with you? And thus why i clarified my statement by finishing with " from this view point"

quote="Gman"]No it is not frailty.. Now it seems you want to stop the investigation.[/quote]

Your logic escapes me. How you come to the conclusion that by my stating one of many possabilities of the frame of mind he was in regards to the act he committed , in some fashion is saying i want to stop the investigation is very perplexing.

It's probably the fact that he was being deported to the war that perpetuated the issue even more.

I agree, another possable cause that needs to be addressed as i have been saying.In the piece i posted; the following is stated (but again i will say it must be authenticated)-- Another military official said Hasan had indicated he didn't want to go to Iraq but was willing to serve in Afghanistan
Why not send him there? Afghanistan is now the primary focus and senior officers on the ground in Afghanistan have repeatedly asked for more men (20,000 - 40,000) and also equipment.

First off, I simply added the topic/video with no real opinion of mine.

You said this -- quote " 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."-unquote

from my view this is an opinion.

Second, you called it (my post) a erroneous accusation and an uneducated opinion.

Again you misquote me i did not say this, i said ----- " It would be erroneous to say it was a jihad or Muslim situation, unless clear,precise and objective findings are forth coming." and " 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" The statement was in regards to what the footage said, not your comment.

On your posting i asked, " What makes this video more enlighting than any other", which you have never actually responded too.

What about Lieberman and other congressmen that think this way too?

I am not interested in them, only you. I have read many of your posts and writings, viewed your animations and have found them thought provoking and well balanced. When i read your opening opinion/comment to the footage, it was not what i expected, to me it appeared out of character and i wanted to know why.

Besides, give it a few weeks and it will probably be forgotten just like the others. Until it happens again and then we will say, why did this happen? Just like the dog chasing his tail. Yes...

and sadly i am in total agreement with you - how quickly we forget or even worse; something more devastating comes along

peace

[Gman]

The question(s) i want to know the answer too are 1. Was his sole intention to do the jihad for paradise, or

I believe it's part of the equation here. Hasan also called "War on Terror" a "War Against Islam." So you could say this is part of his retaliation for the war too. Whatever it's all still part of the jihadist movement.

2. Did he believe all his avenues trying for a discharged from the military and/or not being deployed to Iraq had come to a dead end and he acted in the only final option he saw that was acceptable?

Again it seems you are basing this question on a premise. I don't believe that was the sole motive. I believe it was simply more fuel for the already burning fire.

Again i agree but i would look at a connection only after the thorough emperical evidence is found and then tie the pieces together, if indeed there was a connection.

Well more evidence has come in with his connection with exchanges with Anwar al-Awlaki who wrote on his blog yesterday: “Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear the contradiction of being a Muslim and fighting against his own people. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can deny the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right — rather the duty — to fight against American tyranny”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 910276.ece

And you never did, nor did i say you did.Again you misquote me, what i said was ----

We could look at the incident from a psychological perspective but for some reason, you and it now appears others also, will not accept or even permit an investigation from this view point.

Clearly you want an investigation but from again my observations the idea of psychological investigation did not sit with you? And thus why i clarified my statement by finishing with " from this view point"

I don't understand what you are saying here.. We need to investigate all avenues here... All of them, whether psychological, ideological, theological or the rest. What I don't think we should ingore here is the ideological premise here.

Your logic escapes me. How you come to the conclusion that by my stating one of many possabilities of the frame of mind he was in regards to the act he committed , in some fashion is saying i want to stop the investigation is very perplexing.

I've already explained my position before. Many times.. What we were talking about earlier here are only the symptoms of the problem. The basic problem here, I believe is one of one's ideology.

I agree, another possable cause that needs to be addressed as i have been saying.In the piece i posted; the following is stated (but again i will say it must be authenticated)-- Another military official said Hasan had indicated he didn't want to go to Iraq but was willing to serve in Afghanistan
Why not send him there? Afghanistan is now the primary focus and senior officers on the ground in Afghanistan have repeatedly asked for more men (20,000 - 40,000) and also equipment.

Then we can't say it was motivated by his psychological pressure.

You said this -- quote " 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."-unquote

No I didn't say this, look at the website again, it was taken off the description.. But it probably should be taken in consideration. But then again, we should probably keep a damper on this or more carnage will occur.

Again you misquote me i did not say this, i said ----- " It would be erroneous to say it was a jihad or Muslim situation, unless clear,precise and objective findings are forth coming." and " 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" The statement was in regards to what the footage said, not your comment.

I don't get you topic. Why did you think I posted it? Also you agree with everything I say and then you say that it erroneous and uneducated to insinuate such things.. I don't understand.

On your posting i asked, " What makes this video more enlighting than any other", which you have never actually responded too.

Already addressed...

I am not interested in them, only you. I have read many of your posts and writings, viewed your animations and have found them thought provoking and well balanced. When i read your opening opinion/comment to the footage, it was not what i expected, to me it appeared out of character and i wanted to know why.

I'm well balanced, and dislike no people, including Muslims or Mormons. In fact I have friends in both religions. But I will attack theology or ideology. And if we wanted to talk about people's flaws and shortcoming, I have my own. Trust me I'm no saint but I can have a big mouth at times. Some say it's part of my Jewishness.

and sadly i am in total agreement with you - how quickly we forget or even worse; something more devastating comes along

peace

I hope not too, but another part of me says it might be inevitable.

[ageofknowledge]

U.S. alleges company laundered money for Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/12/mosque ... index.html

"New York (CNN) -- The federal government moved Thursday to seize assets belonging to the Alavi Foundation and the Assa Corp., including a Manhattan skyscraper and four mosques, citing alleged links to the Iranian government.

Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced Thursday's filing of an amended civil complaint seeking forfeiture of the Alavi Foundation's interest in the 36-story office tower located on Fifth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan.

The tower is owned by 650 Fifth Avenue Company, a partnership between the Alavi Foundation and Assa Corp., the Justice Department said. The amended complaint alleges that the Alavi Foundation provided services to the Iranian government and transferred money from 650 Fifth Avenue Company to Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned financial entity.

U.S. and European Union officials last year designated Bank Melli as a proliferator for supporting Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and funneling money to the Revolutionary Guard and Quds Force, considered terrorist groups by the United States."

Remember what we said about the phases Islam moves through when seeking to dominate a country? This is clearly a phase 2 (e.g. the preparation phase) activity.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 0&start=45