Jihadist Battle Cry Is the CRY of Islam’s God!
This IS NOT THE TIME To Be Politically Correct!
The cry of ‘Allahu akbar’ is NOT the call of Jesus,
It is a Cry of Antichrist from a RELIGION from Hell!
‘Allahu akbar’ is not a Cry of Christianity or Judaism,
It is
not a Cry of peace to nonbelievers but A CRY of Death!
Political correctness and cowardice fuels war, never stops It!
Messiah shall Quench the Cry of Allahu Akbar at Armageddon!
Please take time to read first Excerpt by Charles Krauthammer,
And a 2nd: ‘Proof that Fort Hood Shooting was Muslim Terrorism,’
That is the title of an article written by Hillel Fendel of Arutz Sheva.
November 18, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Begin Excerpt 1 from Jerusalem Post by Charles Krauthammer
Medicalizing mass murde
r
November 15, 2009
Charles Krauthammer , THE JERUSALEM POST
What a surprise – that someone who shouts “Allahu akbar” (the “God is great” jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives.
It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre downplaying Nidal Hasan’s religious beliefs.
“I cringe that he’s a Muslim… I think he’s probably just a nut case,” said Newsweek’s Evan Thomas.
Some were more adamant. Time’s Joe Klein decried “odious attempts by Jewish extremists… to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.”
While none could match Klein’s peculiar cherchez-le-juifmotif, the popular story line was of an army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
They suffered. He listened. He snapped.
Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?
And what about civilian psychiatrists – not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics – who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder
?
IT’S BEEN decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.
But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.
And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one.
After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won’t find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as “compassion fatigue.” The poor man – pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.
Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It’s a danger, clear and present.
Consider the army’s treatment of Hasan’s previous behavior. NPR’s Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising Grand Rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand Rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital – attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.
I’ve been to dozens of these.
In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia – as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan’s. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers – consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This “really freaked a lot of doctors out,” reported NPR.
Nor was this the only incident. “The psychiatrist,” reported Zwerdling, “said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he’s a terrorist, or is he just weird?”
Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not.
Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague’s religion?
One must not speak of such things. Not even now.
Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist.
As late as Tuesday, the New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.
What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn’t cry “Allahu akbar” as they squeezed the trigger.
The delicacy about the religion in question – condescending, politically correct and deadly – is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: “Jersey City m an is
charged in bombing of Trade Center.”
Ah yes, those Jersey men – so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated Washington Post columnist.
Begin Excerpt 2 from Arutz Sheva by Hillel Fendel
Proof that Fort Hood Shooting was Muslim Terrorism
by Hillel Fendel
November 16, 2009
(IsraelNN.com) While the U.S. debate continues as to whether Maj. Nidal Hassan’s murder of 13 soldiers in Texas this month was a terrorist attack, researcher Barry Rubin says the murderer himself provided the affirmative answer.
Maj. Hasan, who is now facing charges of having murdered 13 and wounded 29 in the Fort Hood shooting attack of Nov. 5, delivered a lecture in June 2007. His topic was: Islam, the complete subservience demanded by Allah and Muhammed, and threats that the American military might encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.
Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, has analyzed the slide show Hassan presented, concluding that it clearly explained his religious Muslim motives for the attack. “Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people – including the president of the United States – to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack,” Rubin laments.
Hassan had been writing e-mails to a radical cleric in Yemen who advocated killing soldiers and who called the American war on terror a “war against Muslims.” In addition, he yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he began shooting the unarmed soldiers.
Despite this, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has stated, “We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this … This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith.” In addition, Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. said, “I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers … 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 Slides Tell the Story
Rubin analyzed Hassan’s slide show, entitled, “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military,” and summed up, “All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.”
Rubin’s conclusion is that at the time of the presentation, Hassan was “still working out what to do in his own mind and… trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers.
Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions, but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.”
“In a sense,” Rubin writes, “Hassan’s lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated – rather than swept under the rug – more people will die. In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics.”
The slide show’s central theme was that Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims, and the Koran is quoted extensively to prove this. Another theme is that it is the duty of all Muslims to fight those who attack and oppress Muslims.
As Slide 40 quotes from the Koran, “Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly and justly” with those who fight Muslims – such as the U.S. Army.
Rubin noted that Hassan, an American-born Arab whose parents came from areas now under Palestinian Authority control, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews: “This is one more reminder that this struggle isn’t all just about Israel.
But it also tells something important about Hassan which also applies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hassan is an American. As such he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. He doesn’t support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That’s why he is an Islamist and why he supports a generalized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida.”
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.