Hasan May Have Said ‘Allahu Akbar.’ And?

Oh NO, Glenn is on...
Gotta RUN.......

You should read "The Significance of Allahu Akbar" which is online at the Freeman Center Web Site. http://www.freeman.org/serendipity/index.php?/a...
An awful lot of murderous rampages start with the words Allahu Akbar

So whats the difference between him and the murder of George Tiller? Tim McVeigh?

Your friend Hasan, whom you love to defend...a "SOLDIER OF ALLAH"
http://www.examiner.com/x-27745-SF-Headlines-Ex...

Nice choice you made, siding with him! NOT

Wow, unbelievable! Tim McVeigh WAS labeled a terrorist!

The facts look you straight in the face and you still deny.

oops, replied under the wrong one...

Unbelievable!
Lies, you utterly miss the point: Yes, we all agree McVeigh was a terrorist--the point is what that has to do with religion. What was McVeigh's religion??

Your friend Hasan, whom you love to defend...a "SOLDIER OF ALLAH"
http://www.examiner.com/x-27745-SF-Headlines-Ex...

Nice choice you made, siding with him! NOT

Terrorism:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Your man Hasan, IS one, no matter how you slice it. Defend him all you want, it just makes you look like you condone what he did!

You have a feeble grasp of the English language, yet you seem confident that you can twist it enough to make me look like I condone killing & terrorism LOL
FAIL
2 points which should be simple enough for you to grasp:
Despite your admirable attempt at defining terrorism, the word has been endlessly devalued and corrupted in recent years by misuse (i.e. "eco-terrorist") and it should not be thrown around so thoughtlessly after the twin towers.
I have seen NOBODY condoning this shooting, only questioning the labels being casually applied, and the political traction being immorally levied over the dead bodies of these soldiers and their families. That is unforgivable and even YOU should feel a twinge of shame, Corny.

"Casually applied" he says...

All people need to do here, is READ your comments and they can see that you are DEFENDING Hasan.
You are a disgrace!
NUFF SAID!

One of the differences is there are a lot more of him

This is a very sick website, that is defending terrorists.

You should be ashamed!

Who is the terrorist being defended here?

Looks like YOU, since you DEFEND him!
You are a sick person!

Hey, Spencer, didn't you write an article a couple of years back for "The New Republic" confidently telling us that Muslims in the U.S. were DIFFERENT from their misbehavin' European cousins because of how good, and open, and tolerant our society is? Whooops! After the Ft. Hood massacre (preceded by a Muslim Marine going AWOL in Lebanon, preceded by a Muslim sailor trying to give ship coordinates to al Qaeda, preceded by a Muslim Army sergeant fragging several officers on the eve of the Iraq War, etc., etc.) guess it's time for a new spin! But please don't keep inquiring minds in the dark- were you simply being a neocon hack then, or are you just being a liberal hack now?

PS: The objection that the majority of U.S. Muslims are "peaceful" is woefully beside the point. The vast majority of Japanese were not kamikaze pilots either. Based upon recent events (the top 3 Muslim "charities" being shuttered after 9/11 for funneling money to Hamas and Hizbollah), as well as statistical data (in a Zogby poll published right after the WTC attacks, at least half of U.S. Muslims said they opposed the U.S. defending itself from the worst attack on its soil in history), I'd guess the vast majority of U.S. Muslims are indifferent to this country, and while not willing to take up arms against it, will gladly run interference on behalf of those who do by not reporting suspicious activity to the authorities, filing bogus "civil rights" charges to deter overzealous investigators, etc.

Liberal smartass critics of Bush's war on terror never ceased to point out the difficulty in pinning down an elusive enemy when he has a sea of sympathetic "civilians" to swim through. Yet the same liberals seem hellbent on recreating the conditions in the Swat Valley right here through continued mass Third World immigration.

AMEN!

Wow
points for shoe-horning so many disparate axes into one grinder

However, despite all that pent-up anger, so far all you've got is yet another gun-nut: this time he happens to have a non-anglo surname.

We told you so!
Perhaps you should start listening to us about Obama, so next time the proof comes out (BC) you will be on the side of TRUTH!

Nice straw men. Might want to avoid open flames.

If this turns out to be religiously motivated (which there is no solid evidence of currently, and I don't suggest jumping to the conclusion that it is), then it is entirely fair to make the comparison you dismiss as bigoted. I do judge the co-religionists of Dr. Tiller's murderer. Scott Roeder is a terrorist, his brand of Christian fundamentalism breeds terrorists as we have seen repeatedly. When the acts of an individual are guided by tenets of their belief system it is entirely fair to condemn that belief system, and other that follow it. Those who follow Scott Roeder belief system, his co-religionists, should be judged by his actions. You're right to say we can't judge all Christian by one Christian, but in practice Christianity is hundreds of different belief systems. Scott Roeder co-religionists, other Christian fundamentalists (Randall Terry for example), support his actions and should be considered members of a terrorist organization. The bigotry is believing that violence committed by Muslims is terrorism and a tenet of some Muslim fundamentalists, but that similar violence committed by Christian fundamentalists is somehow not terrorism and not a part of their belief system.

This case reminds us that there are violent extremist Islamists living in this country, even as American citizens. But it doesn't mean that all Muslims are violent extremists. In fact, only a small minority are. But don't expect the right wing to pay any attention to that proven fact. They will use this to smear all Muslims.

"Even if he shouted such a thing (Allahu Akbar), it would no more reflect on his co-religionists than does the fanatic who murdered Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller and who happened to consider himself a devout Christian does on his co-religionists."

You are missing the point,which may be intentional on your part.

By yelling "God is Great", Hasan would be revealing his primary motivation for the killings, which would be jihad, NOT PTSD, or lack of promotion. That is the issue, which many try to sweep under the rug.

NO, it is not an indictment of all Muslims, and no one is claiming it is. It IS an indictment of the radicalization of some elements of Islam which is all too common, and which is NOT adequately addressed by those who should be the most concerned.

You try to make a comparison with anti-abortion killings and Christians, but the actual facts are that anti-abortion killings are extremely rare, and in no way approach the body count that radical Islam has accumulated in the United States alone (over 3,000 at this point). When you look at the body count for radical Islam across the globe, it is even more striking, especially since so many victims of it are fellow Muslims.

Pointing out that Islam has a problem with radicalism is not an indictment of the entire religion just as pointing out the Catholic Church had problems with pedophile priests should not be an indictment of Christianity as a whole.

The troubling this here is that whenever something like this occurs, the various Muslim interests groups issue the usual condemnations and condolences, but then immediately warn against blaming all Muslims. It would be nice if they would announce also their concrete plans for routing out radical elements within their faith which are perpetuating these crimes which caused it all in the first place.

No, not all, or close to most Muslims are fanatical radicals, but the evidence is clear that the majority of terrorist acts in the world today are perpetuated by those who are Muslims. THAT needs to be addressed, not ignored. Calling people bigoted for pointing this out serves no one's interests but the terrorists.

"By yelling "God is Great", Hasan would be revealing his primary motivation for the killings, which would be jihad, NOT PTSD, or lack of promotion."

Um, no, it wouldn't. It would reveal that, while carrying out the shooting, he invoked the name of God in a fairly common, formulaic manner. It would not magically reveal what drove him to the act. It might indicate he was trying to rationalize it in religious terms, but it cannot in and of itself reveal anything definitive about the motivations that placed him there with the guns in his hands.

Incidentally, it could also mean he was presuming his death was at hand and therefore invoked God. Allu akbar isn't a crazy Muslim terrorist code phrase, it's an extremely common invocation of faith in Islam. I'd be extremely reluctant to read deeply into a Muslim saying it.

Your friend Hasan, whom you love to defend...a "SOLDIER OF ALLAH"
http://www.examiner.com/x-27745-SF-Headlines-Ex...

Nice choice you made, siding with him! NOT

After ALL the complaints soldiers had about him, I beg to differ. It was politically incorrect to go after this guy and now we have 13 dead!

You better believe all muslims in the army are being tracked right now, or SHOULD be. Like it or not, we aren't safe unless that's done!

People who murder abortion doctors DO reflect on their co-religionists. They show the irrationality of religious beliefs, their ability to spiral into fanaticism because they are inherently unchecked by reality, and their ultimate dangerousness.

In the same way, the fact that Islam motivates many of its followers to slaughter indiscriminately is significant. It is more evidence of a powerful malevolent ideology that is inflamed and which must therefore be actively fought, literally and figuratively. It also shows that our open and tolerant society, which rightly strives to accept "the good muslims" has to be aware of a serious danger in doing so. Had Maj. Hasan been more mentally stable, he might have been an entry point for a terrorist group attempting to pull off a suicide bombing or worse in the United States. It is therefore justified for our government to pay special attention to muslims, even to the point of giving them more surveillance, than it would be to do the same for, say, Norwegians.

I'm surprised you missed that obvious significance. This is a teachable moment for you: the more sanctimonious you are, the more likely you are to miss the main point.