Think about the ROE our military is crippled by and how you would combat something like this? Dressing up in burqas and going into a area where food is being distributed is a disgusting act of cowardice. How many women and children were killed by this and similar acts? This is the Islam that Obama has reached out to, groveled and fallen on his knees to before the pig king of Saudia Arabia. Islam is Islam and Jihad is Jihad.
Burqa clad bombers kill over 40 in Pakistan
PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Two suicide bombers dressed in burqas blew themselves up Saturday in a camp for refugees fleeing military offensives in northwestern Pakistan, killing 41 people and wounding 62, officials said.
The blasts occurred at a food distribution point, but there were conflicting reports whether the victims were lining up for food or being registered. The camp is sometimes used by foreign humanitarian groups, including the World Food Program, to deliver aid.
Meanwhile, the Pakistani army admitted that civilians were killed in an airstrike last Saturday in the northwest that supposedly targeted militants. It did not say how many had died, but apologized in a rare acknowledgment of an error that could help reduce anger among local tribes, whose support it needs to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida.
The two suicide bombers struck six minutes apart at a camp in the Kacha Pukka area of Kohat, a tribally administered region close to the Afghan border. They were dressed in burqas, the all-encompassing veil worn by conservative Muslim women in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, local police official Abdullah Khan said.
Government official Dilawar Khan Bangash said 41 people were killed and 62 were wounded in the attack.
Pakistan has been hit by near-daily explosions over the last 18 months blamed on al-Qaida and Taliban militants. Most have been directed at security or government installations, but civilians have also been targeted, sometimes to punish those seen as cooperating with the government.
The camp was for people who fled from the Orakzai district, where the army has been fighting militants since the end of last year. The tempo of the operations has picked since March, with frequent aerial bombardment. The camp housed between 1,000 and 2,000 people.
There was no claim of responsibility, but that is not unusual when bomb attacks kill ordinary Pakistani citizens.
210,000 flee
About 210,000 civilians have fled from Orakzai since the end of last year, including nearly 50,000 people who have left in the last month when ground forces moved into the area to flush out insurgents.
There have been fewer bombings in major cities outside of the northwest during the first three months of this year compared to late last year. The slowdown follows a major offensive in the South Waziristan tribal region, where many militants had been based.
The army's apology was for airstrikes in the Khyber region last Saturday that villagers said killed about 70 people.
The army spokesman had insisted the dead were militants, even when members of the local administration said they were compensating the families of dead civilians.
In a brief statement Saturday, army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said he had ordered measures be taken to avoid such "unfortunate incidents" in the future. It mentioned the name of the tribe which lost members in the air strike.
The Pakistan army relies on the support — or at least the neutrality of — of tribes in the northwest to carry out its operations there.
Khanan Gul Khan, who lost four relatives in the attack, said he accepted the apology.
"The dead cannot come back, but we are happy that it has been acknowledged on the highest level that we are not terrorists," he said.
The Pakistani military regularly claims to have killed many militants in airstrikes, shellings and ground operations in the northwest, but rarely mentions civilian deaths. It is unclear whether few such deaths occur, or if the army simply does not report them.
Independent accounts of army operations in the tribal regions are extremely rare. Much of the area is still controlled by militants and is out of bounds for reporters.
The Pakistan army relies on the support — or at least the neutrality of — of tribes in the northwest to carry out its operations there.
Khanan Gul Khan, who lost four relatives in the attack, said he accepted the apology.
"The dead cannot come back, but we are happy that it has been acknowledged on the highest level that we are not terrorists," he said.
The Pakistani military regularly claims to have killed many militants in airstrikes, shellings and ground operations in the northwest, but rarely mentions civilian deaths. It is unclear whether few such deaths occur, or if the army simply does not report them.
Independent accounts of army operations in the tribal regions are extremely rare. Much of the area is still controlled by militants and is out of bounds for reporters.
Showing posts with label Islamic Jihad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic Jihad. Show all posts
Bombers dressed in burqas kill over 40 at at food distribution area
Labels:
Homicide bombers in Islam,
Islamic Jihad,
Pakistan
Islamic Jihad vs the Crusades
I have mentioned many times that Islam has been responsible for millions of deaths since it became a force in the seventh century. Traveler has done an excellent article with some very accurate data to support what myself and many others have been stating about the slaughter of millions of innocent people, under the sword of Islam. Not much needs to be added to this as the figures speak for themselves.
ISLAMIC HOLY WAR VS THE CRUSADES
Traveler
Africa
Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
120 million Africans
Christians
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
60 million Christians
Hindus
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
80 million Hindus
More on INDIA
Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest. Koenraad Elst Site
Buddhists
Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]
10 million Buddhists
Jews
Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.
This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.
Political Islam: Tears of Jihad
THE CRUSADES
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.
Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,380th year).
Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.
The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals. Even the Muslim armies that eventually pushed out the Christian rulers spent far more energy fighting each other, both before and after the various re-takings of Jerusalem.
Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.
Traveler
Africa
Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
120 million Africans
Christians
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
60 million Christians
Hindus
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
80 million Hindus
More on INDIA
Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest. Koenraad Elst Site
Buddhists
Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]
10 million Buddhists
Jews
Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.
This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.
Political Islam: Tears of Jihad
THE CRUSADES
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.
Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,380th year).
Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.
The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals. Even the Muslim armies that eventually pushed out the Christian rulers spent far more energy fighting each other, both before and after the various re-takings of Jerusalem.
Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.
Jihad in the U.S. Military. Jihad is Jihad. Fort Jackson food poisoning
Why are we just hearing about this now? How many more dead Americans will it take for this country and our people to wake up? No more Muslims in the military and I do not care at this point if there are some good ones. If so, let them speak out loudly and separate themselves from the radicals that are all throughout Islam. I cannot wait for the head mullah in the White House to come out and assure the American people again how this is an 'isloated' iuncident. Obama and his policies of appeasement and favoritism towards the Islamic/Muslim world are very much to blame for the huge uptick in violent attacks and attempts from Islamists, since he took office.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Five Muslim Soldiers Arrested at Fort Jackson in South Carolina
CBN
Erick Stakelbeck
CBN News has learned exclusively that five Muslim soldiers at Fort Jackson in South Carolina were arrested just before Christmas. It is unclear whether the men are still in custody. The five were part of the Arabic Translation program at the base.
The men are suspected of trying to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson.
A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the "Fort Jackson Five" may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.
Coming as it does on the heels of November's Fort Hood jihadist massacre, this news has major implications.
Will post updates as they become known. I may wait until quite a bit more comes out on this story.
Hat tip: Atlas Shrugs.
Fox News for more news on this
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Five Muslim Soldiers Arrested at Fort Jackson in South Carolina
CBN
Erick Stakelbeck
CBN News has learned exclusively that five Muslim soldiers at Fort Jackson in South Carolina were arrested just before Christmas. It is unclear whether the men are still in custody. The five were part of the Arabic Translation program at the base.
The men are suspected of trying to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson.
A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the "Fort Jackson Five" may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.
Coming as it does on the heels of November's Fort Hood jihadist massacre, this news has major implications.
Will post updates as they become known. I may wait until quite a bit more comes out on this story.
Hat tip: Atlas Shrugs.
Fox News for more news on this
Call it what it is: TERRORISM and it is rooted in ISLAM. There, I said it.
Labels:
Fort Hood Jihad,
Islamic Jihad,
Terrorist Attacks
Act! for America - The Fort Hood Massacre: Why the Democrats Won't Call it "Terrorism"
"The ideology to which I refer could conceivably be variously described, but because time and space constraints preclude a thorough quest for a label that best suits it, I will simply call it "political correctness," a name that, for whatever its many shortcomings may be, at least has the virtues of being at once succinct and familiar."
So many refuse to call the Ft. Hood tragedy
what it really is. Here you go: It is this:
TERRORISM and it is deeply rooted in ISLAM
IT was JIHAD. We are at war, and no amount
of diversity and multicultural lies will ever
changes the facts.
So I am insensitive, an Islamophobe, racist
whatever you want to call me. Read the
article and get back to me. I would love
to hear your thoughts and opinions.
http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/recent-news/10-newsmaster/1699--the-fort-hood-massacre-why-the-democrats-wont-call-it-qterrorismq
"The ideology to which I refer could conceivably be variously described, but because time and space constraints preclude a thorough quest for a label that best suits it, I will simply call it "political correctness," a name that, for whatever its many shortcomings may be, at least has the virtues of being at once succinct and familiar."
So many refuse to call the Ft. Hood tragedy
what it really is. Here you go: It is this:
TERRORISM and it is deeply rooted in ISLAM
IT was JIHAD. We are at war, and no amount
of diversity and multicultural lies will ever
changes the facts.
whatever you want to call me. Read the
article and get back to me. I would love
to hear your thoughts and opinions.
http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/recent-news/10-newsmaster/1699--the-fort-hood-massacre-why-the-democrats-wont-call-it-qterrorismq
Internet Jihad. Any doubters left out there? This is for real.
Labels:
Anwar al Awlaki,
Islamic Jihad,
Islamic Subversion in America.,
Islamofascism.,
Malik Nidal Hasan
A Web of Lone Wolves Foreign Policy
From Foreign Policy; Evan Kohlman
This will not get alot of
traction in the MSM or from
the Obama administration.
How do we stop this internet
Jihad? Can we stop this from
happening again? I would like
to think so but the reality of
today was changed on 9/11/2001.
Here is an introduction to the
article.
"But to my surprise, this motley crew of would-be homegrown killers turned out to be much more sophisticated than I had initially given them credit for. Aside from having an unsettling interest in acquiring assault rifles, these young men had separately downloaded hundreds of megabytes of hardcore terror propaganda videos from the web, including the wills of Sept. 11 hijackers and the July 7 London suicide bombers, and instructional materials on how to build improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and carry out sniper attacks -- and they knew all about radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his online lecture series "Constants on the Path of Jihad."
In "Constants," al Awlaki argues, "Jihad does not depend on any particular land. It is global. ... No borders or barriers stop it." He continues, "If a particular people or nation is classified as ... ‘the people of war' in the Shariah, that classification applies to them all over the earth. Islam cannot be customized to suit the conditions where you are, for instance Europe."
Read the rest here.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/a_web_of_lone_wolves
From Foreign Policy; Evan Kohlman
This will not get alot of
traction in the MSM or from
the Obama administration.
How do we stop this internet
Jihad? Can we stop this from
happening again? I would like
to think so but the reality of
today was changed on 9/11/2001.
Here is an introduction to the
article.
"But to my surprise, this motley crew of would-be homegrown killers turned out to be much more sophisticated than I had initially given them credit for. Aside from having an unsettling interest in acquiring assault rifles, these young men had separately downloaded hundreds of megabytes of hardcore terror propaganda videos from the web, including the wills of Sept. 11 hijackers and the July 7 London suicide bombers, and instructional materials on how to build improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and carry out sniper attacks -- and they knew all about radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his online lecture series "Constants on the Path of Jihad."
In "Constants," al Awlaki argues, "Jihad does not depend on any particular land. It is global. ... No borders or barriers stop it." He continues, "If a particular people or nation is classified as ... ‘the people of war' in the Shariah, that classification applies to them all over the earth. Islam cannot be customized to suit the conditions where you are, for instance Europe."
Read the rest here.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/a_web_of_lone_wolves
The White House Spin has picked up speed.
News Headlines - Obama urges Congress to put off Fort Hood probe : Townhall.com
Of course we know it just cannot
be a 'terrorist attack' while the
demosocialistacrats are in power.
What would the American people
say about this? Call this what it
really is,' a TERRORIST attack.'
"A joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI learned late last
year of Hasan's repeated contact with the cleric, who encouraged
Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The FBI said the task force did
not refer early information about Hasan to superiors because it concluded
he wasn't linked to terrorism."
Or did the FBI investigation not go
deep enough into Hasan's background?
Could it be that the FBI was worried about
the charges of being racist or Islamophobic?
We know THAT never happens here in the
United States, does it? Again, just think if
a Christian, Jew or any other religion or
ideologogy had committed this act of
terrorism?
Hasan is a terrorist.
He is a devout Muslim
Islam is evil. How much
more proof does this
country need?
Above is a reminder
from 9/11 just in
case some have
forgotten the
terrorist attack
of 9/11/2001
http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2009/11/14/obama_urges_congress_to_put_off_fort_hood_probe?page
Of course we know it just cannot
be a 'terrorist attack' while the
demosocialistacrats are in power.
What would the American people
say about this? Call this what it
really is,' a TERRORIST attack.'
"A joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI learned late last
year of Hasan's repeated contact with the cleric, who encouraged
Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The FBI said the task force did
not refer early information about Hasan to superiors because it concluded
he wasn't linked to terrorism."
Or did the FBI investigation not go
deep enough into Hasan's background?
Could it be that the FBI was worried about
the charges of being racist or Islamophobic?
We know THAT never happens here in the
United States, does it? Again, just think if
a Christian, Jew or any other religion or
ideologogy had committed this act of
terrorism?
He is a devout Muslim
Islam is evil. How much
more proof does this
country need?
Above is a reminder
from 9/11 just in
case some have
forgotten the
terrorist attack
of 9/11/2001
http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2009/11/14/obama_urges_congress_to_put_off_fort_hood_probe?page
John Allem Muhaammad: May he rot in 'paradise' or islamic hell.
The Associated Press: D.C. sniper Muhammad executed for 2002 attacks
One more Islamic pig is dead.
Good riddance and it is a sad
commentary that this scum bag
died in a peaceful way. His victims
did not have a choice or a say in
how they died.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iusIZC8PvRjuCm5Im_c_yzitM93AD9BT61S80
One more Islamic pig is dead.
Good riddance and it is a sad
commentary that this scum bag
died in a peaceful way. His victims
did not have a choice or a say in
how they died.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iusIZC8PvRjuCm5Im_c_yzitM93AD9BT61S80
From Town Hall: More on PC suicide.
Hat Tip to Robert Biesel.
A true patriot and friend!
Suicidal Political Correctness
by David Limbaugh
Even as more and more realize oppressive political correctness is damaging our nation and killing our people, we still hold ourselves hostage to it. We can't criticize Obama on his policy agenda without absurd accusations of racism, and now our authorities' first instinct after the mass murder at Fort Hood is to victimize the identified shooter -- Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- rather than to protect our soldiers.
The military is the last place we should expect political correctness to flourish. We recognize, after all, that our armed forces exist primarily to safeguard our national security, not as a laboratory for social experimentation. Or do we?
Forget "don't ask, don't tell" policy for now. I'm referring to the reaction of the Army's top brass to the Fort Hood slaughter in the news conference and television interviews following the shooting.
The first question to Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey (and Army Secretary John McHugh) was whether he believed "this was a wake-up call to the nation that the Army is simply too small to carry out the tasks that it's been given." "You've been having suicide rates that are off the charts," the reporter went on. "Your soldiers are under great stress from multiple deployments."
Our military manpower is a legitimate concern, but I think it would be more appropriate for this type of question to come up in the context of whether we have the troops necessary to perform our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, it surfaced in relation to whether an overly stretched Army might have contributed to causing this mass murder.
Instead of telling the questioner it's far-fetched, if not outright absurd, to suggest that a soldier committed multiple homicides because he was stressed from an overstretched Army, Gen. Casey dignified the question by responding that our Army has 70,000 more soldiers than it did five years ago and beaming about the Army's new "comprehensive soldier fitness" program, which helps soldiers build resilience and strength to deal with adversity.
A follow-up question was even worse. "Sir, some other counselors are saying this is just the tip of the iceberg. Suicide rates are now higher this year than they were last year. How concerned are you about this danger to recruits?"
Notice that the questioner's concern wasn't over the danger to soldiers of suicide murderers, but of suicide -- that is, what danger soldiers are to themselves as a result of military stress.
What are these people smoking? How lopsided has our thinking become that we view this murder through the prism of the shooter's stress and victimhood rather than focus on how to prevent such murders in the future? Besides, the shooter didn't commit suicide here.
Again, this kind of thinking isn't limited to the liberal press. Neither Secretary McHugh nor Gen. Casey challenged the questioner's implication or emphasis; they eagerly described the Army's "groundbreaking program ... to try to understand the dynamics and the forces behind suicides, particularly in the military."
Nor was their response merely a defensive reflex to a misguided question. Casey volunteered similar boasts about the Army's "huge" mental fitness efforts in his interview with CNN's John Roberts.
Casey -- in this interview and others, on ABC and NBC -- also expressed his concern about a "potential backlash" to Muslim soldiers. On NBC's "Meet the Press," he told host David Gregory, "Our diversity, not only in our Army but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
I'm not sure I believe Casey is more concerned about the ethnic or religious composition of our armed forces or overblown threats to it than the actual murder of its innocent soldiers. I doubt he would express similar concerns in private, but I would be more concerned about the state of our officer corps if he did than if he didn't.
Does anyone really think we're going to discriminate against or expel Muslims from the service as a result of these murders? On the other hand, doesn't the safety of innocent soldiers and our national defense demand that we get to the bottom of why such an obviously radical Islamist was not purged from our ranks and whether inflated diversity concerns handcuffed us and, at least indirectly, led to these murders?
You've surely already heard about the shooter's radicalism, his ties to al-Qaida, his statement that infidels should have their throats cut and boiling oil poured down their throats, his profession as a "Muslim first and American second," his anti-American rants, his harassment of fellow doctors about religion, and our government's paralytic inaction despite awareness of all these things and more.
We're heading the way of Europe in not only our adoption of socialism and smothering of liberty but also our suicidal abandonment of national security. We will survive as a nation only if we radically reverse these trends.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/11/10/suicidal_political_correctness?page=full
A true patriot and friend!
Suicidal Political Correctness
by David Limbaugh
Even as more and more realize oppressive political correctness is damaging our nation and killing our people, we still hold ourselves hostage to it. We can't criticize Obama on his policy agenda without absurd accusations of racism, and now our authorities' first instinct after the mass murder at Fort Hood is to victimize the identified shooter -- Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- rather than to protect our soldiers.
The military is the last place we should expect political correctness to flourish. We recognize, after all, that our armed forces exist primarily to safeguard our national security, not as a laboratory for social experimentation. Or do we?
Forget "don't ask, don't tell" policy for now. I'm referring to the reaction of the Army's top brass to the Fort Hood slaughter in the news conference and television interviews following the shooting.
The first question to Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey (and Army Secretary John McHugh) was whether he believed "this was a wake-up call to the nation that the Army is simply too small to carry out the tasks that it's been given." "You've been having suicide rates that are off the charts," the reporter went on. "Your soldiers are under great stress from multiple deployments."
Our military manpower is a legitimate concern, but I think it would be more appropriate for this type of question to come up in the context of whether we have the troops necessary to perform our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, it surfaced in relation to whether an overly stretched Army might have contributed to causing this mass murder.
Instead of telling the questioner it's far-fetched, if not outright absurd, to suggest that a soldier committed multiple homicides because he was stressed from an overstretched Army, Gen. Casey dignified the question by responding that our Army has 70,000 more soldiers than it did five years ago and beaming about the Army's new "comprehensive soldier fitness" program, which helps soldiers build resilience and strength to deal with adversity.
A follow-up question was even worse. "Sir, some other counselors are saying this is just the tip of the iceberg. Suicide rates are now higher this year than they were last year. How concerned are you about this danger to recruits?"
Notice that the questioner's concern wasn't over the danger to soldiers of suicide murderers, but of suicide -- that is, what danger soldiers are to themselves as a result of military stress.
What are these people smoking? How lopsided has our thinking become that we view this murder through the prism of the shooter's stress and victimhood rather than focus on how to prevent such murders in the future? Besides, the shooter didn't commit suicide here.
Again, this kind of thinking isn't limited to the liberal press. Neither Secretary McHugh nor Gen. Casey challenged the questioner's implication or emphasis; they eagerly described the Army's "groundbreaking program ... to try to understand the dynamics and the forces behind suicides, particularly in the military."
Nor was their response merely a defensive reflex to a misguided question. Casey volunteered similar boasts about the Army's "huge" mental fitness efforts in his interview with CNN's John Roberts.
Casey -- in this interview and others, on ABC and NBC -- also expressed his concern about a "potential backlash" to Muslim soldiers. On NBC's "Meet the Press," he told host David Gregory, "Our diversity, not only in our Army but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
I'm not sure I believe Casey is more concerned about the ethnic or religious composition of our armed forces or overblown threats to it than the actual murder of its innocent soldiers. I doubt he would express similar concerns in private, but I would be more concerned about the state of our officer corps if he did than if he didn't.
Does anyone really think we're going to discriminate against or expel Muslims from the service as a result of these murders? On the other hand, doesn't the safety of innocent soldiers and our national defense demand that we get to the bottom of why such an obviously radical Islamist was not purged from our ranks and whether inflated diversity concerns handcuffed us and, at least indirectly, led to these murders?
You've surely already heard about the shooter's radicalism, his ties to al-Qaida, his statement that infidels should have their throats cut and boiling oil poured down their throats, his profession as a "Muslim first and American second," his anti-American rants, his harassment of fellow doctors about religion, and our government's paralytic inaction despite awareness of all these things and more.
We're heading the way of Europe in not only our adoption of socialism and smothering of liberty but also our suicidal abandonment of national security. We will survive as a nation only if we radically reverse these trends.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/11/10/suicidal_political_correctness?page=full
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
