The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude
Scroll for updates…7:39am Eastern press conference…Ft. Hood officials disclose that the murder victims included 12 soldiers and 1 civilian…first responder heroine who shot Hasan is in stable condition…witnesses still being interviewed “all through the night”…they confirm that Hasan was wearing his uniform…
I was traveling to Wichita for a speaking event/fundraiser (which I’ll tell you more about later) when news of the Fort Hood massacre broke. Please continue to pray for the 12 murder victims [update 11/6: now 13 dead] and their families, and the 30 wounded and their families.
Allahpundit at Hot Air has a massive, blow-by-blow post on all the latest developments. The Christian Science Monitor profiles Nidal Malik Hasan, the Muslim soldier identified by the military as the shooter:
Terry Lee, a retired Army colonel who knew Hasan, told Fox News about a story he heard secondhand. He said a fellow colleague had told him that Hasan had made “outlandish comments” about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and US involvement in them and that “Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“[He] made comments about how we shouldn’t be over there – you need to lock it up, Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor,” Lee added.
But the suspect’s cousin, Nader Hasan, gave Fox News a different picture. He said his cousin had never deployed but was affected by the war and had been concerned about his impending deployment.
“He would tell us how he would hear things, horrific things, things from war probably affecting him psychologically,” Nader Hasan said.
From AP:
His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.
There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive. But details of his life and mindset, emerging from official sources and personal acquaintances, are troubling.
“Troubling.” And familiar.
At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.
Here’s the Scribd comment of Nidal Hasan:
There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.
Those of you with long memories will remember all those who came before Hasan. Here is my column from March 2003 on Muslim soldiers with attitude:
Sgt. Asan Akbar, a Muslim American soldier with the 326th Engineer Battalion, had an “attitude problem.”
According to his superiors and acquaintances, Akbar’s attitude was bitterly anti-American and staunchly pro-Muslim. So how did this devout follower of the so-called Religion of Peace work out his attitudinal problems last weekend?
By lobbing hand grenades and aiming his M-4 automatic rifle into three tents filled with sleeping commanding officers at the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade operations center in Kuwait.
Akbar is the lone suspect being detained in the despicable attack, which left more than a dozen wounded and one dead. Surviving soldiers say Akbar, found cowering in a bunker with shrapnel injuries, was overheard ranting after the assault: “You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.”
“Our”? At least there’s no doubt about where this Religion of Peace practitioner’s true loyalties lie.
Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an “isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith.” But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly p.c.
Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA — Muslim soldier with attitude — suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:
– Ali A. Mohamed. Mohamed, a major in the Egyptian army, immigrated to the U.S. in 1986 and joined the U.S. Army while a resident alien. This despite being on a State Department terrorist watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, N.C., and obtained classified military documents. He was granted U.S. citizenship over the objections of the CIA.
A former classmate, Jason T. Fogg, recalled that Mohamed was openly critical of the American military. “To be in the U.S. military and have so much hate toward the U.S. was odd. He never referred to America as his country.”
Soon after he was honorably discharged from the Army in 1989, Mohamed hooked up with Osama bin Laden as an escort, trainer, bagman and messenger. Mohamed used his U.S. passport to conduct surveillance at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi; he later pled guilty to conspiring with bin Laden to “attack any Western target in the Middle East” and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.
Ain’t multiculturalism grand?
– Semi Osman. An ethnic Lebanese born in Sierra Leone and a Seattle-based Muslim cleric, Osman served in a naval reserve fueling unit based in Tacoma, Wash. He had access to fuel trucks similar to the type used by al Qaeda in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded nearly 400 other Americans.
Osman was arrested last May as part of a federal investigation into the establishment of a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon. Osman recently pleaded guilty to a weapons violation, and the feds dropped immigration charges against him in exchange for his testimony.
Ain’t open borders grand?
– John Muhammad. The accused Beltway sniper and Muslim convert was a member of the Army’s 84th Engineering Company. In an eerie parallel to the Akbar case, Muhammad is suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. Muhammad’s superior, Sgt. Kip Berentson, told both Newsweek and The Seattle Times that he immediately suspected Muhammad, who was “trouble from day one.”
Curiously, Muhammad was admitted to the Army despite being earlier court-martialed for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property, and being absent without leave while serving in the Louisiana National Guard.
Although Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and transferred to another company pending charges for the grenade attack, an indictment never materialized. Muhammad was honorably discharged from the Army in 1994. Eight years later, he was arrested in the 21-day Beltway shooting spree that left 10 dead and three wounded.
Ain’t tolerance grand?
– Jeffrey Leon Battle. A former Army reservist, Battle was indicted in October 2002 for conspiring to levy war against the United States and “enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America.” According to the Justice Department, he planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Ain’t diversity grand?
“It’s bad enough we have to worry about enemy forces, but now we have to worry about our own guys,” Spc. Autumn Simmer told the Los Angeles Times this week after the assault on the 101st Airborne. The Islamist infiltration of our troops is scandalous. Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders, and tolerance of the murderous “attitude” of Jihad.
FYI: Convicted Beltway sniper John Muhammad is scheduled to be executed next week. No doubt the families of the Muslim sniper victims are re-living the horror tonight.
FYI: Muslim US soldier Hasan Abujihaad was convicted last year on espionage and material terrorism support charges
after serving aboard the USS Benfold and sharing classified info with al Qaeda financiers, including movements of US ships just six months after al Qaeda operatives had killed 17 Americans aboard the USS Cole in the port of Yemen.
On Twitter, follow #fthood for news updates.
More Twitter-related news here.
***
Clarice Feldman notes President Obama’s “odd” — to say the least — reaction to the attack on Fort Hood soldiers:
On Thursday, 11 soldiers and civilian police at Fort Hood were slaughtered execution-style at close range and over 30 others wounded, allegedly by a U.S. Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan. The President immediately addressed the nation concerning this horrific event.
However, his expression of grief was very odd. He spent the first two minutes of the four-and-a-half minute address in a light-hearted discussion of his earlier “Tribal Nations Conference” on Native American rights, including a “shout out” recognition of a conference attendee.
When he finally got around to the purpose for his public appearance, he gave an uninspired and rambling dissertation on the tragedy. Even then, he could not keep the topic focused on sympathy for the pain of others:
I want all of you to know that as Commander in Chief, that there’s no greater honor, but no greater responsibility for me (emphasis his) than to make sure that the extraordinary men and women in uniform are properly cared for…Poor soul, it’s so saddening to know how this tragedy affects him. Listening to this address provides some insight into Obama’s character and how he ranks his priorities.
***
Business as usual: The whitewashing of jihad by the MSM. See here and here.
I’ve said it many times over the years and it bears repeating again as cable TV talking heads ask in bewilderment how all the red flags Hasan raised could have been ignored: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror.
***
U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Austin, was briefed by military officials and said Hasan had taken some unusual classes for someone studying about mental health.
“He took a lot of extra classes in weapons training, which seems a little odd for a psychiatrist,” McCaul said.
McCaul said Hasan had received poor grades for his work at Walter Reed and was not happy about his situation in Fort Hood, where Hasan apparently felt like “he didn’t fit in.”
“He’s disgruntled because he had a poor performance evaluation, he doesn’t believe in the mission, he’s looking at getting transferred to Afghanistan or Iraq,” McCaul said. “He’s not happy about all that.”
McCaul added that officials planned to interview Hasan to try to determine for sure that he was not working with foreign agents.
“From an intelligence standpoint, that’s key, finding out if he talked to anyone overseas,” McCaul said.
***
Bruce Bawer has a brilliant essay on the MSM whitewashing of jihad:
CNN (ditto the New York Times website) was considerably less useful than the tidbits I picked up online by following links on various blogs and in Facebook postings. They led me to (among other things) an AP story, a Daily Mail article, and a Fox News interview that provided telling details: Hasan had apparently been a devout Muslim; Arabic words, reportedly a Muslim prayer, had been posted on his apartment door in Maryland; in conversations with colleagues he had repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers; on Thursday morning, hours before the massacre, he had supposedly handed out copies of the Koran to neighbors. A couple of these facts eventually surfaced on CNN, but only briefly; they were rushed past, left untouched, unexamined; the network seemed to be making a masterly effort to avoid giving this data a cold, hard look. Meanwhile it spent time doing heavy-handed spin — devoting several minutes, for example, to an inane interview with a forensic psychiatrist who talked about the stress of treating soldiers bearing the emotional scars of war. The obvious purpose was to turn our eyes away from Islamism and toward psychiatric instability as a motive.
…after [the Anderson Cooper show] was over, we got a “special edition” of Larry King Live hosted by Wolf Blitzer. This one really took the cake. By way of “illuminating” Hasan’s actions, Blitzer interviewed a panel of — no, not experts on Islamic jihad, but psychiatrists. Blitzer endlessly repeated the mantra that Hasan had been “taunted” for being Muslim, had feared going to a war zone, and had ultimately gone “berserk,” and the docs echoed this line. “He did not reach for help when he should have,” lamented one panelist. Another opined: “It sounded like it got to be too much for him.” Yet another told us: “All kind of people need help who aren’t getting help. … He was feeling picked on by his colleagues. … He was strained. He was scared.”
Could there be a more bitter contrast? At Fort Hood, so many courageous GIs, all of them prepared to risk their lives fighting the Islamic jihadist enemy in defense of our freedom, several of them now dead. And, on our TV screens, so many apparently craven journalists, public officials, psychiatrists, and (alas) even military brass — all but a few of whom seemed unwilling to do anything more than hint obliquely at the truth that obviously lies at the root of this monstrous act.
And now: Reports that Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” during the attack.
Nothing to see here. Move along…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
The trial of the last Haditha Marine: SSgt Wuterich takes plea deal
January 23, 2012 03:25 PM by Michelle Malkin
59 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Trial update, prosecution collapse, plea deal in the works?
January 19, 2012 05:49 PM by Michelle Malkin
56 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Wuterich trial update
January 5, 2012 06:19 PM by Michelle Malkin
26 Comments
Remember SSgt Frank D. Wuterich: The last Haditha Marine goes on trial
January 2, 2012 12:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
57 Comments
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
December 25, 2011 03:26 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 CommentsJoe Biden: The Taliban Per Se is Not Our Enemy
December 19, 2011 04:06 PM by Doug Powers
105 Comments
Remembering Pearl Harbor: 70 years
December 7, 2011 10:10 AM by Michelle Malkin
123 CommentsA message from “Occupy Bagram”
November 20, 2011 07:54 AM by Michelle Malkin
63 CommentsMoonbat of the day: Suffolk Univ. law prof condemns sending care packages to troops, flying American flag
November 14, 2011 08:36 PM by Michelle Malkin
46 Comments
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Has anyone else seen THIS at WND?
You just couldn’t make this stuff up! A lunatic officer with jihadist beliefs is on Obama’s transition team?
This guy was an official member of the DHS transition team as recently as May 2009! Has our host seen this? Has Rush seen this?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115230
Are you totally illiterate, WE82? Did you purposely skip the part of the article that specifically says Hasan was not a member of the transition team? Or did you get distracted by some shiny bauble during that critical part?
On November 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pm, Trollman said:
I like that first sentence and I am pleased that you found a faith that you truly believe in. Alas I am just a poor Soldier who has not the wisdom of John Kerry. I am quite secure in my beliefs. But, know they are but beliefs. Many times I’ve been provided with tomes that ‘prove’ one faith to be the “One true Faith” above the others. Everything from the Scientologists,to Islam to the Baptists to the Seventh Day Adventists to the Mormons. They may be right. They may be wrong. This is why while I respect all religions and bow to the teachings of my own you’ll seldom find me at formal services, preferring to commune with God in forests, on mountains, on and beneath the oceans of the world. Religion is a private thing a matter between each person and God. Definitely not something to argue and to become fractious over.
Chaps, is this the past you are talking about? Doesn’t that refer to a different group?
correction:
pastpartThis is the part I was specifically talking about:
But this part would also have worked equally as well if WE82 was interested in anything resembling the truth:
So basically the article is saying that Hasan was allowed to go as a member of the audience to the the meeting of an organization that he was not a part of, which group made informal recommendations that they then published. This group that Hasan is not a member of, mind you, is in no way connected to DHS or any official transition team.
This article is pretty much the biggest piece of tripe I have seen. It would take someone as incredibly imbecilic as WE82 to read anything into it.
Ssnark:
I hope you don’t mean this, sir. I survived Iraq without a scratch. In fact, the folks in my unit that did die were Christian, what’s that tell you? Did they chose wrong?
Then I would think you would respect my freedom of speech when I say that religion is inherently irrational and though no one should ever force anyone toward a particular faith, I have the absolute right to mock people that tell me I am going to hell or pretend the Earth is 6000 years old.
Trollman:
Are you serious? Oddly, Yahweh must have decided slavery was wrong at the same time Western Culture worked it out. Do I have to quote the parts of the Bible where the Jews are commanded by god to take slaves or where there are rules given for treating slaves? You know they are in there. How about the parables where Jesus mentions slaves, yetstrangely neglecting to mention that slavery itself is wrong.
How many times do I have to explain this to you: because it would make me feel bad. How hard is that to grasp? When I go to a store or a restaurant and someone gives me too much change I tell them. Why? Because I know that ultimately, somewhere that money is coming out of another human’s pocket and that’s not fair. I don’t need a god watching over me to work that out.
Don’t give me this nonsense. No fair, loving god teaches that if you don’t worship him you will burn. That’s the kind of thing a petty tyrant does.
I am not changing the subject at all. You pretend that your god is a beacon of morality yet the Old Testament is chock full of horrors. What fool of a woman would WANT to marry her rapist? What kind of culture would create an environment that would put a woman in such a situation? What kind of god would tolerate even a hint of this? Are you really this gullible?
Why did god want gays to be killed? How is that moral? How come if you share an idea Marx had it’s OK, but if I share in another related idea it’s not?
Ssnark:
I think you can admit that there are many the world over both in our country and in others that do not keep it private and make every attempt to shoehorn it into the law and politics.
BBL folks, Junior needs me.
Chaps, the article is confusing.
But doesn’t this indicate he was in attendance?
Yes, I left it out just to goad you. And it worked…
more likely because you are a moron, WE82. But I am heartened to see you admit your post was purposefully lying.
If once is a considence, twice a happenstance, and three times enemy action: At what point can the American people accept that muslims are a threat to American society?
Funny thing is that I don’t recall to many Christians doing simuliar behavior like this over the last 20 years.
GSP
Okay, he was not a full-fledged member but he was “involved”.
WarEagle does not like it that he was even involved, nor do I.
WarEagle trusts WND as do I.
LOL!!! Did he just say, “I did that on purpose”
?
HA HA HA HA!!
That was almost as good as granite’s “Mommy, mommy! Zero did something bad!”
Pathetic.
Anyhow, evening chappy.
Go WarEagle!
Chaps, what kind of Indian cuisine did you have tonight?
More on Hasan from WND. Just a little Jihadist in waiting…
GSP:
Save a few abortion clinics by some real crazies they haven’t and the reason is because, by and large, Christians have worked out that there are vast swaths of the Bible that you don’t take seriously. This is why I consistently say my beef is with fundamentalists and those that refuse to acknowledge them.
It will certainly come out that Hasan has been a problem for years unless they get to his service records before they can be hidden or destroyed.
I bet all of Hasan’s service records will soon be stored right next to Obama’s birth certificate…
Gee, Zero, do a lot of fundies fail to acknowledge you? Who can blame them…
He wasn’t full fleged. He wasn’t any sort of member. He was “involved” by being an audience member to a panel discussion held by a think tank that sat around and thought of ideas that they then publish. This group is not a part of any actual government entity.
That is like saying that I am involved in Michele Bachmann’s health care advisory staff because I went to the rally on Thursday.
Sounds like he created a unique problem because so much money had been invested in his education and he was expected to pay back by working it off.
Chaps, this is all splitting hairs. Obviously you do not sympathize with the conservative, Christian base of the Republican party. That is what WND is all about.
And you claim “we” were lancing Michelle Bachman a ways back.
Speak for yourself!
Did Chappy just admit that he is a leftist pretending to be a rightist pretending to be a leftist pretending to be a rightist pretending to be a leftist?
Could this be the reason “Mrs. Chappy” wants to learn to shoot a firearm?
That is an exaggeration and you know it.
When will they finally confess that Hasan was the best man at Obama’s wedding? You know they can’t keep this stuff secret forever!
Actually, Chappy may not know it. Based on his posts in toto it is not clear exactly how he perceives reality…
Bull. This is about making crap up. Like saying Hasan was a member of Obama’s transition team. He was nothing of the sort. Not even close.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
BUSTED! It’s called transference.
What he REALLY means is HE wants to learn how to shoot a firearm but being a soft liberal doesn’t have the guts to admit it.
I’ll look it up for you…..
Oh, please pure.
WE82 read an article which expressed some tenuous, ridiculously thin relationship between Hasan and Obama, then lied about it here (and admitted as such) and I am the one you are concerned is exaggerating?
Chaps, just reminding you of your use of the word “ours”.
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Actually Hasan was actually Michelle Obama’s Maid of Honor!
This is quickly going to sink into some Nixonian quagmire like Watergate. But at least Time and Newsweek will give us full fashion updates since it will involve Michelle Obama…
Chaps, I have great respect for your legal mind and if this was a case in court, you would probably win.
BUT, what we all chat about here has a more subtle, personal element.
On November 7th, 2009 at 7:28 pm, zeroangel said:
Truthfully that factoid has always intrigued me. Just as the fact that when I quoted the casualty figures by unit for that battle to a British officer he goggled at me and said that I couldn’t possibly be right because we couldn’t have cohesive units at those rates. Ive found it to be true that, there is quite a bit “More things in heaven and earth…than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” So while said tongue in cheek, not without at the same time a bit of curiousity. Just as your factoid catches my attention and wonder how many non-Christians vs. Christians were in your outfit in Iraq? I’d be willing to bet the probabilities were higher that a Christian would be wounded just out of simple proportion. Whereas the entirety of a small but diverse proportion of a division being killed to the man is a significantly different kind of event.
zeroangel said:
It has been the stuff of history, the Crusades, the spread of Islam, the wars between Burma and Thailand (Mahayana vs. Hinayana Buddhism), the thirty years war. Northern Ireland, The Sudan (several times),the list is endless. So much war for a simple minded Soldier to study, so little cause except that when all boiled away people couldn’t let others believe as they will. If the question were as cut-and-dried as some claim there could be no question because it would be self evident. The simple fact that it’s not, leads me to believe (there’s that word again) that it isn’t because either the human interface between man and God is faulty or that God isn’t quite so fixed on any single solitary way for us to worship. Your own option is also out there, but forgive me if I give it scant credence. For a universe this well organized that even chaos and entropy follow a kind of logic it seems a bit too much to ascribe it to happenstance. But, I too was once Ozymandias.
Did you happen to read the comment I was replying to? You know… the one in the little box directly above my post?
Who do you think I meant by “ours”?
WarEagle, Dayum! You are brilliant!
Well, I assumed by “ours” you meant all the poster here but I will go back and look.
Perhaps Chappy is just practising the use of the “majestic plural” since he thinks all lefties are about rise above the little people and rule us…
ssnark:
Sir, if you really believe the idea has any merit at all, you really should ask yourself, “what kind of petty, monstorous tyrant of a deity would do such a thing?”
Does it cross your mind that this is a bit like a sentient puddle saying how remarkable it is that the hole in which he exist is so perfect and well-suited to him?
ZA just does not want to face the possibility that God is and thus has a right to do with His creation as He wills.
Ultimately this is the problem with all atheists. They don’t want to be subject to anyone or anything. And they will quite literally risk heaven and hell in a vain effort to prove their point.
Do you see how easy it is to goad Chappy…
And it is just as easy to goad ZeroIntelligence. All you have to do is say the word “dinosaurs” and you can send him into a nonsensical rant for days…
I know. I tend to react strongly to blatant lies from idiots. My bad.
Rats! Now I can’t find it.
Was lucky to find it the first time.
Anyway, it is obvious Chaps is a trickster and deceiver like zero.
<blockquoteRats! Now I can’t find it.
It is in the Friday Open Thread.
Thanks for the tip,
On November 7th, 2009 at 8:17 pm, zeroangel said:
It would, but I find it more of an interesting curiousity more than anything else. Kind of like why my dog has to walk in a circle precisely three times before he can lay down on the spot he’s circled. It defies logic.
Indeed it does. Something like the way the idea of Psychiatry or Psychology intrigues me because we’re undertaking the ‘scientific’ study of the mind with the very same mind? I’d hoped you’d have found the oddball humor in these but am afraid you’ve gotten so used to being on the defense you’ve missed the way I poke at my own as well as others’ assumptions and beliefs. For entertainment someday, look up the poem “The Hunting of the Snark” by Lewis Carroll. You’ll find that a Snark is not what common usage might have you believe.
WE82:
You are doing an excellent job of taking your own advice and ignoring me, aren’t you? How often do you have to demostrate to us all that you are an insanely stupid hypocrite?
It is the mark of a supreme egoist to not understand all comments are not necessarily addressed to them…
Chaps, what is there as reference?
And it is the mark of a truly un-self aware person to not realize that commenting TO someone and commenting ABOUT someone both mean you are not ignoring that someone.
ssnark:
No, it doesn’t. It simple statistics and the affinity for a human mind to pattern seek. I guarntee if you took a sum total of deaths over the history of warfare (if such a thing were possible) and looked for a similiar pattern you wouldn’t find it. The atheists causaulties would probably be about the same or statistically insignificant.
My bad, I’ll leave it alone. I have little doubt I can put you in an “allied” camp concerning this topic.
Snipe?
For which part? If it is the condemnation comment, just click on the hyperlinked text “There is.”
Evidently, not everyone here is familiar with an old theatrical term “aside.” This is not entirely surprising as several people here seem clueless about a great many things…
Yes, WarEagle, the pups are clueless.
Nor everyone here with the definition of “ignore.”
Chaps, I would be most interested in your knowledge of those definitions.
Please proceed.
Well, I usually take the term “ignore” to at least mean that someone doesn’t post about or to someone whom they claim to be ignoring. WE82 has done both just on this page.
If it is just the same, I should rather reference a dictionary rather than listen to some people go on about it…
WE82 couldn’t work out a definition of what “is” is. However, that amatuer philosophy is pretty typical around here.
While you are at it you might want to look up “official” and “member” and “Transition team”. There seems to be some confusion on your part with those terms as well.
OK, stuff to do, I’ll BBL.
Oh you silly boys,
My heart knew you would gather here.
Meet me at home if you can find it.
Somewhere over the rainbow
Oddly enough, my dictionary seems to indicate “Chappy” is synonymous with “tool.” No great surprise there…
Well we all know that the Piedmont English Dictionary (PED) is the definitive reference dictionary for the slack jawed.
As I recall, the latest version was updated to recognize that sheep can actually be used to harvest wool, and not just an object of hillbilly lust.
Yup, he is a tool.
He only hangs around here because the food and booze is better here.
Wow, that is like way existential.
Would you grant me permission to funnel that thought to Kingfish who wants to acquire some sheep for wool?
On November 7th, 2009 at 8:36 pm, zeroangel said:
Or vice-versa. I decided you were a sensible if young person amidst a number of far less sensible people going through their Elizabeth Kubler-Ross process. I’m certain we’ll disagree at times. Hopefully, we can be civil about it.
On November 7th, 2009 at 8:36 pm, purealchemy said:
Do read the poem my good fellow. I’ll post a link if that will help.
The Hunting of the Snark (a poem in eight fits)
Particular attention should be paid to the five unmistakable marks and to the general nature of Snarks and the single exception.
Lordy, I need my Kingfish here to interpret but he is busy with his brood.
Kingfish has a direct Rob Roy heritage.
Braveheart all the way!
I am channelling BlindMule when I say this-“Don’t Feed the Trolls!”
For the newbies here, this is what we call a thread highjack that has nothing to do with the orignal posted article.
GSP
And to clarify for the clueless Chappy, that in no way indicates that Kingfish has committed a crime of larceny against Roy…
Please show where I said that.
Oh, that’s right.
You can’t.
The point of my comment is that you, for the second time that I have seen in about two weeks, have unnecessarily escalated to the F-bomb.
You are a loud and clear illustration of the coarsening of our culture.
And if what that means, and why that is not a good thing, has to be explained to you; you will never understand
granite:
Oh Jesus. Stop acting like a child. No doubt you won’t recognize that it is personal opinion whether or not an “F” bomb is a deserved response to when someone basically calls you stupid.
In any case, notice that the recipient of said “F” bomb isn’t whining to MM about it. You are.
How else is this supposed to be interpretted? Just come clean and admit you were looking for a ban. Be a man about it and stop backpeddling.
An obvious example of projection….
You turn yourself into a pretzel and use lawyer-type rationalization trying to justify your unnecessarily aggressive remarks; instead of simply admitting that you went overboard, putting it behind you, and starting over.
Sad and unfortunate.
And you’re not the only example.
It is throughout our culture.
Yet, I still wish you no ill.
If, however, our gracious hostess decides to enforce a ban on “unnecessary roughness”, it won’t break my heart.
This discussion has been only partly a threadjack.
The coarsening of our culture is closely related to why it is so much tougher to raise kids properly today; why the streets are far, far less safe than they were 40 years ago; why politicans and courts are hurting, rather than helping, our nation; and why “pc culture” puts us all at risk by keeping our borders porous, and by not taking the threat of barbaric muslim jihadis seriously.
Yet more projection.
Just admit your error, and then make a fresh start.
It’s what grown-ups do.
granite:
Pathetic. We both know that you will never call out anyone for calling me stupid or telling me I am immoral. We also both know that this has nothing to do with my “F” bomb. Had it been directed at (for example) LGM, you would be cheering.
F you too granite. You are a hopeless, hypocritical, little intellectual coward and a lightweight. An “F” bomb is not nearly as offensive as ideas that either you yourself have put forward or have supported on this blog.
On November 7th, 2009 at 9:17 pm, purealchemy said:
Good Grief!!!
No wonder the conservative cause has so many problems. Between failing to understand the Constitution and failing to be able to read and interpret a simple poem.
Let me put it to you very, very simply.
I have been noted for being something of a nighthawk. Sleeping late into the day to get up at the crack of dark to work. My humor is known far and wide as humor substitute. Like saccarin it acts like humor but leaves an aftertaste. I’ve been known to look quite grave at a pun. My fondness for bathing machines (showers) is known far and wide and in South America carried one with me (a solar shower). I was and maybe am ambitious although whether of the variety that “have feathers and bite” or those who “have whiskers and scratch” I can’t say. But most important that while it is that common Snarks do no manner of harm. Some are Boojums. A Boojum might be known to carry an M21 up the side of a mountain some night along with an AN/PEQ 1A or B in Afghanistan. One might find a Snark packing an M60E3 in Iraq which might mean it’s really a Boojum on rare occasion you might see what you think is a Snark with an M107 in either place for though most part common Snarks do no manner of harm. But, some are Boojums. Otherwise, Snarks just leave people alone.
A creature far more to be feared than a common snipe. But at the same time less to be feared as its intent is to win hearts and minds while causing its enemies to softly and suddenly vanish away and never be met with again.
Do you get now what a Snark is?
ssnark:
That’s just the beginning, sir. IMHO, much of our problems result from the disconnect between people like me (RINO’s, moderates, libertarians, neo-cons, whatever label you want to use) and the social conservatives / far-right religious fundamentalists.
I honestly think it will take some years and a new generation to turn things around.
As for this blog, it’s slim pickings. MM has become more and more disconnected from reality as time has rolled on. She’s a pundit and she’s good at, like most I doubt she really believes everything she says. For me, I think the Dunkin Jihad thing was when she jumped the shark:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/23/of-donuts-and-dumb-celebrities/
Since then, I have noticed a great many of the intelligent, sensible “conservatives” have trickled away. There now remains a rather frightening and disproportionate number of creationists and otherwise lunatics.
Additionally, among some commenters, there has been a bit of bigotry and racism against various groups. I recall at least one black poster announcing some time ago that she was leaving and never coming back. Though some might say she was being overly sensitive, I really don’t think so.
Concerning bigotry in general and the “conservative movement” take a look at this and tell me what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r_gWY-rCuE
As for the poem and your explanation, so you were / are a sniper?
This is quintessential ZeroTolerance. He is an anti-Christian bigot who hide behind claims that Christians are bigots. You gotta just love this self-serving nonsense.
“Somebody once left this site because some of those bigoted Christian Conservatives said racist things.”
The guy who is positively dripping with contempt and hate for Christians gets offended when some people tell him he is full of it! This is rich.
And then ZeroEverything whines and calls others “babies!”
Good grief, and he can’t see it! This is laughable! It is time to start mocking his whining little bigot for what he is. Pathetic is the word that comes to mind.
Go get ZeroEverthing a pacifier and he can go take a nap with the OTHER BABY that lives in his house. Maybe his wife can find some extra large diapers and another bottle.
Zero just can’t take it in the real world…
WE82:
Still ignoring me I see? Gawd you are so stupid.
I challenge ideas not people. I could care less about the religion of moderate and sensible people that call themselves Christians, my wife is one. They don’t try and force it on others. Those types aren’t who I am talking about though.
I was refering to a racist. I have no idea if that person was Christian or even religious. Strawman. No surprise there though.
Still ignoring me? Moron.
On November 8th, 2009 at 8:12 am, zeroangel said:
I personally have moved further and further from a “Colin Powell” fiscal Republican to a more hard line approach as the more I study social liberalism, the more damage I see that it causes. At one point I was a liberal and found that over time I saw what ‘The War on Poverty’ had done to the neighborhood and people I’d grown up with. I grew up poorer than dirt and most of it before the ‘War on Poverty’ had gone a single generation. In the beginning it engendered some good. Over time it has sapped the will to succeed through hard labor, savings and sacrifice. It and other programs of entitlement have helped to destroy the community I once knew. Where in the old days we’d share with our neighbors who had very little, the same ‘trash’ fish we couldn’t sell at market that we ate. That resource is being thrown out after all, why eat ‘opala’ (trash) when you can have McDonalds or a frozen steak dinner? Why save and scrimp to buy a home when you can get one through a special program. Why work a 100hrs a week to build a ‘nest egg’ when you don’t have to? It was an environment that didn’t have handouts and entitlements that drove me to succeed and to keep succeeding, that clawing and biting kind of ambition and drive that got me out of where I started and to where I am today.
There are a lot of bigots I’ve noticed in both movements. The liberal bigots look down their noses at the ‘underclass’ people like those I come from and give us entitlements to assuage their conscience and make them feel oh,so much better. The conservative bigots (i.e., Newt Gingrich) label us the underclass and sneer at us for not having gotten to their oh so exalted status which in most cases isn’t much better than where I came from. But, like the cowboys and other ‘Cle-billys’ near my home they come by it honestly. They’ve been told by the Newt Gingriches and other leaders that if they hew to a Christian line and vote for them, they will somehow be more successful without the hard work and sacrifice needed to truly do so. They’re told by their leaders whom they trust and believe because it seems to make some kind of sense. They direct their anger not at those leaders but to the external enemies those leaders have demonized in their minds. Sound familiar?
Yep, an extremist is an extremist no matter what color, creed or race.
Which I guess brings me to your final comment;
I never went to sniper school although I went to Camp Perry as a competitor three times before I graduated high school. My PMOS has as its branch insignia crossed arrows and the motto inscribed on our crest is De Oppresso Liber, I was drawn to that phrase and enlisted as a medic and served in that capacity for seven years before ‘going over to the dark side’ and getting a commission. In warfare, I think my job is more one of service to oppressed people and through that defending my country than it is of ‘killing people and destroying their junk’. That’s not always the case though, During the Carter era we were enforced spectators to depredations by any force that wasn’t visibly backed by the Soviets. Later, I served in Nicaraugua and Honduras where there seemed little difference between the two sides in their brutality and disregard for human life or pain and suffering inflicted on the very people each side claimed it was serving. I served in Panama where the running joke was “Operation Just Cause we can” and was witness to Somalia where during Operation Gothic Serpent we were engaging Mohammed Aideed because he was getting the graft that Kofi Anan’s son (and thereby Kofi Anan) thought was rightfully his for UN humanitarian aid being distributed in Mogadishu. Iraq and Afghanistan have been the only two campaigns I’m proud to have served on, as they’re the most justifiable and beneficial of most of my career that started with pulling former CIA assets out of Laos and elsewhere when things fell apart there. So, as a Snark I try to do no manner of harm. But somewhere along the line became a Boojum causing some to ‘softly and suddenly vanish away’.
ssnark, my apologies for not giving your poem full attention last night.
Will revisit it later today.
Are you saying I don’t seem to understand the Constitution or conservatives in general?
On November 8th, 2009 at 10:34 am, purealchemy said:
Not necessarily you personally. But rather that a large group of so called conservatives, many in the town and nearby ranches where I live have that problem. There were more when I got involved with the Tea Party movement.
Being a good citizen of the USA is hard work. It involves reading, knowing history, geography, economics and most importantly, critical thinking skills. I run into too many people wearing both liberal and conservative labels who do very little to none of these. Learn not to depend upon pundits and political leaders to provide you with pre-digested information. They’ll lead you where they want you to go. Making you none the better than the very people who we’re fighting against.
I have nothing against anyone here personally, I probably would like most here personally. What I’m inveighing against,are some of the attitudes, ignorance and those things that don’t vary enough to indicate to someone who did intelligence analysis that this is their own thinking but rather regurgitating someone else’s thoughts.
Please don’t take things I say personally, they’re not meant that way.
Ssnark:
Glad to see your reply. I’ll be brief becaise I have to run errands to do. I think you and are talking about different meansing of “social conservatives” I am right on boadr with you ref. entitlements. I was talking about legislating morality (for example the objection to gay marraige and such)
OK TTYL.
ssnark, unfortunately, I often take things too personally and literally, as Chappy well knows.
Frankly, I am not adept at interpreting poetry or poetic literature but I am trying hard to grasp your snark poem.
On November 8th, 2009 at 11:30 am, zeroangel said:
There are and I think you’ll agree certain kinds of morality that are in the best interest of society. Things like child pornography or for that matter anything to do with the exploitation of children sexually. Certainly the mistreatment of women and children generally although there should be some distinctions made where none exist now between child abuse and old school disciplining of a child. As children respond as individuals not as some always rational and compliant automaton as some might have us believe. There certainly is quite a vast difference in response to various forms of discipline between the nine I’ve helped raise.
We get into a grey area to my way of thinking when we talk of gay marriage. I’m of the opinion that the sacrament of marriage is one thing. The state should probably leave that to people’s beliefs and not even regulate that. The state does need to in some way create legal partnerships for those who live their lives in either matrimony or some other similar arrangement. This of course has more to do with the treatment of property and other benefits than with whether or not the sacrament of marriage has been performed.
There are other kinds of social legislation that I oppose. I oppose the destruction or removal of memorials or commemorations just because there may be religious symbolism involved. If someone is so thin skinned and intolerant as to be offended by someone else’s monument then they need remedial education in the meaning of the word freedom. I was particularly angered when there was a legal and legislative movement to take down the cross commemorating the casualties at Pearl Harbor built in Kolekole pass on the US Army Post at Scholfield Barracks. When stationed in Hawaii in the 1980s a group of us of many religions would hike up to the cross on 7 December as a focal point to remembering those who died during the attack at all the bases in the State. No one cared that it was a cross, it was a memorial to fallen comrades. Likewise, I’m against legislation against flag burning in protests. I don’t like it. I’d be very angry seeing it. But, I think it is protected by freedom of expression just as the display of a cross, a crescent, a star of David or other such symbols are as well.
On November 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, purealchemy said:
I guess that makes you human. That’s an ok thing in my book. Just try to remember, that sometimes what we say here isn’t about you, it’s about things we hear like it every day.
In explanation of the poem, it was one that the gentleman from the DEA who ran our little piece of the war on drugs in Colombia thought suited me well. As he believed that my appearance and demeanor tended to belie my capacity as “the most casually violent person I know” as he put it. This from a man who walked into a group of drug lords and captured them by pulling the pins from two hand grenades and telling them “you have two choices, and my left hand doesn’t work so good anymore.” It also plays on my habit of working in the night and probably too often stated opinion that hot showers and flush toilets are man’s greatest inventions.
Considering your handle/moniker here, I assumed it had personal significance to you.
Wow!
On November 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm, purealchemy said:
Personally, I think he was wrong. My better half will tell you I’m just a large teddy bear. In fact, that’s pretty much most people around here’s opinion.
But, yeah, I do carry my fetish for hot showers or baths a bit too far sometimes.
ssnark, Did you grow up without those luxuries?
As for reading poetry, I often find it helps me to read it backwards. In case of the Snark poem, that seems to work especially well.
Chaps, previously I thought your reference to “ours” was to the people on the right who hang out here, but now I think I understand that you were grouping yourself with the “loony left”.
Ssnark:
Another brief post, my Ma is over today and spending time with me, my wife and Junior.
We more or less agree ref gay marriage. I think the state should be out of marriage entirely and just issue “civil unions” for any kind of arrangement to include a polygamous one. It is my feeling that polygamy laws can’t be enforced anyway and the only people that get hurt are the 2nd and further wives (or husbands, though that doesn’t seem to exist) and their children by not having their union recognized.
As for religious symbols I agree none should be taken down. I am not big on govt. spending, anyway. However, I don’t like it when someone puts up something with some of my tax dollars that corresponds to a religion I don’t practice. If anyone is putting up anything religious on public grounds they should expect that any other group be allowed to do the same. I generally don’t like too many radical atheist groups (for various reasons we can discuss another time) however, if a nativity scene goes up on public land, any other religious or non-religious (in this case any atheist group) organization should be allowed to put up their own display even if it offends the sensibilities of the first group. You can see how this arrangement could get out of hand, therefore, I’m generally of the opinion that sometimes it’s best for everyone to just leave it alone where public funds and publics property are concerned.
OK, TTYL.
On November 8th, 2009 at 2:26 pm, zeroangel said:
I’m not so sure about that, sometimes it can be. In others it becomes something of a tyranny. My own culture sanctioned polygamy especially when we ruled half a world. A lot of that was done through strategic marriages to create alliances in blood. But, I’ve seen more recently with a group of such at a post I won’t name where it fostered an abusive relationship where the most junior of spouses literally took a beating. So, I’m not so sure.
It could get quite out of hand. Still, I miss some of those things as they bring to me a time of great innocence that I treasure. I guess I grow maudlin with age.
On November 8th, 2009 at 2:01 pm, purealchemy said:
My gosh no! My grandmother and mother would have had fits if we didn’t bathe or shower at least daily. Even if we were in the ocean four to six hours a day. I learned to treasure those things after deploying to the field or to an overseas deployment with the US Army at least once every six months, the usual cycle being six months overseas, six months PMCS/light duty/range training, six months deployed training at JRTC/NTC/CMTC with more range training and out again to overseas deployment. That was until September/October 2001 when it became overseas six months, Conus six months with the twelve month schedule crammed into those six months and back out again.
I can definitely see how that routine would make one crave a shower!
What culture is that? I think I know don’t want to say.
No, ZeroBrains, I have now resumed openly mocking you. I see you are too idiotic to see this unless it is pointed out to you. Nothing new there either.
WarEagle,
Back to the Hasan thing, don’t you think the main concern about his being allowed in those meetings is the information he could take with him and possbily provide to radical groups he might be affiliated with, not so much whether he actively participated?