abu_rashid wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:



Russell was not shouting 'Allahu Akhbar' either. There's an important differentiatiation right there, noticed by all, even you.


You know full well that the moment a Muslim monster, no matter how mentally ill he may be, utters the magic words 'Allahu Akhbar' while murdering kaffir is all sane and serene and doing Allan's work as far as you are concerned and all is forgiven him.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 10:07pm:


Soren - Sore loser - is that the limit of your wit?


Slice it and dice it all you like - islam is in the news every day with a fresh horror, commited in its name.  A soldier killing his comrades out of religious motivations is insane or evil. A soldier shouting 'Jesus is Lord; or 'Dawkins is Lord' is a smacking lunatic.

But when a soldier is shouting 'allahu akhbar' while killing his comrades -  you call that extreme provocation. You can't bring yourself to condemning anybody shouting 'allahu akhbar', no matter how smacking insane or evil he is.

And that what makes you so bloody foreign - and I don't give a sh!te where you were born. In your heard, you are dreaming of Araby circa 632 AD. You will arse-cover for the sons of Allan because Islam tells you not to side with the kaffir against the brovvers, no matter what.

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, "Allahu akbar!" ("God is great!") committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it's an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit -- well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won't. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there's no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won't. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won't. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops -- despite their crocodile tears.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn't killed on the spot.

Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There'll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn't dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.

Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he'll have the last laugh.

But Hasan isn't the sole guilty party. The US Army's unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Fort Hood.

Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Fort Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would've been gone with the simoom. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.

Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. At least 38 people were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

There's another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist wacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who've been assigned to his care? And he's not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?

For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I'm ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.

Get ready for the apologias. We've already heard from the terrorist's family that "he's a good American." In their world, maybe he is.

But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?

A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she's becoming too Westernized.

Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we're assured that "Islam's a religion of peace."

I guarantee you that the Obama administration's nonresponse to the Fort Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/call_this_horror_by_its_name_islamist_HT78Wt6NkWoCGq5HIOwlII#ixzz0WE7CVDM9

Quote:


Well according to his non-Muslim neighbours he was not quite the kafir-hater you're making him out to be.

Quote:
(CBC)

Seems his beef was purely with soldiers, if that was his motive anyway, we don't know for sure yet.

Quote:



CHRISTIAN Democrat MP Fred Nile has warned of the risks of allowing Muslims to serve in Australia's armed forces.
The Rev Nile says last week's killing spree in the United States in which an army officer shot dead 13 people should cause "all associated with the free world's military forces to feel serious concern".

The NSW MP and former army officer said the Australian Defence Force could already harbour Muslim personnel who may be a threat to their comrades in arms.

"Australians would like to be assured that our defence forces have in place a system of assessment and review which would identify any person whose adherence to any alien ideology might one day override loyalty to mates and loyalty to the Crown," Mr Nile said.

"There is an argument for suggesting that the safety and morale of our troops may warrant a ban on dedicated Muslims joining the armed forces, who may be influenced by Islamic fundamentalism."

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 11:36pm:



The issue here is shooting their comrades, pinhead. Christians who put their god before their military duty are called pacifists and consciencious objectors. Can you tell the difference between these two concepts and a jihadi terrorist shooting his comrades?

(As if you didn't know. But you still try on the equivocation. A bit of Churchillian "Eradication of feeble-mindednss" would be just the treatment for you: a sock filled with wet sand, bang! on the back of the head. It could bring only good.)

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 12:36am:



Nonsense. You are making it up.

There was no 'christian' soldier or 'atheist' soldier killing his comrades  earlier this year with the Lord's Prayer or 'Viva Dawkins' on his lips - or whatever you consider the equivalent of "Allas's at the Bar", the Mahomedan cry of jihadi martyrdom.

There have been religiously motivated killing of comrades in arms by Mahomedans. And you regard them as heros and martyrs.

If anyone pulls a gun on his comrades and says that Jesus or Gandhi told him to kill, he'd be regarded as insane or a lying cowardly  bastard.

Martryrs doing Allan's work versus insane, cowardly criminals  - there's the difference, in a nutshell.