Palestinian Nidal Hasan’s Military Pay Went to Charity: Won’t Disclose What Charity or In What Countries

by :

We are told the Military can’t take back Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan’s salary of almost $300,000 accumulated while he awaited trial – or more accurately, while he delayed trial. His money has been given to charity! We won’t be told what charity. Odd isn’t it?

Woman_Furious_1

We can garnishee the wages of a dead-beat dad and put a lien on someone’s house for unpaid debts. Obama has hired multiple-thousands of IRS agents to take your money to pay for ObamaCare, whether you want it or not, but we cannot regain taxpayer money from the monster killer of our own Military personnel. Hasan will never pay his debt to America. Dying by lethal injection won’t come close. If the “charities” are in Palestine, or if the money went to any Muslim country or Muslim interest anywhere in the world, it should be the last groan in bending to the will of this country’s islamization.

Hasan is Palestinian. His brother Anas, is an attorney in Palestine, where other Hasan family members live. Anas spent a lot of time in the U.S. assisting Hasan’s defense team by trying to devise “mitigating circumstances” for his terrorist brother. If the money from American taxpayers went to any Muslim interests, think Hamas, we should be outraged. After all, we’re really talking about jihad, not workplace violence and we should be outraged.

Read more at Maggie’s Notebook

 

Now That Hasan Trial Is Over, Texas Lawmakers Revive Push to Designate Shooting as Terrorism

fort hood presserPJ Media, By Bridget Johnson:

A trio of Texas Republicans announced legislation this week to declare that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism, award the victims Purple Hearts, and make the victims and families eligible for special benefits similar to those offered to 9/11 victims.

It’s not the first congressional effort to get such recognition for victims of the 2009 attack, but it’s the first since Nidal Hasan was found guilty and sentenced to death for the massacre.

The Obama administration claimed it couldn’t change the designation from “workplace violence” because Hasan’s trial was still ongoing. Now that trial is over.

“We are a nation at war, and the location in which our men and women in uniform come under hostile fire from a terrorist should not unduly prejudice them and their families from receiving the full honors, recognition and benefits associated with their courageous service,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).  “As a nation, we have a sacred obligation to take care of them.”

“Justice was served when Nidal Hasan was found guilty and handed the death penalty. But justice has not been served for the victims of this horrific shooting. This legislation will ensure the victims of this obvious act of terrorism receive the benefits they not only need, but justly deserve,” Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said.“We cannot continue allowing the Obama Administration to turn its back on these men and women by failing to admit this was indeed a terrorist attack on American soil. If the administration had properly labeled and managed the Fort Hood shooting from the beginning, this legislation would not be required.”

The third sponsor, Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), said, “The heinous attack on Fort Hood was a direct attack on the values and ideals our soldiers have sworn to defend. Nidal Hasan, the man who killed 13 and injured 32, said he switched sides in what he called a ‘U.S. war on Islam.’ This was not a disgruntled employee taking his anger out on coworkers, as the Administration would have you believe by labeling this an act of workplace violence. No, this was a terrorist attack meant to harm and kill U.S. soldiers who defend freedom and liberty for all Americans.”

“Because the President has placed more importance on political correctness than upholding his promise to take care of the victims, the victims have been neglected.  This injustice must come to an end, and the Fort Hood Heroes Act is the right thing to do,” Williams continued. “It will restore the benefits, treatment and honor these men and women so rightly deserve.”

The trio announced their bill in Killeen on Monday with shooting survivors in the audience.

The bill also states the U.S. Government has a fundamental duty to our troops to safeguard them against avoidable harm, and the Fort Hood attack could and should have been prevented; the perpetrator, Nidal Hasan, had become radicalized while serving in the U.S. Army and was principally motivated to attack by an ideology of violent Islamist extremism; and Hasan proved himself to be not just a terrorist, but also a traitor and an enemy of the U.S.

Which Muslims Share Nidal Hasan’s Vision of Islam?

nh2By Andrew Bostom:

The Washington Post has published an online gallery of the 50-slide erstwhile “medical grand rounds” given on June 27, 2007 by avowed jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan.

Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory (i.e.,see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45,  and 49), this reality is understandably “shocking” to the elites in our media, military, and government who are now so obviously derelict in their duty to have learned what they still refuse to learn about the living doctrine and history of the religion of peace (or peace and love if you prefer Condoleeza Rice’s even more fatuous construction).

Nidal Hasan’s June 2007 presentation concludes, in full accord with classical (and unrepentant, let alone unreformed) Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49):

“Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam.”

Our immediate, urgent task is to understand the extent to which Nidal Hasan’s orthodox vision of Islam is a shared vision—and by which Muslims, in particular.

The seat of Sunni orthodoxy Al Azhar University—which functions as a de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam, repeats in “Reliance of the Traveller” its widely distributed manual of Islamic Law, which “conforms to the practice and faith of the Sunni orthodoxy,” circa 1991,

“ Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as ‘Fighting is prescribed for you’ (Koran 2:216); ‘Slay them wherever you find them’ (Koran 4:89); ‘Fight the idolators utterly’ (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim [NOTE: cited in slide 43 of Hasan’s 6/7/07 presentation] that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah’; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, ‘To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.’ ”

Even more concrete evidence that this classical formulation of jihad is very much a living doctrine today is apparent in the openly espoused views, and sound Islamic arguments which conclude the contemporary work “Islam and Modernism,” written by a respected modern Muslim scholar Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Mr Usmani, aged 66, sat for 20 years as a Shari’a judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court (His father was the Grand Mufti of Pakistan). Currently Usmani is deputy of the Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Council of the Organization of the Islamic Conference—the major international body of Islamic nations in the world, and serves as an adviser to several global Sharia-based Islamic financial institutions. Thus he is a leading contemporary figure in the world of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. Mr. Usmani is also a regular visitor to Britain. During a recent visit there, he was interviewed by the Times of London, which published extracts from Usmani’s writings on jihad, Saturday, September 8, 2007.  The concluding chapter of Usmani’s “Islam and Modernism” was cited, and it rebuts those who believe that only defensive jihad (i.e., fighting to defend a Muslim land deemed under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He also refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a non-Muslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam (which, not surprisingly, was of some concern to The Times!).

For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not.” “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?” He answers his own question as follows: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.” Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practice Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. Usmani explodes the myths that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking, or that this living institution is somehow irrelevant to our era.

And the preponderance of contemporary mainstream Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, apparently share with their murderous, jihad terror waging co-religionist Nidal Hasan classical jihad’s ultimate goal: re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate, or global empire based upon jihad conquest and the imposition of Islamic Law. Polling data released April 24, 2007 in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.orginterview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007-1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians-reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

The findings from the University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org poll are ominous—indicating plainly to any rational mind willing to comprehend—the vast underpinning of support for Nidal Hasan’s orthodox vision of Islam, from the creed’s most respected religious leaders, to ordinary Muslims.  Our  self-righteously ignorant elites—particularly those in political and military  leadership positions—must be held accountable by the American public for their ignorance, and worse still,  deliberate obfuscation of these plain Islamic realities.

 

Still Nothing to See Here

5422385683_Nidal_Hasan_zpsc697e802

By Mark Steyn:

Earlier today Major Hasan was sentenced to death for the murder of 14 men, women and an unborn baby at Fort Hood. But it remains to be seen whether he will ever actually be put to death, and the unimpressive judge’s decision to ban any evidence relating to motive confirms that the military, like other institutions, retains the same squeamishness about Islamic supremacism that helped enable the attack. What follows is excerpted from my book After America - and remains as valid today as when I wrote it:

Not so long ago I saw a two-panel cartoon: On the left hand panel, “This is your brain”; on the right hand panel, “This is your brain on political correctness” – a small and shriveled thing, but now standard issue.

Here’s a random selection of headlines:

Naval History Web Site Highlights Women’s History Month

Senior Navy Leader Receives Black Engineer of the Year Award

Davede Alexander Receives Diversity Leadership Award

Navy Women in Aviation Show Diversity is Rising

Top Pentagon Official Discovers Model of Diversity at Corona Warfare Center, Says Navy’s Doing Diversity Right

CNRH Seminar Teaches Lessons of Hope And Empowerment

The above were all plucked from the United States Navy newsletter. When the first one showed up in my in-box, I thought it might contain under-reported tales of derring-do off the Horn of Africa battling Somali pirates. But instead it’s one diversity-awareness story after another: “Senior Navy Leader Receives Most Diverse Engineer of the Year Award”; “Appointment Of First Somali Pirate to Joint Chiefs Of Staff Shows Diversity Is Rising, Says Top Pentagon Official”.

Well, you say, look, they’re just doing what they need to do to keep the Congressional oversight crowd off their back; it’s just a bit of window dressing. Hmm. In 2009, thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the US Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. Major Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put “SoA” – ie, “Soldier of Allah” – on his business card. At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for trying to persuade patients to convert to Islam, and fellow pupils objected to his constant “anti-American propaganda”. But, as the Associated Press reported, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

This is your brain on political correctness.

As the writer Barry Rubin pointed out, Major Hasan was the first mass murderer in US history to give a PowerPoint presentation outlining the rationale for the crime he was about to commit. And he gave it to a roomful of fellow army psychiatrists and doctors – some of whom glanced queasily at their colleagues, but none of whom actually spoke up. And, when the question of whether then Captain Hasan was, in fact, “psychotic”, the policy committee at Walter Reed Army Medical Center worried “how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents”.

This is your brain on political correctness.

So instead he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood. And barely had he got to Texas when he started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment centre in Little Rock. “This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,” Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. “People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.”

In less enlightened times, Colonel Lee would have concluded that, being in favor of the murder of his comrades, Major Hasan was objectively on the side of the enemy. But instead he merely cautioned the major against saying things that might give people the wrong impression. Which is to say, the right impression.

This is your brain on political correctness.

“You need to lock it up, major,” advised the colonel.

But, of course, he didn’t. He could say what he wanted—infidels should have their throats cut, for example. Meanwhile, the only ones who felt any need to “lock it up” were his fellow psychiatrists, his patients, his teachers at the Uniformed Services University, officials at Walter Reed, and the brass at Fort Hood. So they locked it up for years, and 14 people died.

And even when the slaughter had happened, much of the media found it easier to slander both the US military and the general populace than to confront the evidence. Like Nanny Bloomberg, the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Incompetano professed to be most worried about an “anti-Muslim backlash” from the bozo citizenry she had the forlorn task of attempting to hold in check.

As for the army, well, obviously, they’re a bunch of Bush-scarred psychos who could snap at any moment. Newsweek called the mass murder “A Symptom Of A Military On The Brink”:

Read more at Steyn Online

Nidal Hasan Sentenced to Death for Fort Hood Massacre

hasan022way_wide-88df90283234287e998669b18c7529c9884fc8ac-412x350Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:

That headline looks good, the reality less so. The death penalty in the United States means automatic appeals and infinite appeals. Even if Hasan at some point doesn’t decide that he wants to live at any cost and start helping his lawyers out, the long case won’t be over any time soon.

To their credit, the jurors did their job quickly

The jury deliberated for a little more than two hours.

The system however will drag it out

Hasan could become the first American soldier executed in more than half a century. But because the military justice system requires a lengthy appeals process, years or even decades could pass before he is put to death.

The lead prosecutor assured jurors that Hasan would “never be a martyr” despite his attempt to tie the attack to religion.

“He is a criminal. He is a cold-blooded murderer,” Col. Mike Mulligan said Wednesday in his final plea for a rare military death sentence. “This is not his gift to God. This is his debt to society. This is the cost of his murderous rampage.”

When Hasan began shooting, the troops were standing in long lines to receive immunizations and doctors’ clearance. Thirteen people were killed and more than were 30 wounded. All but one of the dead were soldiers, including a pregnant private who curled on the floor and pleaded for her baby’s life.

So decades. Possibly. Hasan is already 43. He could still very well die in prison. Certainly if he really doesn’t want to live, it’s entirely possible that with his level of disability, he might.

Hasan Akbar, another Hasan, and another Muslim terrorist in the military, was sentenced to death in 2005. Here’s how that  case has been going.

On November 20, 2006, Lieutenant General John Vines, commander of the 18th Airborne Corps, affirmed the death sentence against Akbar. Under an automatic appeal because of the sentence, the case was forwarded to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, which upheld the sentence on July 13, 2012. Afterwards, the case was automatically appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, with a final right of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Once Akbar’s appeals are exhausted and if his sentence stands, the President of the United States in his role as Commander in Chief would order the execution to take place, which is currently done by lethal injection. Akbar continues to be confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks awaiting disposition of his sentence.

Good luck getting that order from Obama. It’s misleading to say that Nidal Hasan could be the first soldier executed in some time, because there’s actually a line.

Ronald Gray, a former Army specialist who was sentenced in 1988 after being charged with abducting, raping, sodomizing and murdering an 18-year-old female soldier and a 23-year-old civilian woman, as well as attempting to rape and murder another fellow soldier.

Dwight Loving, a former Army private who, like Hasan, was stationed at Fort Hood when he was sentenced to death in 1989 for the murders of two taxi drivers. He is currently awaiting an appeal despite giving a full confession for the killings on videotape.

How would the country that won WW2 handle this?

On August 8, 1942,  Herbert Hans Haupt was sent to the electric chair. Haupt, a United States citizen, had joined a German raiding party into the United States. The trial of Haupt and his fellow conspirators lasted a month. It was over two months after their capture. Haupt was put to death seven days after the conclusion of his trial.

Too bad that country isn’t around.

Walter Reed officials concerned Maj Hasan would leak intel to enemy if deployed

 pic_giant_080913_SM_Know-Thine-Enemy-Major-HasanPJ Media, By Patrick Poole:

Stunning details emerging from the court martial of Maj. Nidal Hasan implicating the US Army brass in refusing to address Hasan’s evident extremism. Perhaps that’s why the judge in the case yesterday refused to admit prosecution evidence proving Hasan’s jihadist motives — to protect the military from their nonfeasance.

As Bill Gertz noted in a frontpage Washington Times article two months after the attack, myself and two of my colleagues had warned the entire US Army Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection command at their annual conference about internal jihadist threats, giving them all the radicalization indicators save Hasan’s name, rank and serial number. And then there’s Hasan’s infamous powerpoint presentation, which he gave more than two dozen times to military audiences, where he warned of “adverse events” if Muslims in the military weren’t granted conscientious objector status to avoid killing other Muslims in violation of Islamic law (killing infidels was apparently OK). In that presentation he noted past incidents of fratricide, desertion to the enemy, and refusal to deploy as examples of such “adverse events”.

NPR noted today a meeting held by senior Walter Reed officials in 2008, more than a year before the Ft Hood massacre, to discuss the problems related to Hasan:

When a group of key officials gathered in the spring of 2008 for their monthly meeting in a Bethesda, Md., office, one of the leading — and most perplexing — items on their agenda was: What should we do about Hasan?

Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials’ radar since he started training at Walter Reed, six years earlier. Several officials confirm that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work.

Both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan’s behavior — which they variously called disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid. The officials say he antagonized some students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist Islamic views. His supervisors at Walter Reed had even reprimanded him for telling at least one patient that “Islam can save your soul.”

Participants in the spring meeting and in subsequent conversations about Hasan reportedly included John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed; Robert Ursano, chairman of the Psychiatry Department at USUHS; Charles Engel, assistant chair of the Psychiatry Department and director of Hasan’s psychiatry fellowship; Dr. David Benedek, another assistant chairman of psychiatry at USUHS; psychiatrist Carroll J. Diebold; and Scott Moran, director of the psychiatric residency program at Walter Reed, according to colleagues and other sources who monitor the meetings.

NPR tried to contact all these officials and the public affairs officers at the institutions. They either didn’t return phone calls or said they could not comment.

But psychiatrists and officials who are familiar with the conversations, which continued into the spring of 2009, say they took a remarkable turn: Is it possible, some mused, that Hasan was mentally unstable and unfit to be an Army psychiatrist?

And here’s the punchline:

One official involved in the conversations had reportedly told colleagues that he worried that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide, like the Muslim U.S. Army sergeant who, in 2003, killed two fellow soldiers and injured 14 others by setting off grenades at a base in Kuwait.

And yet his superiors did nothing. And for good reason. If anyone had actually taken action against Maj. Hasan, they would have been drummed out of the Army for religious discrimination. As Gen. Casey said days after the attack, “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” And the cost of that “diversity” was fourteen souls.

Nidal Hasan Killed American Soldiers Because They Were Going Against the “Islamic Empire”

muslim-darth-vaderBy :

It’s workplace violence, don’t you know?

1. Nidal Hasan was closely associated with an Al Qaeda leader

2. He claimed to have acted in support of the Taliban

3. He wanted to be a martyr

4. He describes himself as a Soldier of Allah, while explicitly repudiating his military service and the Constitution as forms of human idolatry.

5. He talks about killing American soldiers because they were going against the Islamic Empire… a reference to the rising emirates of Al Qaeda

I’m not sure what else Nidal Hasan could do to convince the authorities that he is a Muslim terrorist and that the men he killed and wounded were hurt in a terrorist attack and should be awarded and compensated accordingly.

One year after he waged a deadly shooting rampage at the Fort Hood Army base here in November 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan told a panel of military mental health experts that he wished he had been killed during the attack because it would have meant Allah had chosen him for martyrdom.

“I’m paraplegic and could be in jail for the rest of my life,” Major Hasan told the panel. “However, if I died by lethal injection I would still be a martyr.”

“I don’t think what I did was wrong because it was for the greater cause of helping my Muslim brothers,” he told the military panel.

He denied having remorse and justified his actions by saying that the soldiers he killed were “going against the Islamic Empire.”

Even liberals should be able to figure out that the imperial side is the evil one.

darth-vader-muslim-450x301

Know Thine Enemy

pic_giant_080913_SM_Know-Thine-Enemy-Major-HasanBy Mark Steyn:

On December 7, 1941, the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor was attacked. Three years, eight months, and eight days later, the Japanese surrendered. These days, America’s military moves at a more leisurely pace. On November 5, 2009, another U.S. base, Fort Hood, was attacked — by one man standing on a table, screaming “Allahu akbar!” and opening fire. Three years, nine months, and one day later, his court-martial finally got under way.

The intervening third-of-a-decade-and-more has apparently been taken up by such vital legal questions as the fullness of beard Major Hasan is permitted to sport in court. This is not a joke: See “Judge Ousted in Fort Hood Shooting Case amid Beard Debacle” (CBS News). Army regulations require soldiers to be clean-shaven. The judge, Colonel Gregory Gross, ruled Hasan’s beard in contempt, fined him $1,000, and said he would be forcibly shaved if he showed up that hirsute next time. At which point Hasan went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which ruled that Colonel Gross’s pogonophobia raised questions about his impartiality, and removed him. He’s the first judge in the history of American jurisprudence to be kicked off a trial because of a “beard debacle.” The new judge, Colonel Tara Osborn, agreed that Hasan’s beard was a violation of regulations, but “said she won’t hold it against him.”

The U.S. Army seems disinclined to hold anything against him, especially the 13 corpses plus an unborn baby. Major Hasan fired his lawyers, presumably because they were trying to get him off — on the grounds that he’d had a Twinkie beforehand, or his beard don’t fit so you must acquit, or some such. As a self-respecting jihadist, Major Hasan quite reasonably resented being portrayed as just another all-American loon gone postal. So he sacked his defense team, only to have the court appoint a standby defense team just in case there were any arcane precedents and obscure case law he needed clarification on. I know that’s the way your big-time F. Lee Bailey types would play it, but it doesn’t seem to be Major Hasan’s style. On the very first day of the trial, he stood up and told the jury that “the evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter.” Later, in one of his few courtroom interventions, he insisted that it be put on the record that “the alleged murder weapon” was, in fact, his. The trial then came to a halt when the standby defense team objected to the judge that Major Hasan’s defense strategy (yes, I did it; gimme a blindfold, cigarette, and tell the virgins here I come) would result in his conviction and execution.

Read more at National Review

 

When failure carries no cost

Ft Hood memorial_0-thumb-470x330-3126
Our diversity, not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse - US Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey
By Caroline Glick:
This week, after a three-and-a-half-year delay, US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was finally placed on trial for massacring 13 and wounding 32 at Ft. Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009.
Hasan was a self-identified jihadist. His paper and electronic trail provided mountains of evidence that he committed the massacre to advance the cause of Islamic supremacy. Islamic supremacists like Hasan, and his early mentor al-Qaida operations chief Anwar al-Awlaki, view as enemies all people who oppose totalitarian Islam’s quest for global domination.
Before, during and following his assault, Hasan made his jihadist motives obvious to the point of caricature in his statements about the US, the US military and the duties of pious Muslims. But rather than believe Hasan, and so do justice to his victims, the Obama administration, with the active collusion of senior US military commanders went to great lengths to cover up Hasan’s ideological motivations and hence the nature of his crime.
On the day of the attack, Lt.-Gen. Robert Cone, then commander of III Corps at Ft. Hood, said preliminary evidence didn’t suggest that the shooting was terrorism. Cone said this even though it was immediately known that before he began shooting Hasan called out “Allahu akhbar.” He called himself a “Soldier of Allah” on his business cards.
In an interview with CNN three days after the attack, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said, “Our diversity, not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
The intensity of the Obama administration’s participation in this cover-up became clear in May 2012. At that time, Congress had placed a clause inside the Defense Appropriations Act requiring the Pentagon to award Purple Hearts to Ft. Hood’s victims. Rather than accept this eminently reasonable demand, which simply required the administration to acknowledge reality, Obama’s emissaries announced he would veto the appropriations bill and so leave the Pentagon without a budget unless the clause was removed.
Rather than define Hasan’s attack as an enemy attack or a terrorist act, the administration has defined it as a case of “workplace violence.” Following this determination, those wounded in the attack, as well as the families of the murdered, are denied the support conferred on soldiers killed or wounded by enemy fire.
At the first day of Hasan’s trial this week, he admitted that he perpetrated the murderous attack because he is a jihadist who “switched sides” in the war. That is, he told the court that he conducted the attack as an act of war against the United States to advance the goals of the global jihad.
Hasan’s statement made clear, once again, that in its efforts to describe his actions as “workplace violence,” the administration is engaging in a cover-up. Its purpose is to deny the American people the truth about the nature of the jihadist threat to their country.

 

“I Am Muslim First” Fort Hood Terrorist Claims He Acted to Protect Islamic Law from Democracy

5422385683_Nidal_Hasan_zpsc697e802Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:

Finally more material is coming out about Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist and it tells the same old story. Hasan was one of those semi-secular Muslims, not really paying much attention to his religion, and then he turned to Islam and turned to terrorism. And boom.

nidal hasan's account

The account is straightforward

1. Nidal Hasan became more Islamic

2. He began to hate America

3. He decided that he had to defend Islamic Sharia Law from American democracy. This explains his rant about the Constitution being Shirk.

The interesting question is what put him on that specific path. Did he turn to a mosque for answers… and get them?

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.

The account pegs his interest in Islam to his mother’s death. So it would appear that the Dar al-Hijrah mosque turned him into a ticking time bomb.

Aside from Anwar Al-Awlaki, here’s the sort of enlightened non-violent worldview you could get at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque.

Sheik Shaker Elsayed, the imam of the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Va., advocated armed jihad.

“We are the first to rush and run to defend our community and defend ourselves. The enemies of Allah are lining up; the question for us is, ‘Are we lining, or are we afraid because, because they may call us terrorists.’”

Being called “terrorists” should not matter to Muslims because Muslims are being called terrorists anyway, Elsayed said.

“You are a terrorist because you are a Muslim,” Elsayed said. “Well give them a run for their money. Make it worth it. Make this title worth it, and be good a Muslim.”

His name also appears in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document detailing the group’s plan to wage a non-violent civilization jihad to destroy “Western civilization from within.”

It’s not hard to see what made Nidal Hasan turn terrorist. And he wasn’t alone. Terrorism researcher Patrick Poole calls it a terrorist factory.

After Dar al-Hijrah attendee Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was arrested in Saudi Arabia and confessed to being part of an al-Qaeda cell that was planning to assassinate President George W. Bush, in an interview with the New York Times Abdul-Malik compared Abu Ali to civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

But Abu Ali was hardly a marginal figure at Dar al-Hijrah. He not only was a youth leader at the mosque and regularly delivered prayers there, he taught Islamic studies at the center and was a camp counselor for their youth summer day camp.

No Justice for Victims of Terrorist Nidal Hasan

Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford Jr. was shot seven times by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan during an attack at the Fort Hood Army base in 2009.

Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford Jr. was shot seven times by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan during an attack at the Fort Hood Army base in 2009.

By :

“I hear someone yell ‘Allahu akbar,’” Sergeant Shawn Manning told Army Times. “Usually something bad is going to follow after that, so I look up at him and he started shooting. He probably fired five or six shots before he shot me in the chest.”

Manning, a veteran of two deployments in Iraq, was referring to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who gunned down 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. Nearly four years later the case is finally coming to trial but it is already clear that Major Hasan received more preferential treatment than his victims.

Hasan is still in the Army and retains his rank of major. The Army is still paying Hasan his full salary and has received more than $278,000 since his arrest in 2009. The Army is also taking care of the paralyzing injuries Hasan sustained in the gun rampage. That was before Hasan shot the unarmed Sergeant Alonzo Lunsford once in the head and six times in the body. Lunsford played dead and then fled the building but Hasan chased him down and shot him in the back. The bullet is still there but Lunsford told reporters that the Army refused to cover an operation to remove it, and docked his pay when he was undergoing treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

“We don’t get passes the way Major Hasan got passes,” Lunsford told the New York Times. “Each one of us has gotten a raw deal somewhere down the line.” Shawn Manning still carries a bullet in his back and fights for the pay he lost due to the Army’s ruling that Hasan’s attack was not terrorism, therefore the wounds were not related to combat.

Hasan had been emailing terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about the prospect of killing infidel American soldiers, and Hasan did everything but take out a two-minute ad on the Super Bowl to announce his jihadist intentions. True to form, he yelled “Allahu akbar,” before killing 13 people, more than twice as many victims as the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. On his website, Anwar al-Awlaki was orgasmic with joy that Hasan had done his duty. Even so, the Army refused to call Hasan’s killing spree terrorism, gun violence or a hate crime. Rather, the government proclaimed the mass murder spree a case of “workplace violence.” The trial is taking the same course.

Read more at Front Page

 

 

Nidal Hasan on Anwar Al-Awlaki: “We Are Muslims Trying to Establish the Religion of Allah as Supreme on the Land.”

Nidal-Hasan-beard-620x424-450x307 (1)Front Page, By :

Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist, sent the closest thing to a clear explanation of his actions to FOX News, which happens to be the only network that would actually air his statements because they contradict the Obama Inc. narrative that his was a case of workplace violence. Not terrorism.

Hasan signs his statement/confession as SOA or Soldier of Allah. His motives entirely depend on Islam and the Koran. His entire ideology is an Islamist reading that rejects national allegiances in favor of Islam.

This is his confession.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful

I, Nidal Malik Hasan, am compelled to renounce any oaths of allegiances that require me to support/defend any man made constitution (like the constitution of the United States) over the commandments mandated in Islam (Quran and Sunnah.)

The sovereignty of Allah must always prevail over the sovereignty of man.

I therefore formally renounce my oath of office as well as any other implicit or explicit oaths I have made in the past that associate partners with Allah. This includes an oath of US citizenship.

The partners reference means Shirk or idolatry. Hasan makes it clear that his theology is hard core Islamist when he refers to the Constitution as Shirk.

Do you have any closing statements?

I invite the world to read the book of Allah and decide for themselves if it is the truth.

That would be Hasan’s call to Islam.

 Question: What was your relationship with Anwar Al-Awlaki?

He was my teacher, mentor and friend. I hold him in high esteem for trying to educate Muslims about their duties to Allah. May Allah accept his martyrdom. We are imperfect Muslims trying to establish the perfect religion of Allah as supreme on the land.”

And here Hasan confesses to being Al Qaeda. He names Anwar Al-Awlaki, an Al-Qaeda leader, as his mentor, and describes them as sharing a common mission of imposing Islamic Supremacism on America.

Here is a passage from Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the current head of Al Qaeda, describing their mission.

“Warfare against infidels, loyalty to the believers, and jihad in the path of Allah: Such is a course of action that all who are vigilant for the triumph of Islam should vie in, giving and sacrificing in the cause of liberating the lands of the Muslims, making Islam supreme in its own land, and then spreading it around the world.”

The source of that delightful notion of supremacism is the Koran.

“He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” Koran 61:9

This isn’t workplace violence. It’s classical Islamic terrorism.

Obama Honors Trayvon Martin, Ignores Fort Hood Killed

071013_Lunsford_1050

“I’m Disappointed, Embarrassed By Admin’s Handling of Hasan Case”

IBD:

War On Terror: The jury has been selected and the trial date set for the jihadist accused of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 of attempted premeditated murder acting, as he says, in defense of the Taliban.

Army Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford has not received a phone call from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Nor does the African-American veteran who was shot seven times by Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood expect to. He is merely relieved that nearly four years after the massacre at the Army base in Texas, a jury has finally been selected and a trial date has been set.

Thirteen people, including a pregnant soldier, were killed and 32 others shot Nov. 5, 2009, at the Killeen facility during Hasan’s rampage against soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan. Hasan has said he did it in defense of the Taliban, a self-admitted act of terrorism on behalf of a foreign entity.

One would expect that when a self-proclaimed “soldier of Allah” shouting “Allahu Akhbar” opens fire on dozens of American citizens and soldiers, killing and maiming as many innocents as he can, it would have been called an act of terror. One of the great scandals of the Obama administration has been its shameful designation of the massacre as “workplace violence.”

Attorney General Eric Holder has refrained from filing terrorism charges in the case and is currently busy in Florida announcing his intent to find George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman found innocent of murdering Trayvon Martin, guilty of something, anything, to satisfy the racial grievance industry.

“Not only am I disappointed (in Holder), I’m embarrassed. Mr. Holder needs to understand the repercussions of his actions,” Sgt. Lunsford says.

Lunsford also expressed outrage at the fact that some victims are financially struggling, but that because of the categorization of the shooting as a “workplace shooting,” he and those other victims are not entitled to combat-related benefits they would have received had they been injured overseas.

Meanwhile, Hasan has continued to receive paychecks over the past four years, amounting to $287,000.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily

 

Tsarnaev, Hasan and Deadly Political Correctness

boston-bombings-congressBy :

On Wednesday Dzhohkar Tsarnaev pleaded not guilty to 30 counts in the Boston Marathon bombings and jury selection began in the case of U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, accused of murdering 13 at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009. The Hasan and Tsarnaev cases emerged the same day in testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, where the first witness, Rudy Giuliani, said that political correctness hinders efforts to stop terrorists before they strike.

Guiliani, mayor of New York during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, told the committee “You can’t fight an enemy you don’t acknowledge.” To confront the terrorist threat effectively, “we have to purge ourselves of the practice of political correctness when it goes so far that it interferes with our rational and intellectually honest analysis of the identifying characteristics that help a discover these killers in advance.”

Giuliani said that a reluctance to identify violent Islamic extremists could have played a role in the FBI’s failure to track Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhohkar’s older brother, who last year returned to Dagestan for six months. “There would have been a much greater chance of preventing Fort Hood, and possibly — and this I emphasize is possibly — the Boston bombing,” Giuliani said, “if the relevant bureaucracies had been less reluctant to identify the eventual killers as potential Islamic extremist terrorists.”

In the 2009 Ford Hood case, Major Nidal Hasan is charged with killing 13, more deaths than in the first attack on the World Trade center in 1993, a year before Giuliani became major of New York.

“The elevation of political correctness over sound investigative judgment certainly explains the failure to identify Maj. Hasan as a terrorist,” Giuliani told the committee. “That political correctness has been extended so far that the current administration describes his act as ‘workplace violence.’ This isn’t just preposterous. What we fail to realize is, this is dangerous.”

The next witness, Michael Leiter, former head of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, denied that political correctness was hindering U.S. efforts against terrorism. Such a claim, he testified, “is simply beyond me.” No member of the committee asked Leiter to explain what dynamic might lurk behind the “workplace violence” explanation. Committee members did explore cases where government agencies had failed to communicate, particularly with local law enforcement.

The hearing was called to examine intelligence breakdowns in the Boston Marathon bombings, but any threat from Islamic extremism failed to emerge in the statement of ranking member Bennie Thompson. He cited the Southern Poverty Law Center about a growing domestic threat from right-wing groups.

That theme emerged in Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Far-Right, a recent report from the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy. The report links white supremacists, Aryan Nations, skinheads, the Ku Klux Klan and such with those who “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. The groups also support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self-government.” As Mark Tapson noted, “that pretty much describes every conservative I know.”

Read more at Front Page

 

Hasan: I Shot Comrades to Defend Taliban

Nidal-Hasan-beard-620x424-450x307 (1)by IPT News: