Shooter advised Obama transition

[392cobra]

OPINION/ANALYSIS:

The general is eager to get the situation in hand, but he's got his tactics backward. And not just the general. So have a lot of other people in the government. Judgment flees in the face of a challenge by goody-goody intentions.

The prospect of mistreatment of Muslims in the uniform is such a concern the general has told his officers "to be on the lookout for it." The tragedy at Fort Hood was bad, he says, but "it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well." He told an interviewer for CNN, as if in a footnote, that he further wants the Army to investigate how Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspect in the Fort Hood massacre, got to be a senior officer when he was such a known collaborator in radical Islamic causes.

Diversity is good. Maybe not as good as the ability to shoot straight, though in the modern, politically correct Army, you never can tell. George Washington, Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant, John J. Pershing, George S. Patton and even Dwight D. Eisenhower -- pretty good soldiers all -- never acted as if diversity is more important than the ability to kill bad guys and break things that ought to be broken. So far as we know, those worthies in the wars of yesteryear never tried to make allowances for troublemakers in uniform. A Nazi or a follower of Shinto in the ranks would have been booted out at once.

The intimidation of so much of the government becomes total, so great is the fear of being accused of hurting the feelings of evildoers. Winston Churchill got it right in the run-up to World War II, when good people couldn't bear to look evil in the face. "The malice of the wicked," he said, "is reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous."

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...home_headlines

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by Buzz

I understand your burning need to blame this and any other unpleasant event on Obama, but the extent to which you are stretching circumstantial issues is laughable at best.

This crackpot could have cared less who is in the White House and whether or not their foreign policy is one of "appeasement". He would have done what he did even if Atilla the Hun himself was president.

It has been reported that he thought Obama would pull troops out of the middle east, and was not happy that it did not happen. This comes from one of his family members.

Yes he may have gotten fuel for his fire from the rantings of a radical imam and he clearly sympathized with the Islamist jihad, but his meltdown appears to have been an individual act and a far cry from an organized act of foreign sponsored terrorism on US soil. In spite of the fact that his beliefs are rooted in Islam, this is more and act of domestic terrorism than anything else.

Now, if it turns out that he was a sleeper agent or a "winter soldier" implanted in the US military by Al Quaeda, then that's a whole different story. Highly unlikely though. Not every a$$hole who shouts religious slogans while going on a shooting rampage is a bona fide foreign terrorist.

He had contact with a Imam in Jordan that is connected to Al Queda (and attempted to make contact with Al Queda himself), and he had worshiped with this same Imam when he was in Virginia. The CIA has wiretaps of these calls. This same Imam has praised him since the shootings. He may not have been planted by Al Queda, but I definitely think the facts are staring to show that this guy was a terrorist. He was motivated by religion and possibly a foriegn Imam with connections to terrorist IMO.

I know I'm wasting my time going against the excited clamour to turn this event into an Obama indictment so I'll bow out and let you have your fun.

One thing I think is worthy of discussion though is the politically incorrect question of whether it is even possible for a devout Muslim to serve loyally in the US Armed Forces given todays global realities - and what measures could/should the US military be taking to address this concern. I will start a new thread so as not to drag this lynching party off topic.

They need to be screened IMO. This guy was already on the radar, but nobody did anything because it was not politically correct.

[Jamo]

Let's keep it calm, folks...and on topic. As to whether Muslims can serve in the military...see the other thread started by Buzz.

[392cobra]

[bomelia]

The evidence keeps mounting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574546,00.html

Yeah, they are not calling it terrorism yet... but do you remember those guys called "Hash Runners" that love running and drinking beer? They use regular old wheat flour to mark their courses. The "mysterious white powder" found in parking lots for one of their races caused a panic and led to charges of terrorism. They were eventually dropped. Same with that outfit that posted weird electronic signs around Boston for a covert advertising campaign. Those folks were charged with terrorism too. Then some nut case with a ME name, ties to a radical Imam, with business cards that say "SoA(SWT)" comes along and kills 13 soldiers and nobody wants to call it what it very obviously appears to be. Political Correctness and stupid government policies helped bring us 9/11. And, we are there again today.

Mike

Edit: SoA meants "Soldiers of Allah", I forget what SWT means

[bomelia]

Now we hear that Anwar al-Awlaki was Hassan's confidant.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575242,00.html

He didn't say Hassan should kill those folks, just that they should be confronted

This sounds a little like the definition of "is."

And, Obama does not want Congress to open any hearings on this "until the FBI has completed its probe". Wonder if the FBI is sharing with the CIA? PRolly not, since we appear to be back to the pre-9/11 mindset of looking at terrorism as a crime and not an act of war (as in this case, it appears to be).

Obama does not want hearings because Obama does not want to be saddled with the "1st act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11".

Mike