Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

MURPHY

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

And the FBI couldn't tell emails to Awalik were dangerous??

This guy was a jihadist.

Murph, slow down! You are running wild.
Someone just posted a headline in your other 'jihadist' thread that is somewhat contradictory. So, breathe and let the facts separate from the hyperbole.

CbsNews


As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program.

Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," he said in the presentation.

I hope this fuck goes to prison for the rest of his life then burns in hell along with the present administration who love these muslum fucks.

I love how your messiah condemmed the White Police Officer for arresting the Professor but now tells us not to jump to conclusions.

What a retard.

Hope and change and hatred for Whitey.

SUCKERS

"I love how your messiah condemmed the White Police Officer for arresting the Professor but now tells us not to jump to conclusions."

I love how you somehow manage to place this on Obama's doorstep when, it is obvious, that far lower level personel were responsible for allowing this angry lunatic to carry out his crime. I swear, the Obamahaters will blame him for anything and everything whether or not it has any shred of validity, they just don't care. It's just attack Obama, attack Obama, attack Obama. If I didn't know better (which I don't) I'd say you're still pissed that a black man is president and knowing that it is Chickenrancher I'd have to say, it's because he's a racist fuck.

This guy Nidal hit the radar well before January 2009. If there's a problem it's most likely systemic. It's certainly not a narrow partisan matter. But for the wackdoodles who inhabit the outer limits of American political life, everything from the comfort or discomfort of their first crap in the morning to their last thumbsuck at night appears to be a narrow partisan matter.

But for the wackdoodles who inhabit the outer limits of American political life, everything from the comfort or discomfort of their first crap in the morning to their last thumbsuck at night appears to be a narrow partisan matter.

#7 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-11 06:46 AM | Reply | Flag (X)Wackdoodliest of wackdoodles

#8 | Posted by cookfish | Flag: Man-Scent Obsession

"I love how your messiah condemmed the White Police Officer for arresting the Professor but now tells us not to jump to conclusions."

On the job training?

"I love how your messiah condemmed the White Police Officer for arresting the Professor but now tells us not to jump to conclusions."

On the job training?

"I love how your messiah condemmed the White Police Officer...

Did he now?

Did Obama actually say "I condemn that White Police Officer!"?

Or are you being the race baiting asshole here?

Smart money's on the latter option, btw.

Be Well.

I love how you somehow manage to place this on Obama's doorstep when, it is obvious, that far lower level personel were responsible ....

#6 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-10 11:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

How many times did you screech that 9/11 was Bush's responsibility? After all, it happened on his watch.

How many times did you screech that 9/11 was Bush's responsibility? After all, it happened on his watch.
Posted by vernon

Call me when you read the headline "Obama ignores National Security Bulleting Concerning Lone Army Psychologist."

Bulletin.

#14 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-11 08:27 AM | Reply | Flag: LAME


#15 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-11 08:33 AM | Reply | Flag: LAMER

I guess you weren't here a few years ago. No matter what anybody posted about 9/11, Danni and a few other ALWAYS screamed that just because it happened on Bush's watch, it was his fault.

Didn't matter when it was planned.

Didn't matter where it happened.

If Bush's right hand was taken off the Bible at the Inaguration, he was automatically and 110 percent responsible.

Just holding up Danni to the stupid and tiresome standard she insisted on for years.

You notice, of course, that Danni is silent on this.

#15 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-11 08:33 AM | Reply | Flag: LAMER

You're getting a FF for that, you loon.

"You notice, of course, that Danni is silent on this."

You're right. She's keeping silent because she's just been pwned by you.

*snicker

I've been here on and off since 2003 or 2004, FTR. I know about the family dynamics here.

But this has nothing to do with terrorism or the fact he was a muslim. He did it simply because he snapped.
-The Left

"But this has nothing to do with terrorism or the fact he was a muslim. He did it simply because he snapped."

I think his Muslim identity played a role in how and why he snapped, but I don't think this can qualify as terrorism.

I think his Muslim identity played a role in how and why he snapped, but I don't think this can qualify as terrorism.

#19 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-11 09:28 AM | Reply


I'd have to disagree. I think people assume a "lone wolf" can't be a terrorist because we've been indoctrinated in to thinking you have to be part of a cell, a hijacker, or a suicide bomber to be a terrorist.
This guy posted on radical websites, contacted a known Al Quaeda recruiter, and his actions garnered him attention from the FBI.

The actual designation of "terrorist" doesn't make his crime any more heinous IMO, so it's not all that important to me. That being said, I think the reason there is reluctance to call him a terrorist is because people fear a backlash towards muslims, especially those in the military. I said since day one that this is a PR move by the military in order to try to protect the muslims in the ranks.
I understand why they're doing it, I just happen to disagree with it.

"I understand why they're doing it, I just happen to disagree with it."

You don't think, if the military didn't take steps to avoid the "terrorism" tag, that there would be real problems for muslims in the service?

I'd like to believe you are right.

You don't think, if the military didn't take steps to avoid the "terrorism" tag, that there would be real problems for muslims in the service?


#21 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-11 09:57 AM | Reply

I believe that the reason they're avoiding the tag is because if they rightfully called him a muslim terrorist that there would most certainly be an even deeper distrust of the muslims among their ranks. It would be unavoidable. You need to count on the people to your left and right. A muslim amongst their ranks may be distracting them, and they couldn't have that.
I understand why they did it, but I disagree with it. They're basically sacrificing the truth in order to avoid the added headaches that classifying him as a terrorist would bring.

"They're basically sacrificing the truth in order to avoid the added headaches that classifying him as a terrorist would bring."

Well then, its a good thing that he isn't gay and Muslim.

But I get you. How would you rather they approach this conundrum?

How would you rather they approach this conundrum?

#23 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-11 10:12 AM | Reply


Just tell the truth. Then explain that a couple of incidents compared to the number of muslims in their ranks is not even noteworthy. Anyone caught discriminating against a muslim will be treated just like they would if they were caught discriminating against anyone else.

The thing is, the lie really only protects new muslims and muslims that are in other units. The guys most likely already bust the balls of the muslims they know, and will know who is a good egg and who isn't. The ones that don't take the friendly ribbing in stride are most likely already being eyed suspiciously by their squad-mates(just like the Irishmen, Italian, Mexican, Catholic, Baptist, Morman, etc are eyed suspiciously if they bristle at such common-place ball busting).


I just think lying about it doesn't change anything, and all it does is make people less trustful of future messages.

Fair enough. I'll have to think about that.

Gawker

ABC News Brian Ross has a breathtaking record of recklessly inaccurate, overhyped stories that don't live up to the headline. His scoop yesterday about Nidal Malik Hasan's "attempt to reach out to al Qaeda" was one of them.

Ross' report yesterday that Hasan had attempted to "make contact with people associated with al Qaeda" took over the internet yesterday and sparked a furious round of speculation that Hasan's attack was part of an Islamic terrorist plot. The headline, "Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda," said it all. The far more mundane truth emerged today in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post: Hasan had communicated via e-mail with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American cleric living in Yemen who formerly served as the imam of a mosque Hasan had attended in Virginia. What did they talk about? From the Washington Post:

The FBI determined that the e-mails did not warrant an investigation, according to the law enforcement official. Investigators said Hasan's e-mails were consistent with the topic of his academic research and involved some social chatter and religious discourse.

We were confused this morning, because Ross had clearly reported that Hasan had made contact with "people associated with Al Qaeda," and the only contacts that other reporters were confirming were with al-Awlaki, who is, as far as we know, a single person. We called Ross and asked him if there were more "people." No, he told us, his initial report was only in reference to al-Awlaki.

"That's how it was initially described to me by my sources," he says. "Given what they told me, that's all I could say. It's a strange use of the word people.' But when pinned down, my sources said it's just al-Awlaki."

A strange use, indeed. How about false, too? Especially because Ross' original story did, in fact, report that al-Awliki was among the "people" Hasan was suspected of having contacted. So he reported that Hasan contacted more than one person associated with al Qaeda, and then named one person that he was suspected of contacting. What he apparently didn't bother to do was "pin his sources down" on exactly what they were saying. The result was a clear suggestion that Hasan had tried to communicate with the al Qaeda network on more than one occasion.

I guess you weren't here a few years ago. No matter what anybody posted about 9/11, Danni and a few other ALWAYS screamed that just because it happened on Bush's watch, it was his fault.

#16 | Posted by vernon at 2009-11-11 09:09 AM | Reply |

Vern you've got it wrong, and have absolutely zero excuse to be getting it wrong.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable