• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

That's a small faction of Muslims countries that do, kudos to them, however I'm more worried about Muslims in Free-Religion countries that are trying to elbow their way in.

also,

Their court. The ball is in their court, Dave.

JAWOHL MEIN GRAMMATIKFÜHRER!!!!

I meant to say FRACTION.


Vy does no one double check zees things?

ALLES FÜR DER GRAMMATIKFÜHRER!
 
You mean like his internet postings?

These statements are backed up by multiple sources, and the mans own internet postings.

And if you'd bothered to pay attention, you'd know that the reason the FBI didn't do anything about those postings when they first saw them is because they didn't know if they were posted by this guy. Believe it or not, there is more than one Nidal Hasan in the world. If it turns out that this was the guy, which seems likely, then we'll have more information to go on. I'm going to wait until we know that for sure.

And this isn't hearsay, the man isn't saying that he heard from someone that he said this, he said he heard him say this, that is eyewitness testimony not hearsay evidence.

Reread the guy's claims. Much of it is hearsay and that that isn't seems a little strange. Again, I ask a relatively simple question:

If someone in the army was saying that muslims should rise up and kill americans, and that he wanted people to strap on bombs and go to times square, and that he was giddy about US soldiers being killed, don't you think someone would have mentioned this before this incident?

If Madoff had fleeced non-Jews (instead of mainly Jews) because they were non-Jews (and it was a national/intl problem and part of His Scripture, and Professed "Scam to the Goyim").. it also WOULD have wider implications about the Jewish population of this country.

Please explain how Madoff's actions in your hypothetical "would have wider implications about the Jewish population of this country."

This should be interesting.

Says the guy named "Kandahar" and with a self selected moniker of "enemy combatant." Folks pay attention here and from here forward! Now that this FAKIR is on my radar, I promise you a real good show from here on out. I can virtually guarantee you all the kinetic energy related will be supplied from one direction! The static energy, the moribund energy? It will be from the same direction of the plausible denial, the affected insult and the densely "shocked" that you would take it "that way" mindset.

I can only surmise it is command of basic grammar and his "flim flam" approach that has befuldeled so many "net-citizens" thus far. Chuckle.

To clue you in, it is precisely 4:13 AM on November 7th in the year 2009. The same kid who panhandles as an "enemy combatant" named "Kandahar" while also playing at impartial, unbiased and the (based on my three and one half years observation) supposed paragon of rationality, is in fact quite opposite. Sure I could supply plenty of examples over the years to illustrate exactly and with detail, what I am talking about. But why not just start from scratch?

"Does it really matter if this guy was a jihadist?"

Well of course it does? Tell us, do you "intellectually" think otherwise? Oh please do!

Do you seriously mean to ask on the WWW, what the term "jihadist" means? Let me guess, you also want people to think of you as an at least moderately intelligent human being? Really DO let us know.

You are breathing and have a heart beat, so does it really mean you have something of even minor importance to contribute, one way or another on something approaching a "thoughtful" level regarding this topic? If you decide to shed that heavy coat of self imposed ignorance I'm still not certain you will have luck finding anyone interested in your spin on policy implications. Not kidding, feel free to poll this matter, with my name attached and the offer for you to "humiliate" me by vote as an option.


Naturally....................and so thoughtful of you. Chuckle. God what a charlatan poser. I find it ironic that the so called "unbiased press" did not find it necessary to state Nidal was Islamic until the pictures of him, taken a hour or two prior to the massacre, were posted online. Somehow me thinks had be been "Christian" this would not be the case and would be the lead on the story.

Good point. Keep us posted on the interplay between the kinetic and static energies.
 
Perhaps we can take a chapter out of the book:

Dealing With Muslims

Chapter 1: The Crusades

Christians got it right the first time.

The End.

I hope that was a joke.

Did we occupy them before 9/11?
Do Muslim states that turn a blind eye to the terrorists operating from within their borders get a free pass?
Did they occupy us after 9/11?

How about non-Muslim states that "turn a blind eye", as if a Muslim state has the correct number of eyes to monitor everything that is going on within their borders, aren't they at fault too?

CIA knew that there were muslims within our border getting organized and they did not inform the F.B.I in time to prevent 9/11.

Some of them were going in and out of Western societies for education purposes, should we also condemn Arizona University and Hamburg Tech. and all the others that "turn a blind eye".

You have unrealistic expectations for intelligence gathering and utilization; One of the most powerful intelligence agencies could not prevent the attacks what makes you think the Middle- Eastern countries could?


Sure they heard if but its a PC thing...........They did not want to offend Islamic Arabs in the atmy by making and issue what he said and did..........


Oh so PC actually hinders our military chain of command from protecting their fellow soldiers? :roll:
 
Well a great deal of them already do (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Iran etc.) and we happen to be arming a great deal of the regimes that dont. (saudi arabia and the like). So the balls as much in our court as it is in theres.

You are claiming Iran, an Islamic Republic has freedom of religion? They actually have a quota of 5 seats reserved for non Muslims but they can't go over that number. Even Sunni Muslims are restricted. I'd hardly call that religious freedom.

And there are also nearly 20 Islamic Republics or States with a state religion of Islam so "a great deal of them" doesn't work when you look at the numbers.

Besides, they can't hold a candle to any other major religion dominated country from Christianity to Hinduism when it comes to religious freedom which is the point.
 
You are claiming Iran, an Islamic Republic has freedom of religion? They actually have a quota of 5 seats reserved for non Muslims but they can't go over that number. Even Sunni Muslims are restricted. I'd hardly call that religious freedom.

And there are also nearly 20 Islamic Republics or States with a state religion of Islam so "a great deal of them" doesn't work when you look at the numbers.

Besides, they can't hold a candle to any other major religion dominated country from Christianity to Hinduism when it comes to religious freedom which is the point.

It was probably not the best example; religious minorities are certainly excluded from political power in Iran but in the sense that you can practice your religion without interference (e.g by going to a church or a synagogue) I would say they have a degree of religious freedom. I find it interesting you mention Arab states given that

1 the presidents of Syria and Lebanon are both Christian. In Lebanon in particular it’s historically been the Christians who have enjoyed disproportionate influence
2 Many of the more conservative Arab states are being continuously armed to the teeth by the west e.g Saudi Arabia.

As regards the last point you should bear in mind the situation of non Buddhist groups in Burma. But I’m not saying there is no problem at all with religious freedom in many Muslim countries. What I’m saying is

1 That this is far less universal then it’s made out to be
2 That its inaccurate to simplify this as a "west good, Muslim world bad" issue when we’re supporting a lot of the regimes that are doing this. The British and French could have handed over their mandates to pluralist democratic governments but instead they choose to do hand power to corrupt monarchies. We can’t attribute all the Middle East’s problems to Islam
 
It was probably not the best example; religious minorities are certainly excluded from political power in Iran but in the sense that you can practice your religion without interference (e.g by going to a church or a synagogue) I would say they have a degree of religious freedom. I find it interesting you mention Arab states given that

1 the presidents of Syria and Lebanon are both Christian. In Lebanon in particular it’s historically been the Christians who have enjoyed disproportionate influence

For one thing Lebanon is not an Islamic Republic nor does it have Islam as a state sponsored relgion so your example doesn't even fall under the criteria laid out.

That again doesn't take away from the larger point that the vast number of state sponsored Islamic countries do not practice religious freedom.

2 Many of the more conservative Arab states are being continuously armed to the teeth by the west e.g Saudi Arabia.

Again, how does that take away from the previous point?

As regards the last point you should bear in mind the situation of non Buddhist groups in Burma. But I’m not saying there is no problem at all with religious freedom in many Muslim countries. What I’m saying is

1 That this is far less universal then it’s made out to be

I compeletly disagree. There is far more universal thought than is reported.

2 That its inaccurate to simplify this as a "west good, Muslim world bad" issue when we’re supporting a lot of the regimes that are doing this. The British and French could have handed over their mandates to pluralist democratic governments but instead they choose to do hand power to corrupt monarchies. We can’t attribute all the Middle East’s problems to Islam

No one is saying bad vs good. This is fact vs fiction. The facts are Islamic Republics and state sponsored Islamic states have a far greater restriction on religious freedom than Western States or many Asian and African states for that matter.

We cannot simply ignore the truth that Islam not only attacks freedom of religion in its teachings and laws but also its incredible justification of violence and resistance to any other religion than its own far greater than any other major religion.
 
Last edited:
Anyone still want to argue that this wasn't religiously motivated and that he wasn't a jihadist?

Ya, sorry... but when the local newspaper reports that he was reported dead for two hours before confirming that he was wounded... While it is possible that he was an extremist, I would put my life savings on a wager that he was on a seratonin reuptake inhibitor (Like Ritalin, Prozac, etc)...

I don't know what really happened, but I've seen reports in which there were 3 shooters arrested, among other conflicting reports... so, this whole event smells funny.

There's also an outward chance that this guy might have been a victim of 'mk-ultra' (which, in spite of being a declassified program will still be called 'conspiracy theory'),which if this was the case brings up the chance that this is a literal false-flag operation, or it could simply have been another prozac / Ritalin related freakout also... I don't know and I don't think the information to prove one way or the other will ever be released.

Also, if this guy was really 'anti-war', wouldn't he have been booted from the millitary a long time before his rank?? Also, if a person in the army answers no, would you want a person in battle next to you that doesn't even agree with war and might hesitate to kill someone?
 
Last edited:
No I think I'll blame Islamism and the global jihad, this is just one incident in a concerted global initiative of Islamist Imperialist Expansionism through offensive jihad.

And what have these imperialists captured so far? How have they expanded?
 
You have to be American to see it that way.

No you have to be a narow minded, paranoid American to see it that way. "The Jihadis are coming."
 
Both of which perpetrated numerous acts of war against the U.S.. You seem to forget that this was a response to Islamist Imperialist Expansionism and aggression.

OK Wing nut kindly tell us how the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with your favorite phrase IEI? Saddam was no religious dictator, and his expansion days were over after Kuwait. The Taliban had no desire to expand in 2001, and ALQ were a few hundred Arabs, who were dangerous to the west but in no way capable of expanding into anywhere.
 
OK Wing nut

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1147-david-bowie-very-disappointed-you.jpg
 
But the investigators, working with behavioral experts, suggested that he might have long suffered from emotional problems that were exacerbated by the tensions of his work with veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who returned home with serious psychiatric problems.

They said his counseling activities with the veterans appear to have further fueled his anger and hardened his increasingly militant views as he was seeming to move toward more extreme religious beliefs — all of which boiled over as he faced being shipped overseas, an assignment he bitterly opposed
NY Times

So far my theory that he was mentally disturbed first, then due to this went down that slippery slope that exacerbated his belief system, is holding out. There are plenty of American muslims who are angry about our occupations of muslim lands, but they aren't killing Americans because of it. This guy was disturbed, a religious fanatic, and surrounded by people who were involved in doing what he saw as a crusade against his religion. A very dangerous combination.
 
Last edited:
Or a British citizen whose nearby neighborhood is now ruled over by Shariah law.

Which British neighborhood is ruled over by Shariah law?
 
I truly believe the media and the government will do anything to keep this from being about what it was. Islam.

The biggest lie the media have is when they call these terrorists part of "radical Islam" WRONG. Its fundamentalist Islam, a huge difference. This guy followed what Islam requires of him. He wasn't crazy or part of a "radical Islam" He was a fundamentalist Islamic believer.

The biggest coverup is not calling these terrorists what they are. Literal believers in Islam. Nothing radical or crazy, simply literal believers. Islam excuses attacking and in many cases requiring Muslims to attack unbelievers and he believed in their words. It is the almost endless justification in Islam to attack those who are non Muslims and those who are at war with some Muslims that make people like this find justification in these attacks.
 
Last edited:
Which British neighborhood is ruled over by Shariah law?

They have been around for a while

Today we learned that sharia courts (which have operated illegally in Britain until now) are being re-classed as tribunal hearings, making their judgments legally binding. According to the Daily Express, “new powers have been given to tribunals in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.” According to the Daily Mail, this “[…] new network of courts […] agree to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court.”

From Magna Carta to Sharia Law ? Britain?s Decline | The Brussels Journal
 
They have been around for a while

Today we learned that sharia courts (which have operated illegally in Britain until now) are being re-classed as tribunal hearings, making their judgments legally binding. According to the Daily Express, “new powers have been given to tribunals in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.” According to the Daily Mail, this “[…] new network of courts […] agree to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court.”

From Magna Carta to Sharia Law ? Britain?s Decline | The Brussels Journal


From your conservative source :

The establishment of sharia law in Britain, even on a minor scale, not only undermines British law and culture of equality ‘under the law,’ with cases judged by a jury of one’s peers, but is implicitly menacing to people of all non-Muslim religions, atheists, conservatives, women, homosexuals, and people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.

What is actually happening :

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

In other words, these courts only have power if you decide to go to them. How this equates to Sharia law running the neighborhoods of British citizens is beyond me. Hyperbolic much?
 
In other words, these courts only have power if you decide to go to them. How this equates to Sharia law running the neighborhoods of British citizens is beyond me. Hyperbolic much?

Yeah, there are some neighborhoods the police can't go into unless they are welcomed (haha) or heavily armed. Check ALL sources, liberal and conservative. These neighborhoods exist, and guess who lives there. It's not the English Defense League, brother.
 
Back
Top Bottom