The next issue of WORLD Magazine is on its way to the printer ... and will be posted at WORLDmag.com on Friday morning.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Message of the attack?
Pacing back and forth on the streets of New York, Abdullah As-Sayf Jones tells passersby that the shootings at Ft. Hood were “premeditated, planned” in retaliation for U.S. killings in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In a bit of footage posted by Islamic Revolution TV called “The Message of the Attack,” the Muslim convert, who elsewhere on YouTube describes growing up in Florida and in evangelical churches as David Scott Jones, says that last Thursday’s killings were purposely “not a civilian target…it took place at a military base…the mujahideen targeting a military target.”
Topic: Global, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top52 Comments to “Message of the attack?”
why was he not picked up by the FBI for question?
Report comment to moderator
Here is another NEW PIECE of INFORMATION:
Report comment to moderator
Victoria is this not treason?
Report comment to moderator
Contacting the enemy is treason, what he did at Fort Hood is murder.
I agree with Hoekstra:
“Hoekstra said he is “absolutely furious” that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan’s attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News.”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, if that’s correct it would be a major mistake on the part of the intelligence agencies.
However, Brian Ross is sometimes spectacularly wrong, and this may be one of those times: (note – link has some minor strong language).http://gawker.com/5400614/how-the-ft-hood-shooter-brings-radical-clerics-and-right+wing-nuts-together
ABC News’ Brian Ross, the notoriously unreliable investigative reporter who came out with a blockbuster this morning: Unnamed intelligence officials tell Ross that unnamed American intelligence agencies learned months ago that Hasan had attempted to make contact with “people associated with Al Qaeda” who were under U.S. surveillance. The report is a grab-bag of red flags. Ross mentions that officials are trying to find out if Hasan ever communicated with Anwar Al-Awlaki, the former imam of a mosque that Hasan attended on Falls Church, Va., who later fled to Yemen and supports violent jihad. But it’s unclear from Ross’ report whether Al-Awlaki is one of the “people associated with Al Qaeda” that Hasan is said to have attempted to contact, or if there are others. Within the story itself, what begins as an attempt to contact “people associated with Al Qaida”—with no explanation as to why he was allegedly trying to contact these people—rapidly becomes “Hasan’s attempt to reach out to al Qaeda.” These are vastly different things, and Ross’ casual conflation of them, with no evidence, is an indicator that something is cooked in the story.
It wouldn’t be the first time: Ross famously, and breathlessly, reported in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks that U.S. intelligence sources had specific and detailed evidence linking Iraq to the type of anthrax used. It was complete and utter bull and it served to heighten the atmosphere of panic and fear in the days immediately following the attacks and to link them to a convenient enemy. So we take his latest entry in the post-massacre-blockbuster-terrorism-story sweepstakes with a grain of salt.
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives ask for this! When they defend the Bush administration’s tactics for keeping congress in the dark and secret wiretap programs, plus when they criticize Obama and Democrats of being trying to gut security by demanding transparency from the CIA et al, they create incentives for the intelligence community keep information from congress and make it harder Obama in increase transparency.
Ask yourself what the republican response would be had any Democratic representative been rebuffed in an information request by the CIA. And there response if Obama forced the intelligence community to respond to request from someone like Pelosi? Forget about it.
Report comment to moderator
6. Oh my Gosh! We got a fro real-sure-nuff, “It’s Bush’s fault” on this!
Report comment to moderator
mynock – “When they defend the Bush administration’s tactics for keeping congress in the dark and secret wiretap programs, plus when they criticize Obama and Democrats of being trying to gut security by demanding transparency from the CIA et al, they create incentives for the intelligence community keep information from congress and make it harder Obama in increase transparency. ”
what?
Report comment to moderator
If it smells like terror, liberals will downplay it. Nothing to worry about folks. Repeat the mantra: Terrorists good, Republicans bad! Got it?
Report comment to moderator
For eight years, Bush and Co. did everything they could to prevent and frustrate congressional inquiries. They even stonewalled their own 9/11 commission. Many court battles were fought and some are still ongoing.
A couple of days after the Ft Hood attack, Rep Hoekstra is absolutely furious???? Next month he will likely be ” frenziedly splenetic” and the month after that he will implode…
Report comment to moderator
arcadia 11.09.09 AT 5:36 PM
For eight years, Bush and Co. did everything they could to prevent and frustrate congressional inquiries. They even stonewalled their own 9/11 commission. Many court battles were fought and some are still ongoing.
A couple of days after the Ft Hood attack, Rep Hoekstra is absolutely furious???? Next month he will likely be ” frenziedly splenetic” and the month after that he will implode…
—-
What?
Report comment to moderator
Mindy and everyone else,
Here is the old Sawgunner’s take on this. A few years back a young enlisted nucklehead in the Washington state guard made contact with what he thought was an AlQaeda website. He told the Website webmaster lotsa valuable stuff: “If you want to do the most damage to a tank, explode the IED so that it goes off just beneath part XYZ on blah blah tank”
The young man was arrested and tried.
Now we’re hearing that Dr Malik was (1) in contact close influence from a radical imam who spouted AlQaeda agitprop and (2) Dr Malik had posted on an Alqaeda website.
The same fed agents who were so swift to apprehend the Guardsmen ignored Dr Malik? Did Malik use some sort of “political correctness” card not available to the Washington state Guard soldier??
Report comment to moderator
I think muslim dictators have killed far more muslims than have the US armed forces.
Report comment to moderator
Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman will hold a public hearing next week.
“..the threat is now increasingly from within from homegrown terrorists who are inspired by violent Islamist ideology to plan and execute attacks where they live. This attack, in addition to recent cases in Minnesota, Arkansas, North Carolina and elsewhere, appears to be a further example of that threat. … FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Committee that ‘lone wolf’ terrorists were of particular concern to law enforcement and that we needed to take steps to address that particular threat. The United States needs to heed his warning.”
Report comment to moderator
It is not surprising that the four intelligence sources Rep. Hoekstra attempted to elicit information from have been unresponsive. Their boss is Barack Hussein Obama, a man with his own Muslim background and Muslim sympathies.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner – The same fed agents who were so swift to apprehend the Guardsmen ignored Dr Malik? Did Malik use some sort of “political correctness” card not available to the Washington state Guard soldier??
—-
It is called Obama
Report comment to moderator
Michael, I’m glad you said that. As much as I hate to factor it in, it’s a real possibility, not to mention an all-purpose legacy as an ex-president in 2013.
Report comment to moderator
Oddly enough, I’m banking on Leon Panetta to be the most forthcoming. But, I’ve been wrong before.
Report comment to moderator
Leon Panetta – hello Clinton
Report comment to moderator
Michael – 15
Yes.
Report comment to moderator
Attempts to link this to Obama are so beyond the pale – but there’s nothing like a little casual racism to crank up the conspiracy circus clowns.
Report comment to moderator
Conservative Christians aren’t capable of ethical speech in any circumstances. Please, lets not have the most regrettable thing about the Fort Hood shorting be a continuation of the vitriol directly unapologetically and unethically at American Muslims.
Michael, Nana, and Victoria, you have ZERO reason to believe that PRESIDENT Obama is sympathetic to Hasan’s killings because of his Muslim heritage, and to suggest that you do is hateful, unethical, and SINFUL!
Roy, you say “what” a lot but you don’t spend much time investigating. A passive review of the last 8 years shows a Republican party that have been nothing but contemptible to congressional oversight of the intelligence community.
The GOP has called every attempt by Democratic legislatures to investigate actions and programs of the intelligence community everything from “politically motivated” to “treason.” Your slack jawed response, “What?”, doesn’t alter what everyone else knows to be true, and I don’t think God places “willful ignorance” on the list of demands he makes of his servants.
Republicans are themselves responsible for making reform of the intelligence community a political liability, and they have no one but themselves to blame for the capital not being there to push those reforms.
If they suddenly decide that the CIA et al. should be accountable to congress, they need to start making change in their own bathroom mirrors!
Report comment to moderator
Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing
November 9, 2009 – by Anwar alAwlaki
“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.
Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”
READ the rest: http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=228
Report comment to moderator
“Conservative Christians aren’t capable of ethical speech in any circumstances. Please, lets not have the most regrettable thing about the Fort Hood shorting be a continuation of the vitriol directly unapologetically and unethically at American Muslims.”
You mean like the Tiller murder was continuation of the vitriol directly unapologetically and unethically at Conservative Christians.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a blog Victoria, go comment over there. I read the comments to that post and there are some insightful tidbits. One post I found interesting was from a guy who condemned the post but wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that is wan’t written by Anwar alAwlaki but as a set up by US intelligence officials. I doubt very much that the case, but the level of distrust some Muslims have of Americans is a material reality we have to deal with.
Given that reality doesn’t it serve our interests to not make wild and unethical accusations against American Muslims and their children like Obama? Trust isn’t built by spilling vitriolic hatred. I’m waiting for Michael, Victoria, and Nana to express regret for their shameful, idiotic behavior.
Kbells,
I’m at a loss. I have no clue what you mean. Perhaps you think that I am suggesting that Hassan’s acts were a consequence of the hatred conservatives have directed at American Muslims? I am not. Rather I think Victoria, Michael, and Nana have said things that are inherently unethical on a deontological and values level, I don’t frequently rely on consequentialist ethics in the realm of human and civil rights.
Though you can see by reading the responses on Anwar alAwlaki’s post that vitriolic rhetoric does have many negative consequences.
Report comment to moderator
MyNock says: Rather I think Victoria, Michael, and Nana have said things that are inherently unethical on a deontological and values level, I don’t frequently rely on consequentialist ethics in the realm of human and civil rights.
This is a blog where statements like theirs receive encouragement and approbation.
I’m waiting for Michael, Victoria, and Nana to express regret for their shameful, idiotic behavior.
You will wait a long time, perhaps forever.
Conservative Christians aren’t capable of ethical speech in any circumstances.
Here, I disagree with you. However, among conservative “Christians” there does seem to be a willingness to suspend ethics in favor of support of suppression of “sins” they don’t like. Sins they DO like get a free pass.
Report comment to moderator
T1 says, Mynock says, what nobody else said. Don’t hold your breath.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock. Please explain what you mean by the following terms and how Victoria, Michael and Nana violated them:
- inherently unethical
- deontological
- values level
- consequentialist ethics in the realm of human and civil rights.
And Thomas …
How did they suspend ethics in favor of support of suppression of sins?
Report comment to moderator
#22 MyNock
“Conservative Christians aren’t capable of ethical speech in any circumstances. “
While not agreeing with your labeling of other commenters, don’t you see that a lot of posters are not sying anything at all? Are you labeling all Conservative Christians as “aren’t capable of ethical speech in any circumstances”?
Isn’t your brush quite broad?
Report comment to moderator
Mynock’s statement is particularly ironic considering the number of times various posters have pointed out that s/he makes broad moral judgments without bothering to explain where on earth s/he gets the moral basis.
Report comment to moderator
I do not agree with the anti-Obama statments posted here, but I have to ask how they are worse than the anti-Bush statements posted here and elsewhere.
Why is it okay for one side to express contempt for a president but not the other side? Why is it okay for one side to accuse President Bush of everything bad that ever happened on earth but wrong for people to suggest that President Obama’s heritage could lead him to be soft on terrorism?
I know that I will not get a rational, fair answer. I wish somebody would bet me a million dollars.
Report comment to moderator
Surprise!
Christians killing Muslims for killing anyone = BAD (sinners)
Muslims killing anyone = GOOD
Christians lying = BAD (and deserve to be killed)
Muslims lying = GOOD
Report comment to moderator
I’m waiting for Hasan’s lawyers to sue the gov’t for mental stress. (The news has put plenty of stuff up that states Ft. Hood has a bad history.)
Maybe he should sue the officers who shot him for profiling him. Just because he looked like a Muslim and was shooting people is no reason to fire on him.
He could say he thought he was on the firing range at target practice. Those people who got in the way are to be blamed.
Hasan got his “shout out” for being a good Muslim.
Report comment to moderator
Wasn’t Hasan recently promoted to major?
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s approach to the Muslim terrorism problem has been one of downplaying it, making concessions to nations and groups sponsoring terrorism, blaming America, blaming Israel, repeatedly stressing that Islam is a religion of peace, and even claiming that America is a Muslim nation.
His State Department has issued directives banning the use of words like “jihadist,” “holy warrior,” and “Islamo-fascism,” so as not to offend these terrorists and their sponsors.
Obama bows to the Saudi King and makes a speech in Cairo telling of how the west has mistreated the Islamic world. The Obama administration is shifting the whole approach to terrorism back to a pre-911 mode of treating it as a crime problem rather than an actual war. Consistent with this view he has directed the closure of Guantanamo, the release of many of these prisoners to fight again, and the transfer of others to prisons on U.S. soil.
These and many other actions are examples of how this administration has changed U.S. policy, downplayed the war on Islamic terrorism, and, in general, sought to accommodate the Muslim world. Furthermore, Obama’s own Muslim background and his sympathies toward Islam are a matter of clear public record.
Rep Hoekstra’s request for information on Hasan from U.S. intelligence agencies has been refused. Why? Could it be that Obama’s changes in U.S. policies have created a climate within our government that has lowered the bar on our vigilance against possible terrorists? If Hasan has been on the “radar” for some time and been ignored, it would certainly be a political embarrassment to the Obama administration. It would also signal that Obama’s changed approach to the terrorism problem, as V.P. Cheney has recently warned, is only inviting more of the same. All of these factors could be very likely reasons that Rep. Hoekstra’s request for intelligence information is currently being stonewalled by the agencies that Barack Hussein Obama now controls.
So, Mynock (#22), you are going to have a long, long, wait for me to apologize for my raising of a legitimate issue about this administration and the way they are handling the terrorism problem. I believe that your hysterical accusations are nothing more than a hyper-emotional response to the fact that your “god,” his sympathies, and his policies are now being brought into question. If Obama has nothing to hide, then let him direct the agencies he controls to stop stonewalling Rep. Hoekstra’s request for the applicable intelligence information.
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t someone say that Bush held back information from Congress?
Pelosi said she never heard the information that was told her by the CIA. Very reliable person. NOT!
Now Obama is doing that and it’s ok?
They aren’t allowed to speak of anything except in anonimity?
Report comment to moderator
Are you a sinner Michael?
Obama must be their god because it is a “sin” to speak against him.
Report comment to moderator
targeting a military target
People forget that the Pentagon was attacked on 9-11.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t resist: if you lost the bet, KyleA, could you pay up?
Report comment to moderator
Do you think Hasan was promoted by Bush?
When my husband was promoted Bush didn’t show up.
Do you really think Bush was in charge in 2008?
Let’s see? The Dems controlled the House. There was talk of military crimes because of waterboarding, which Pelosi never heard of and no one else knew about except Bush. (actually I can see Pelosi waterboarding someone who doesn’t agree with her) Yep, good time to come out against a Muslim in our military.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not even linking his promotion to President Bush. I’m saying that if someone (Muslim or not) is under scrutiny, why would you promote him?
Report comment to moderator
Mindy
I watched the video. That guy saying those things on the streets gives me the creeps. Probably more so because he is not born Muslim and raised in a Christian family.
These are troublesome times when murderers are hailed as heroes and those who do something good are held up to scrutiny.
Now I understand why people get arrested for political crimes because I feel like he should be arrested. (A view into the future of what is to come for Christians who speak against the state.) We are already getting a taste on this blog of what is to come.
Report comment to moderator
I agree #41. But there are a lot of red flags about discrimination and profiling.
If he didn’t get promoted, he might file discrimination charges. If he did that, the person filing the report could end up with a dishonorable discharge. What proof would they have? Something he said? Who would put themselves up for scrutiny? They would then investigate that person. Hasan would have to do something.
And now, even though he has done something evil, he is being defended as an American under stress. They can’t find a motive? How about he is Muslim and they aren’t? How about killing because of religious beliefs?
Um…Did the 9/11 guys also NOT have a motive?
I think the easiest thing to say is that it is Bush’s fault. What other reason could there be?
Report comment to moderator
It’s a mess, for sure, News2me.
Report comment to moderator
I am very curious about who Hasan’s attorneys will be, or will they be JAGs?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, I am not even close to being a millionaire.
I just feel quite sure that nobody will give a fair and rational explanation for why they can attack Bush in any devious way that they can think of but people cannot bring up valid concerns about President Obama.
It’s beyond sickening.
Report comment to moderator
mynock
Roy, you say “what” a lot but you don’t spend much time investigating. A passive review of the last 8 years shows a Republican party that have been nothing but contemptible to congressional oversight of the intelligence community.
—
I am sorry but Congress was brief the problem is those in charge of Congress wanted to make the decision.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A 11.10.09 AT 10:59 AM
NJLawyer, I am not even close to being a millionaire.
I just feel quite sure that nobody will give a fair and rational explanation for why they can attack Bush in any devious way that they can think of but people cannot bring up valid concerns about President Obama.
It’s beyond sickening.
—–
The reason those on the left would say that the people who are bring up concerns about Obama is doing it because he is black.
Report comment to moderator
My gut tells me that Fort Hood was a test. There is worse to come if it is not handled well and we may not see the activities in the course of handling it, but we will see the results. If handled well, there will be no more attacks during this administration. If not handled well, attacks will escalate and we will see the eventual face-off between socialism and Sharia law in the US.
Report comment to moderator
“Why is it okay for one side to express contempt for a president but not the other side?”
Because only one sides speech is racist! There are ways to express contempt for Obama that don’t imply that his ethnic heritage makes him untrustworthy.
Criticism of Bush might have been harsh, but critics lambasted him for starting two wars he didn’t win, giving tax cuts to the wealthy, botching the response to Katrina, illegal wiretapping, etc etc etc.
And whose to say that EVERY insult directed at Bush ethical? But no one ever levied an ETHCIAL criticism of Bush that was about stereotyping his ethnic background! And you can’t make those egregiously racist attacks on this president and claim any moral high ground.
Report comment to moderator
mynock
“Because only one sides speech is racist! There are ways to express contempt for Obama that don’t imply that his ethnic heritage makes him untrustworthy. ”
What world are you living in? I have not heard of any one who express concern for Obama, ever mention his ethnic heritage was what made him untrustworthy.
“Criticism of Bush might have been harsh, but critics lambasted him for starting two wars he didn’t win, giving tax cuts to the wealthy, botching the response to Katrina, illegal wiretapping, etc etc etc. ”
“starting two wars he didn’t win” – Sorry but we won both wars until Obama has taken over now we are losing both wars because he is not doing his job.
“giving tax cuts to the wealthy” An who pay people to work? An by the way I made more money under Bush then under Clinton. An I had pay raises under Bush, but thank to Obama and his higher tax’s I will not be seeing a pay raise.
“on the botching the response to Katrina”, – the Dem. Mayor of New Orleans did nothing to help the people. His reward he won reelection. The Dem. Governor did nothing to the people. Her reward she was sent to the US Senate.
“illegal wiretapping” – Sorry the Courts have ruled them to be ok.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, let’s think of an analogous situation.
Let’s say a shooting took place in Texas. Wait! One just did.
I expect that many liberals would be saying that President Bush would pay attention to the matter only because it happened in his home state and only because most of the victims are white. (I don’t know if they are or not.) They would compare it to Hurricane Katrina and say how he did not do anything about it because it happened in a different state and because the ones who suffered the most were often black.
Deny it, if you will, but I doubt that any on the conservative side will buy it.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!