Cousin: US shooting suspect felt anti-Muslim bias

...he described Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as "religious and not very social but ... very normal."

Yeah...normal, ok got it, no prob...normal. I'm sure his victims will be happy to know that.

>>>"Mohammed Malik Hasan told the AP he had not heard from his cousin since a visit to the West Bank 15 years ago but that he heard from other relatives in the U.S. that he was distressed on learning he was to be deployed to Afghanistan. Hasan said his cousin had hired a lawyer to seek a military discharge.

Speaking in Ramallah Friday, he described Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as "religious and not very social but ... very normal."

Thirteen people were killed in Thursday's shooting."<<<

Hopefully he shot all Jews.

>>>"Cousin: US shooting suspect felt anti-Muslim bias...he had little contact with his Palestinian relatives in the West Bank but had told family there that he suffered discrimination in the U.S. Army because he is a Muslim."<<<

So I guess we're supposed to feel sorry for him, eh? Well, tough sh*t, I don't. If he lives, he should be crucified. Our country should hold him up as an example of how the handle terrorists.

>>>"Around 1:30 p.m., witnesses say a man later identified as Hasan jumped up on a desk and shouted the words "Allahu Akbar!" - Arabic for "God is great!" He was armed with two pistols, one a semiautomatic capable of firing up to 20 rounds without reloading.

...the worst mass shooting on an American military base, a rampage of more than 100 shots that left 13 dead and 30 wounded, including the alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan."<<<

infideli wrote:

Hopefully he shot all Jews.

I suppose he's a hero in your book, eh? Maybe the government should be watching you? Maybe they are. Better think before you barf.

Whose fault is it? F*cking Barack Obama's. This guy talks tough but he doesn't have to balls to lead. 10.2% unemployment. When is he going to have to f*cking balls to act on Afghanistan? Our commander-in-chief is a f*cking joke!!! Nobel Peace Prize. Another f*cking joke. The Chicago Olympics. A real f*cking joke, Barack. It's not even amusing anymore.

This is what we get for electing a former community organizer and unfinished US Senator. A f*cking talker.

mtlonewolf wrote:

<quoted text>
I suppose he's a hero in your book, eh? Maybe the government should be watching you? Maybe they are. Better think before you barf.

Blow me Numbnuts

infideli wrote:

<quoted text>
Blow me Numbnuts

infideli wrote:

Hopefully he shot all Jews

Hey there rocket scientist. You live in America, reap the benefits of the umbrella of the USA and it's soldiers. Your leisure is their loss, brainiac. In case you hadn't noticed, it was our soldiers, on our soil, at our military base, performing our governments' purposes...to protect all of us and our freedoms, along with protecting others in this world from the tyranny of radicalism via terrorist agendas. Or don't you have sufficient brain cells to put it all together, woos boy?

I'm sure there are any number of radical Muslim regimes out there and terrorist cell groups who would be delighted to have you become one of them, dumb sh*t. If you hate us so much, why are you even here..sucking up our liberties, life, and freedoms at the expense of the blood of our soldiers?

Move on and move out fruitcake. Our country won't be the worse for your loss. We're tired of supporting your dumb *ss!

10 Questions to Ask About Radical Muslims
By: Tawfik Hamid Article
http://www.newsmax.com/tawfik_hamid/radical_m...
I pose the following rhetorical questions to promote better understanding of radical Muslims.
Question No. 1: What would liberals say to women who are stoned to death for adultery, to gays facing capital punishment, and to Muslims beheaded for converting from Islam to another faith, all according to Islamic law? Will liberals say that they must show “tolerance” and accept this barbarism as a matter of respect for religious values or stand against inhumane laws?
No. 2: Where can we find Shariah books that clearly stand against the above violence? Instead of trying to convince the world that Shariah is peaceful and that it is all a matter of different interpretations, it would be much better if the liberals asked the leading Islamic scholars to declare unambiguously that stoning women, killing gays, and beheading apostates are unacceptable.
No. 3: Why do the liberal thinkers try to find justifications for terrorism such as poverty, lack of education, and the historical “feeling of injustice” among Muslims at the hands of the West? The Jews were exposed to some of the worst forms of suffering and torture in human history at the hands of the Nazis, yet they have not performed terrorist acts against German civilians.
No. 4: Muslims in the West enjoy rights as equal citizens. However, leading Islamic scholars call Jews in the Muslim world pigs and monkeys, Christians are not allowed easy access to build churches, and the Baha’i community is discriminated against in many parts of the Muslim world. Who really should feel angry?
No. 5: Why are socioeconomic conditions and political circumstances often used to justify acts of terrorism committed by Muslims? Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus live under the same circumstances and do not instigate such a level of violence. What is the reason for this selectivity?
No. 6: Why do liberals demonstrate against Israel for killing Palestinian civilians, which is unintentional and happens because Palestinian terrorists hide among the victims, yet do not use their passion to demonstrate against Hamas, which has killed "Palestinian" civilians intentionally? Note: Hamas assassinated three children of its opponent Dahlan, who was the head of Intelligence of the Palestinian Authority.
No. 7: The Arab-Israeli conflict often is viewed as a historical source of modern-day terrorism, yet how could this possibly explain why Muslims have killed and mutilated the dead bodies of fellow Muslims in areas such as Iraq and Algeria?
No. 8: If non-Muslims were to begin promoting the idea that “Muslims are pigs and monkeys,” would the liberals stand against this or would they remain silent, as they usually do when Muslims call Jews by these names?
No. 9: If a Muslim decided to follow in the “footsteps” of the Prophet Muhammad by marrying and having sex with a 9-year-old girl, would liberal thinkers stand against this or allow it to happen out of respect for religious freedom? Note: This story is mentioned in Al-Buchary, the most authentic hadith book in the Sunni world, but it is not in the Quran and the age of marriage is different in Shia books.
No. 10: How would liberals respond if radical Muslims declared war on them and used the standard Shariah rule to offer the three choices of conversion to Islam, paying a humiliating tax called the jizya, or be killed? Would liberals respect these religious values by accepting one of these options OR stand against such barbarism in order to protect human civilization?
Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of "Inside Jihad." He is a former associate of Dr. al-Zawahiri (second in command of al-Qaida) who now is a reformer of Islam. For more information, visit www.tawfikhamid.com .

Fort Hood Disaster Raises Critical Issues

By: Tawfik Hamid

An army psychiatrist's alleged slaughter of 13 people and wounding of another 30 at Fort Hood, Texas, raise critical issues related to radical Islam.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American Muslim who had counseled troops, allegedly made the comment “Allah Akbar — Arabic for "God is great!" — before he killed his fellow human beings Thursday.

The horrible event brings these thoughts to mind:

When Shariah teaches disrespect for non-Muslims’ life, why should we be surprised when we hear about a dedicated religious Muslim who follow such teaching if he commits barbaric acts against non-Muslims?

Muslims must stop blaming Westerners who link violence to Islam as normal human mind tend to link events together. Thousands of terror attacks, including Sept. 11, all over the world, beheadings in the name of Islam, and many other barbaric atrocities are all conducted more commonly by people who are identified as Muslims. It is virtually impossible to stop people from linking violence to Islam unless violence in the name of Islam stops.

Should the Muslim world continue blaming the West for “Islamophobia” and for linking violence to Islam or should it work on changing itself to stop producing generations that accept violence as integral parts of their religious teaching?(Please see my ABC's test for radical Islam.)

Some decision makers have a tendency to discuss why some Muslims turn to violence while others do not, when they are exposed to the same religious teaching. This approach may allow decisions makers to avoid addressing the role of religious teaching as the true cause of the problem and to focus instead on the individual factors that make a particular person use violence.

In this regard I would like to mention the following illustrative example: When people smoke cigarettes only some of them develop lung cancer. This does not mean that smoking is not a main cause of lung cancer. The same applies to Islamism phenomenon. When Muslims are exposed to the radical Islamic teaching, only some of them become violent. This also does not mean that the teaching is not the cause of developing the violence. The most simple solution for the problems in the previous examples is simply to limit the exposure to the offending agent (either smoking or to the radical teaching) rather trying to change the response of the cells or the humans to the causative agent. This can happen in Muslim societies by providing them with an alternative to the radical teachings to promote values of love and peaceful coexistence instead of hatred and intolerance.

The investigators of the case who might be able to interrogate the suspect must be fully aware he may practice “Tequia”(lying to non-Muslims) or pretend that he has a psychiatric disorder to avoid punishment. The latter can be a very viable option for a trained psychiatrist who knows the symptoms of psychiatric disorders.

Senior officials in the military, intelligence, Homeland Security, and others need to learn how to detect early signs of Islamic radicalization among their employees. Failure to do so can lead to a disaster.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of "Inside Jihad." He was a former associate of Dr. al-Zawahiri (second in command of al-Qaida) and currently he is a reformer of Islam. For more information, visit www.tawfikhamid.com .

Arabs Must Prove They Want Peace With Israel

By: Tawfik Hamid

http://www.newsmax.com/tawfik_hamid/arabs_jew...

Many Arab countries have already signed peace treaties with Israel, or expressed their desire for a final settlement in the Middle East conflict.

But signing agreements, giving speeches, and expressing desires for peace will not actually bring peace to the Middle East.

Action is needed to make it happen.

Fair and factual evaluation of the Arab-Israeli conflict undoubtedly demonstrates that Israel has taken many initiatives to prove its sincere desire to live in peace with the Arabs. So far, the Arabs have not done the same.

For example, Arabic language is used to welcome visitors in Israeli airports; it is written on the street signs to help the Arab minority and visitors, and it is printed on the Israeli currency. In addition, Israeli Media and TV regularly air Arab movies and songs for their audience.

Israel also allows Muslims to build mosques and to have a Shariah court; evidence that confirms the genuine desire of the Israelis to live in peace with the Arabs.

Furthermore, Muslims are allowed to carry the Quran into Israel, allowed to do the call for the Muslim prayers, and permitted to visit the Jewish Holy places such as the Wailing Wall. This also proves the true tolerant nature of the Israelis and their sincere desire to live in peace with the Arabs.

The question now: Is the Arab world ready to reciprocate the tolerance shown by the Israelis and prove to the world that Arabs truly want peace?

Are the Arab countries that signed peace treaties with Israel ready to allow Israeli songs and music in their media or to use Hebrew words to welcome Israeli citizens when they visit their countries?

Are the Palestinians ready to allow Jewish people to visit the Jewish holy areas inside the Al-Aqusa Mosque as Israel allows Muslims to visit the Wailing Wall?

On the contrary, the Palestinians declared violent uprising that ended in killing many innocent people after former Prime Minster Sharon visited one of the Jewish holy places that happened to be in the Muslim controlled area.

In addition, will Saudi Arabia consider allowing Jews to carry their holy books inside Saudi Arabia as Israel allows Muslims and other religious minorities to carry their holy books inside the Holly Land of Israel?

Some may argue that there is not a large enough Jewish community in the Arab world to justify using Hebrew words or airing Israeli songs in the Media. The answer is simply to use Hebrew words and air Israeli songs alongside Arabic songs in the Arab media.

Arabs should reciprocate Israeli tolerance and show a sign of welcome to Jewish guests who visit the Arab countries.

In addition, it is a way to teach Arabs the value of respect for other cultures.

In fact, the lack or near absence of Jewish people living in the Arab world is evidence that Israel was much more tolerant than most Arab countries. While Israel allowed more than a million Arabs to live in their country, many Arab countries kicked their Jewish citizens out of their homes.

In this context, it is fair to acknowledge Morocco¹s virtuous decision to protect its Jewish minority and to not force them out of the country.

From a practical point of view, in order to take active steps toward peace it is imperative to stop all forms of anti-Semitism in the media of the Arab world. True peace in the Middle East will not happen until Muslim scholars teach Muslim children that Jews are not "pigs and monkeys" and that it is not a duty for Muslims to kill every Jew before the end of days, as is sometimes taught.

In short, Israel has already taken many active steps to prove its aspiration to live in peace with the Arabs. It is now the Arabs turn to reciprocate this by taking similar steps to show tolerance to the Jews.

mtlonewolf wrote:

<quoted text>
I suppose he's a hero in your book, eh? Maybe the government should be watching you? Maybe they are. Better think before you barf.

what gov't?how come they couldn't see this coming?his classmates knew that something was wrong with this guy (saw it on c-n-n),but your gov't made him a major.

superdelegate wrote:

<quoted text>what gov't?how come they couldn't see this coming?his classmates knew that something was wrong with this guy (saw it on c-n-n),but your gov't made him a major.

Actually, I couldn't agree with you more. In my mind, our government is at fault to some degree, since they new about his "leanings" in advance, and (apparently) took no pro-active measures to insure something like this would not occur. I too am not happy with the lack of action ahead of time. I assume, just assume, that our Military leadership somewhere upstream, were generally aware of this, but were probably prohibited by our political arena (the Obama leanings for appeasing the Muslim world and proving tolerance) most likely were mandated/required to have a general "tolerance" agenda which was most likely in force that prohibited anyone from taking any pro-active action. But, this is just a guess on my part, not fact.

Even so, our government/military leadership (such as it is these days) is still the only government we possess, for better or worse. We, the people...and especially the Military personnel who are under legal conscript, are obliged to support the country in their stated intent and action, even if there is a silent disapproval of the agenda behind the scenes with some people and interest groups.

I too was a soldier (during Vietnam). That war was extremely unpopular, but we did what we were told to do, and we served our country and (generally speaking) were required to back their agenda...whether we knew for a fact what it was, or not.

That was my general point...our country and it's elected leadership, is to be backed by it's Military personnel, and more generally our people. The political process we possess, allows for changes of leadership and interests/venues through normal processes and legal channels, not extraordinary singular action such as what he enacted against our own soldiers, his own comrades (theoretically), our sons/daughters, etc etc.

mtlonewolf wrote:

<quoted text><quoted text>
Hey there rocket scientist. You live in America, reap the benefits of the umbrella of the USA and it's soldiers. Your leisure is their loss, brainiac. In case you hadn't noticed, it was our soldiers, on our soil, at our military base, performing our governments' purposes...to protect all of us and our freedoms, along with protecting others in this world from the tyranny of radicalism via terrorist agendas. Or don't you have sufficient brain cells to put it all together, woos boy?
I'm sure there are any number of radical Muslim regimes out there and terrorist cell groups who would be delighted to have you become one of them, dumb sh*t. If you hate us so much, why are you even here..sucking up our liberties, life, and freedoms at the expense of the blood of our soldiers?
Move on and move out fruitcake. Our country won't be the worse for your loss. We're tired of supporting your dumb *ss!

'Two US privates John Smith and John Henry had been seeing a military psychiatrist major Hasan at Fort hood for a few weeks. Both privates said they were completely against the war of oppression in the middle east and would refuse to report for active duty if ordered to do so.
So the army put them both in therapy with Dr. Hasan. After more than five weeks of therapy both Christian privates were called to go to Afghanistan. Both privates warned they would not go and they would defend themselves with force if the army tried to force them to fight in a war they believed was morally wrong.
Yesterday fellow soldiers tried to surprize the two consciencious objectors but the privates were prepared and killed 12 soldiers who tried to force their way into the privates' barracks at Fort Hood.

You should make an appointment with a Proctologist to see if they can extract your cranium from your anus.

infideli wrote:

<quoted text>
'Two US privates John Smith and John Henry had been seeing a military psychiatrist major Hasan at Fort hood for a few weeks. Both privates said they were completely against the war of oppression in the middle east and would refuse to report for active duty if ordered to do so.
So the army put them both in therapy with Dr. Hasan. After more than five weeks of therapy both Christian privates were called to go to Afghanistan. Both privates warned they would not go and they would defend themselves with force if the army tried to force them to fight in a war they believed was morally wrong.
Yesterday fellow soldiers tried to surprize the two consciencious objectors but the privates were prepared and killed 12 soldiers who tried to force their way into the privates' barracks at Fort Hood.
You should make an appointment with a Proctologist to see if they can extract your cranium from your anus.

you should post in your own name, now ur busted, douchebag

infideli never posts like an islamic douchebag from ur sh!thole

mtlonewolf wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I couldn't agree with you more. In my mind, our government is at fault to some degree, since they new about his "leanings" in advance, and (apparently) took no pro-active measures to insure something like this would not occur. I too am not happy with the lack of action ahead of time. I assume, just assume, that our Military leadership somewhere upstream, were generally aware of this, but were probably prohibited by our political arena (the Obama leanings for appeasing the Muslim world and proving tolerance) most likely were mandated/required to have a general "tolerance" agenda which was most likely in force that prohibited anyone from taking any pro-active action. But, this is just a guess on my part, not fact.
Even so, our government/military leadership (such as it is these days) is still the only government we possess, for better or worse. We, the people...and especially the Military personnel who are under legal conscript, are obliged to support the country in their stated intent and action, even if there is a silent disapproval of the agenda behind the scenes with some people and interest groups.
I too was a soldier (during Vietnam). That war was extremely unpopular, but we did what we were told to do, and we served our country and (generally speaking) were required to back their agenda...whether we knew for a fact what it was, or not.
That was my general point...our country and it's elected leadership, is to be backed by it's Military personnel, and more generally our people. The political process we possess, allows for changes of leadership and interests/venues through normal processes and legal channels, not extraordinary singular action such as what he enacted against our own soldiers, his own comrades (theoretically), our sons/daughters, etc etc.

that fraud forgot to play with his proxy software...now we know which USAFJP is the douchebag anti semite poser poster, from the nation of sh!tslam is pretending to bre infideli..... fcuking savages are psthetic sh!tz, huh ?

he uses my nic, like his duchebag osama uses a burka..... chicken sh!t muslims, typical

mtlonewolf wrote:

<quoted text>
I suppose he's a hero in your book, eh? Maybe the government should be watching you? Maybe they are. Better think before you barf.

apparentky thats a douchebag muzsh!t, pretending to be a civilized infidel

why would anyone name infidel, stand with barbaric savage islamic douchebags... dont scum terrorist looking islamic fcuks wanna kill us infidels ?????? dumb a$$ muzzle is now busted.........the real infideli has spoken

But I'm just a stupidWOP with a third grade education, what do I know?

Did the cowboys (real men) kick your jewass out of Montana lonewolf?

As an American military veteran, I do not believe the fanantic Major Hassan was subjected to any ethinc discrimination. Nor does mainstream America have anthing against our loyal Muslim citizens. But yes, a national security crackdown will begin. But I also suggest we send Hamas a bill for $ 500,000 for all America spent on the carrer of this pathetic radidical Arab Palestinian whom we opened our arms for and trusted.

So now we're supposed to feel sorry for the B*stard. Dumb sh*t...Ain't gonna happen. Hope he burns in H*ll.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33766545/ns/us_ne...

"The lonely life of alleged Fort Hood shooter"

‘He was mistreated. He didn't have nobody. He was all alone,’ says neighbor.

"I'm going to do good work for God," he told her. Then he walked downstairs, through the grassy courtyard, stepped into his silver Honda Civic and drove to Fort Hood. Four hours later, he allegedly opened fire in the Soldier Readiness Center in a rampage that killed 13 people and wounded 38, the deadliest shooting ever on a U.S. military installation.

"Everyone else just sat down there and drunk their beer and looked at him and giggled at him," the woman said, starting to cry. "They just would laugh at him when he walked down with his Muslim clothes.... He was mistreated. He didn't have nobody. He was all alone. He went to his apartment there and was all alone."

Resident Kim Rosenthal said Hasan told her he would forgive Van de Walker because it was the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"He told me,'It's a time to forgive everybody who's done wrong against you,' " Rosenthal said.

Nice job at forgiveness and kindness you fr*ckin Muslim terrorist *ss wipe. Go join your brothers in h*ll, and burn baby, burn.