Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

topic posted Fri, November 6, 2009 - 8:15 PM by  Dan
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
O'Reilly pointed out in this evenings broadcast how the loonie far left (and their surrogates on this forum) are politicizing the shooting incident! Gasp! I thought these were the folks overcome by grief, surely they would not use this incident as an argument against the war in Iran or Afganistan, or would they?

"told of war Horror, Gunman feared Deployment" - New York Times

"Fort Hood feeling the strain of repeated deployments" - Washington Post

"soldiers coming back from the war having trouble integrating into society" - Dr Phil"nut"

No mention of personal responsibilty, muslim extremism, just a good american strained by the horrors of war and alleged harassment from fellow soldiers.
posted by:
Dan
offline Dan
Indiana
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

    Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:05 AM
    Dan do you have any evidence of his being a 'muslim extremist'?
    • Dan
      Dan
      offline 8

      Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

      Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:20 AM
      you mean did he pass out qurans, tell patients the war was wrong, suggest that the Iraqi's and afgans rise up and throw off the invaders, stand on a table and cry Ali Akbar just prior to slaughtering fellow sholdeirs? You have a point, he was likely just a moderate.
      • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

        Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:33 AM
        Way to jump to conclusions, I better understand the birther nonsense now.
        • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

          Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:42 AM
          Actually most of those points were reported in one of the bigger texas news papers. I think it was the Dallas Star or something


          I'll try to track down the link
          • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

            Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:47 AM
            Here is the original write up from the daily beast. But it seems the source article has been updated or dumped all together:

            "At least 13 people were killed and 30 more wounded in a shooting at Ford Hood in Texas on Thursday, and authorities are piecing together a troubling portrait of the man thought responsible. The Army says the gunman is Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist born in Virginia and raised in the United States. Hasan, who is alive but in a coma and on a ventilator, allegedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before starting his shooting rampage, which is Arabic for "God is Great." Hasan, who officials now say acted alone, allegedly carried two weapons, one of them semi-automatic, which explains the high casualty count. The Marine Corps. Times cited a Pentagon source as saying Hasan, 39, is "a psychiatrist recently reassigned from Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., to work with soldiers at Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood." His cousin said at Walter Reed, Hasan treated soldiers returning from war with combat stress and PTSD and was afraid of his own impending deployment to Afghanistan. Hasan told relatives in Virginia he was having second thoughts about his military career when soldiers teased him for being Muslim, The New York Times reports. Hasan reportedly drew the attention of federal law enforcement six months ago for online posts about suicide bombings and other threats including "a blog that equates suicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades." An imam at a Maryland mosque he attended said that Hasan was a lifelong Muslim, but showed little sign of political or religious zealotry."


            The article as it now appears: www.dallasnews.com/sharedco...1e98.html
      • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

        Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:40 AM
        LOL

        The man does have a point. Me, personally, I chalk it up to the man being a deranged individual and using religion as the ideology that he used to view the world through. It's no different than those christian yuk-heads from the army of god.
        • Dan
          Dan
          offline 8

          Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

          Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:45 AM
          there is a difference between Jihad, a theology based squarely on the teachings of Islams murderous founder and "those Christian yuk-heads" who are at odds with the teachings of Jesus, don't you think?
          • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

            Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:58 AM
            I think due to the historical context in which it was developed, and how many of the faith currently interpret the text, that Islam is more open to embracing ideological violence, as compared to Christianity. But I also know many devout Muslims, from all walks of life (from western educated doctors to a Rajistani farmer who let me crash on his floor) who I could never picture embracing such a violent form of the religion or committing such generalized violence.

            So I don't see it as being inherent in the religion itself
            • Dan
              Dan
              offline 8

              Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

              Sat, November 7, 2009 - 10:34 AM
              I don't assume that all people whose religion is Islam are predisposed to violent behavior such as we see all over the planet by those who subscribe to this religion. Most people of all religions follow their religion in more a less a cultural manner. But I do say that those who take the quran seriously and understand the theolgy therein are folks which represent a danger to a innocent people everywhere.
              • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

                Sat, November 7, 2009 - 2:37 PM
                Islam, from my understanding, was actually pretty radical in it's early history due to how it embraced science and how it awarded minorities and women rights that they had no where else in the world.

                The problem is what was pretty progressive in the 1500's-1600's really isn't so Kosher today, and there has been nothing but resistance to any type of moderation from within the religion
    • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

      Sat, November 7, 2009 - 10:09 AM
      John:
      > Dan do you have any evidence of his being a 'muslim extremist'?

      He shouted "Allahu Akhbar" before killing a bunch of people.

      If he's not a Muslim extremist, would you describe him as jut your average Muslim?

      Personally, I see killing a bunch of people while shouting "God is great" is a solid definition of Islamic extremism, or at least one for of it.

      What would you describe that form of Islam as?
      • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

        Sat, November 7, 2009 - 10:13 AM
        He ALLEGEDLY shouted allah akbar.....


        which according to the right wingnuts means he did

        It amazes me how an allegation suddenly becomes a fact

        • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

          Sat, November 7, 2009 - 11:54 AM
          Brent:
          > He ALLEGEDLY shouted allah akbar.....

          Yeah sure.

          The entire shooting is alleged. Maybe it didn't happen. Maybe it wasn't him. Maybe it was a case of mistaken identity.

          But we know that he was a religious Muslim, and there are eyewitness first-hand accounts of him shouting "Allahu Akbar" before going on his murderous rampage.

          What makes you think that he didn't shout that? Or are you just a leftist wingnut denialist who can't imagine a Muslim doing something wrong?
          • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

            Sat, November 7, 2009 - 12:04 PM
            <<What makes you think that he didn't shout that? Or are you just a leftist wingnut denialist who can't imagine a Muslim doing something wrong? >>


            Ah no. It's just that accounts in the moment of a crisis can get blown out of proportion (like how the 9/11 truthers twist survivors words that they heard "explosions" which automatically mean "bombs")


            Was the Virginia Tech murderer a muslim? or the Columbine killers?

            As soon as the name sounds the least bit "different" the bigots and wingnuts start digging for some deeper, sinister explanation for the events.


            But then again Adam you've been on quite the anti-Muslim trip for some time. Not surprisingly you've found common cause with Dan


            • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

              Sat, November 7, 2009 - 2:55 PM
              Brent:
              > Ah no. It's just that accounts in the moment of a crisis can get blown out of proportion

              Yeah sure.

              Except we know a few things.

              1) He's a religious Muslim.

              2) It's extremely common (almost universal?) for religious Muslims to shout "God is Great" before killing people.

              3) There were eyewitness first hand account claiming he shouted this phrase typical for religious Muslims to use before killing people.

              Yeah, it's possible that it's not true.

              But as all of the evidence points to it being true, so why are you in such denial?
          • Dan
            Dan
            offline 8

            Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

            Sun, November 8, 2009 - 1:43 PM
            I think we know that had he been a white christian the left would have been warning of the dangers of Christianity to society. Their hypocricy has no limits..
            • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

              Mon, November 9, 2009 - 12:43 PM
              <<I think we know that had he been a white christian the left would have been warning of the dangers of Christianity to society. Their hypocricy has no limits..

              No, we would have been warning of the dangers of extremism period, regardless of if it comes from Christian or Muslim.
              • Dan
                Dan
                offline 8

                Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

                Mon, November 9, 2009 - 7:05 PM
                "No, we would have been warning of the dangers of extremism period, regardless of if it comes from Christian or Muslim. "

                No, you would have done exactly what Kelly just did. You would have checked to see where he was baptised and declared that his motivations came from right wing christianity before the first fact was known. If there are segments of Christianity which teach that it is morally ok to blow up federal buildings and kill innocent people then that segment should be known about, profiled and not advanced to a Major six months prior to shooting over 30 people at Fort Hood, don't you think?
  • Dan
    Dan
    offline 8

    Report: Suspect pushed Islam on patients

    Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:36 AM
    From the article:

    "A source told National Public Radio's Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was given a period of probation early in his postgraduate work for proselytizing Islam with coworkers and soldiers he was treating."

    "Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.org, says the evidence points to a clear link between Hasan's Muslim faith and the massacre.

    "CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) has been working overtime … and the 'Muslims fear backlash' victimhood machine is in high gear. No one, of course, is questioning whether there might be any connection between this man's devoutly held Islam and the massacre today. After all, how could there be any such connection? 'Islam is a Religion of Peace,'" he wrote. "



    HOMELAND INSECURITY
    Report: Suspect pushed Islam on patients
    Co-worker says Nidal Hasan was disciplined for proselytizing

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: November 06, 2009
    10:16 am Eastern

    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    The Muslim Army psychiatrist who allegedly opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood and killed 13 aggressively pushed Islam on his patients to the point he was disciplined over the issue, according to a report today.

    Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, is suspected of opening fire with two handguns yesterday at the Texas base's readiness center, where soldiers were getting last-minute checkups before deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan .

    A source told National Public Radio's Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was given a period of probation early in his postgraduate work for proselytizing Islam with coworkers and soldiers he was treating.

    (Story continues below)




    The source was someone who worked with Hasan at the time, NPR reported.

    Hasan did his early postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.

    Hasan, reportedly is in stable condition after being shot four times by a female civilian officer, who also was wounded. He was upset about his scheduled overseas deployment, according to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas.

    Nader Hasan, the suspect's first cousin, told Fox News his relative was a "good" American, was born in Arlington, Va., and went to local high schools and then Virginia Tech.

    The Associated Press has said authorities actually started looking into Hasan's activities several months ago after Internet postings about suicide bombings were linked to him.

    Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.org, says the evidence points to a clear link between Hasan's Muslim faith and the massacre.

    "CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) has been working overtime … and the 'Muslims fear backlash' victimhood machine is in high gear. No one, of course, is questioning whether there might be any connection between this man's devoutly held Islam and the massacre today. After all, how could there be any such connection? 'Islam is a Religion of Peace,'" he wrote.

    Spencer noted officials are saying, as NPR reported, "the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear."

    "Nothing can be made clear to those who do not wish to see," Spencer writes

    A participant in a forum at JihadWatch charged the "Pentagon, the American military, the Army, those who run Fort Hood, are guilty, in their refusal to recognize the effect of Islam on the minds of men, in their willful ignorance of what is contained in Quran, Hadith, and Sira."

    The contributor said everyone in authority "in the Western world who presumes to protect and defend 'the people,' has a duty to learn about Islam. … Nothing but immediate, and detailed knowledge, of the texts and the tenets and the attitudes and the atmospherics of Islam, will do."

    www.wnd.com/index.php
    • Re: Report: Suspect pushed Islam on patients

      Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:44 AM
      Islam and Fort Hood



      Conservatives have been quick to trumpet the fact that the alleged killer at Fort Hood, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is a Muslim--the implication being that Muslims are inherently untrustworthy, hostile to America, at odds with civilized norms of behavior or something. But if that were the case, incidents like this would be common, not rare. It would be absurd and dangerous to anathematize all American Muslims on the basis of one alleged murderer.

      After all, there are between 3,500 and 15,000 Muslims serving in the American military, including many who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. No doubt some have died for their country. But how often do conservatives write about them? Blogger Michelle Malkin lists a few bad apples she refers to as "Muslims with attitude." But they're a tiny minority compared to all the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who confirm daily that you can be a practicing Muslim and a loyal American.

      It may be that Hasan subscribed to a jihadist ideology that drove him to kill his fellow soldiers. But it could be that Islam is just a distraction from more fundamental problems, such as insanity or just plain viciousness. Hasan reportedly complained of being harassed by his colleagues about his religion. Maybe he didn't think Islam was hostile to America; maybe they convinced him that America is hostile to Islam.

      In any movement, religious or political, there are a few dangerous people. As a rule, all that proves about the movement in question is that it is composed of human beings. If it turns out Hasan is guilty, Islam is not the problem with him any more than Jodie Foster was the problem with John Hinckley.

      newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/ste...html

      While it may turn out he was motivated by his faith and interpretation of the Quran, it could also turn out he's like the fat kids who finally couldn't take the teasing or pressure anymore. Except in this case exchange Muslim for fat.

      PS: Dan I don't think any Muslims, even Shias, shout Ali akbar (Ali is great) but rather Allahu Akbar! (God is great)
  • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

    Sat, November 7, 2009 - 8:15 PM
    Ignoring Evidence Suggesting Otherwise, Fox News Military Analyst Ralph Peters Likens Fort Hood Shooting To 9/11

    There are still many questions to be answered about Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged gunman at Thursday’s Fort Hood massacre. But instead of showing forbearance, Fox News deliberately whipped up fear and, probably, intolerance, in their audience, by calling on “military analyst” Ralph Peters, a retired Lt. Col. with a history of extremist, incendiary opinions. Sure enough, while the rest of the world waits for the results of the investigation, Peters ignored reports that Hasan rejected religious extremism and announced on last night’s (11/6/09) O’Reilly Factor that Hasan was an Islamic terrorist, declared Fort Hood “the new 9/11,” attacked President Obama for asking Americans not to rush to judgment and suggested that the Army’s political correctness was to blame. With video.

    The last time I saw Peters, he was advocating that the Taliban shoot a captured American soldier who, Peters alleged, had deserted his unit. “I don't care how hard it sounds, as far as I'm concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills,” Peters told Fox News’ Julie Banderas. That prompted a bi-partisan group of 23 veterans in Congress to demand an apology from Fox News for Peters' remarks. But, apparently, you can never be too divisive or hate monger too much on Fox -- unless, of course, you're a liberal.

    Peters told O’Reilly that the Fort Hood shootings were “the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11… It was committed by a Muslim fanatic.” But in an article called, Big Questions on Gunman; Few Details, the New York Times reported, “Muslims who attended mosques with Major Hasan in Virginia, Maryland and Texas said they had never heard him express extremist views about politics or religion. And though openly opposed to the wars, he did not express anti-American sentiments, they said… Yahya Hendi, a part-time chaplain at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, said Major Hasan had once praised him for giving a sermon opposing extremism. 'He felt that Muslims needed to speak about peace and love,' Imam Hendi said."

    www.newshounds.us/2009/11/0...to_911.php
    • Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

      Sun, November 8, 2009 - 1:20 AM
      If nothing else it has served as a barometer exposing levels of Islamophobia in individuals or media outlets.
      • Dan
        Dan
        offline 8

        Re: Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident?

        Sun, November 8, 2009 - 1:54 PM
        "If nothing else it has served as a barometer exposing levels of Islamophobia in individuals or media outlets."

        Classic, when AIDS was sweeping the globe and soon everyone was to succomb to this "indescriminate" disease, liberals we worried about a Homophobia "backlash". So what did they do, they extolled the virtues of homosexual sex, the real cause of AIDS as all intelligent people know.

        So now it Islamic terror sweeps the globe (this time its real), their biggest fear is not the danger posed to freedom loving peoples everywhere, but that some Muslim shop keeper somewhere might get a nose bleed from an irrational white conservative christian! gotta admire the "logic" of liberalism. And to think that many of them have college degrees.

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"