• 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'

Agent Ferris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
915
Location
Past the edge of the universe, through the singula
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

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


Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who allegedly killed 11 people before being shot and wounded by police at Fort Hood, had said Muslims should "rise up" and attack Americans in retaliation for the US war in Iraq, a former army colleague said.

"He was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans," Col Lee told Fox News.

"He said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place." He said that Maj Hasan said he was "happy" when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June. An American convert to Islam was accused of the shootings.

Col Lee alleged that other officers had told him that Maj Hasan had said "maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square" in New York.

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

Anyone still want to argue that this wasn't religiously motivated and that he wasn't a jihadist?
 
Anyone still want to argue that this wasn't religiously motivated and that he wasn't a jihadist?

Who cares what his motivation was? Does it change the fact that he's a nutjob and killed several innocent people? Obviously, his behavior doesn't bespeak of the majority of peaceful Muslims across the world. Rather than blaming Islam, perhaps we should...i don't know...blame the guy who was shooting people? :doh
 
Anyone still want to argue that this wasn't religiously motivated and that he wasn't a jihadist?

He's def. got a great case of Jihadist mentality in him, but I don't see the main stream Islamic notation that you claim is in the rhetoric; he wouldn't fit in with 99% of the Muslim population.

Point of Clarification: Was he saying these remarks BEFORE he began shooting? Or once put into custody? If the former then I have some questions regarding the chain of command.
 
Who cares what his motivation was? Does it change the fact that he's a nutjob and killed several innocent people? Obviously, his behavior doesn't bespeak of the majority of peaceful Muslims across the world. Rather than blaming Islam, perhaps we should...i don't know...blame the guy who was shooting people? :doh

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.
 
Anyone still want to argue that this wasn't religiously motivated and that he wasn't a jihadist?

It certainly looks bad for the CAIR crew.
 
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.

Do you even know what the word "jihad" means? Do you think peppering your post with it somehow makes your point more poignant?
 
He's def. got a great case of Jihadist mentality in him, but I don't see the main stream Islamic notation that you claim is in the rhetoric; he wouldn't fit in with 99% of the Muslim population.

Point of Clarification: Was he saying these remarks BEFORE he began shooting? Or once put into custody? If the former then I have some questions regarding the chain of command.

FNC just played Col. Lee's comments again and I got the impression he said these things before the shootings as Lee hasn't had contact with Hasan recently.
 
FNC just played Col. Lee's comments again and I got the impression he said these things before the shootings as Lee hasn't had contact with Hasan recently.

....

I'm not one to criticize our military efforts, but... really? No one could hear the Time-Bomb's ticking in the room?
 
Anyone still want to argue that this wasn't religiously motivated and that he wasn't a jihadist?

Let's set aside the obvious issues with relying on hearsay (and hearsay within hearsay) and turn to a related question.

What are your thoughts on hate crime legislation?

It certainly looks bad for the CAIR crew.

How exactly does this look bad for them? Was he a board member? Did he scream "Allahu CAIRbar" as he went on his rampage? Or do you mean to say that because you've concluded that this was Islamic terror, all muslims are somehow responsible? Furthermore, would you say that the shooting in Orlando "looks bad for the [insert Hispanic organization] crew?

Please advise.
 
....

I'm not one to criticize our military efforts, but... really? No one could hear the Time-Bomb's ticking in the room?

Which is the reason why I'm hesitant to believe these claims without further information. 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?
 
Anyone still want to argue that this wasn't religiously motivated and that he wasn't a jihadist?

K, and what do we do about it? This is one guy doing insane things maybe...maybe based on religion, we don't really know at this time. What is proper recourse for one of our soldiers going crazy and shooting up an army base? Do we invade a country? Which one? Do we outlaw Islam? What's the proper course of action should this event be as you think it to be?
 
K, and what do we do about it? This is one guy doing insane things maybe...maybe based on religion, we don't really know at this time. What is proper recourse for one of our soldiers going crazy and shooting up an army base? Do we invade a country? Which one? Do we outlaw Islam? What's the proper course of action should this event be as you think it to be?

You're asking way too many rational questions. Haven't you clued in to the theme of the thread? :mrgreen:
 
Who cares what his motivation was? Does it change the fact that he's a nutjob and killed several innocent people? Obviously, his behavior doesn't bespeak of the majority of peaceful Muslims across the world.
Just out of curiosity... what % of Muslims do you think are 'peaceful'?
 
Just out of curiosity... what % of Muslims do you think are 'peaceful'?

In the US? Probably 85%+
Overseas? Less, but I think that's more due to the fact that 3rd world countries with unstable governments are rarely peaceful, regardless of religion.

What about you?
 
Just out of curiosity... what % of Muslims do you think are 'peaceful'?

What is your point? There's no way to give an exact percentage. However, logic would dictate that if a majority of Muslims were extremist that we would be in far worse shape. As I said earlier in another thread, we would all probably be Muslims right now if that were the case.
 
In the US? Probably 85%+
What about you?
Sorry that I wasn't clear; I was speaking world-wide.
I was going to say 99%.

At 99%, that still leaves >10,000,000 non-peaceful Muslims.
Perpspective: That's larger than population of New Jersey

If 85% of the muslims in the US are peaceful, that leaves >420,000 that are not.
Perspective: That's about equal to the population of Miami, and 80% the size of the US Army
 
What is your point? There's no way to give an exact percentage.
I asked for -your- estimate. I'm not even going to ask you to substantiate that estimate, though I will ask for your reasoning.
 
Sorry that I wasn't clear; I was speaking world-wide.
I was going to say 99%.

At 99%, that still leaves >10,000,000 non-peaceful Muslims.
Perpspective: That's larger than population of New Jersey

If 85% of the muslims in the US are peaceful, that leaves >420,000 that are not.
Perspective: That's about equal to the population of Miami, and 80% the size of the US Army

I think it depends on how we're defining peaceful. From my perspective, I was looking at what percentage of people would be strongly opposed to things like killing civilians in order to achieve some larger purpose. The fact that 85% would be strongly opposed doesn't mean that the other 15% are all for it or are going to do anything about it, but rather than they could be sympathetic to that perspective in some situations.

For what it's worth, I'd assign a relatively similar percentage to Christians, Jews, Italians, the left-handed, and Americans in general.
 
How exactly does this look bad for them? Was he a board member? Did he scream "Allahu CAIRbar" as he went on his rampage? Or do you mean to say that because you've concluded that this was Islamic terror, all muslims are somehow responsible? Furthermore, would you say that the shooting in Orlando "looks bad for the [insert Hispanic organization] crew?

Please advise.

It looks bad for the CAIR crew as they have these pesky issues and uncomfortable questions to deal with.

For, no matter how deftly they are dealt with, there are any number of millions of Americans who are not going to listen to reason.
 
I think it depends on how we're defining peaceful. From my perspective, I was looking at what percentage of people would be strongly opposed to things like killing civilians in order to achieve some larger purpose. The fact that 85% would be strongly opposed doesn't mean that the other 15% are all for it or are going to do anything about it, but rather than they could be sympathetic to that perspective in some situations.
That's fine, and that's probably why I have a higher %, as I was thinking about the % that think things like killing civilians is a legitmate means to their ends (which would obviously be much much smaller than those simply not opposed to it).

Of that 1%, if 1% are of a mind to attack the US, and a mere 1% of that 1% succeed, that's 1000 attacks.

And so, while the huge majority of the Muslims in the world might not ever even cosnider it, the threat is still very real.

And if you think that 1% of the total seems to large.... Nader pulled ~3% in the 2000 election
 
Last edited:
Anyone still want to argue that this wasn't religiously motivated and that he wasn't a jihadist?


Did it cross your mind that it might have been motivated by the US "crusade" and the fact your country is currently occupying two Muslim states and is threatening the third one?
 
That's fine, and that's probably why I have a higher %, as I was thinking about the % that think things like killing civilians is a legitmate means to their ends (which would obviously be much much smaller than those simply not opposed to it).

Of that 1%, if 1% are of a mind to attack the US, and a mere 1% of that 1% succeed, that's 1000 attacks.

And so, while the huge majority of the Muslims in the world might not ever even cosnider it, the threat is still very real.

And if you think that 1% of the total seems to large.... Nader pulled ~3% in the 2000 election

You're saying that throughout the world, there are 1,000 muslims who will attack the US? I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Where that analysis runs into problems is when people (not saying you) try to use calculations like that to support their arguments that we should put muslims in internment camps, expel all non-second generation Americans from the military, etc.
 
Who cares what his motivation was? Does it change the fact that he's a nutjob and killed several innocent people? Obviously, his behavior doesn't bespeak of the majority of peaceful Muslims across the world. Rather than blaming Islam, perhaps we should...i don't know...blame the guy who was shooting people? :doh

He's def. got a great case of Jihadist mentality in him, but I don't see the main stream Islamic notation that you claim is in the rhetoric; he wouldn't fit in with 99% of the Muslim population.

K, and what do we do about it? This is one guy doing insane things maybe...maybe based on religion, we don't really know at this time. What is proper recourse for one of our soldiers going crazy and shooting up an army base? Do we invade a country? Which one? Do we outlaw Islam? What's the proper course of action should this event be as you think it to be?

Good God people, the guy just points out that everyone who put their head in the sand and pretended that there was any chance at all that this had nothing to do with Islamic extremism was wrong, and you ignore him and shout him down with observations that most Muslims aren't terrorists even though the guy never claimed that all or even most Muslims are terrorists. Talk about a strawman.
 
Caught a guy trying to blow up a building in Dallas, plus other sleeper cells in the northeast. This particularly guy pulled off his jihad at Fort Hood.

Something tells me we're in for about 150 more of these in the next few years.
 
You're saying that throughout the world, there are 1,000 muslims who will attack the US? I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Actually no -- that 1000 is if the 1% of the 1% of the 1% succeed.

Where that analysis runs into problems is when people (not saying you) try to use calculations like that to support their arguments that we should put muslims in internment camps, expel all non-second generation Americans from the military, etc.
I'd agree with this. It does, however, recduce the argument that Muslin extremism isnt a legitmate threat beause 'so few' Muslims are willing to commit acts of terrorism to achieve their goals.
 
Back
Top Bottom