US Army major kills 12 in shooting rampage

[deathfromabove]

Mosques in US seek protection

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama stressed on Saturday that people of all faiths, including Muslims, served the US military, as mosques across America sought police protection.

On Thursday, a Muslim psychiatrist in the US Army, Maj Nidal Malik Hasan, killed 13 and wounded 30 people at the Fort Hood military base. And on Saturday, the US media warned that the shootings could likely post the sternest test for US Muslims since the Sept 11 terrorist attacks.

Officials at the White House told reporters that the shootings had deeply troubled President Obama who had made repairing US relations with the Islamic world an important element of his foreign policy. US policy makers now fear that a possible public backlash against Muslims may further complicate an already difficult task.

In his weekly address on Saturday, President Obama focussed on an immediate concern: preventing religious tensions within the US armed forces, emphasising that the military employed people of all races and creeds.

‘They are Americans of every race, faith, and station. They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers,’ said Mr Obama as media reports indicated that US armed forces employed as many as 10,000 Muslims.

‘They are descendents of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America,’ the US president noted.

‘What they share is a patriotism like no other. What they share is a commitment to the country that has been tested and proved worthy.’

In Washington, Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, North and South Carolinas, New York and in several other states, mosques asked police for extra patrols. Some made their own security arrangements.

‘I went for Juma prayers today and was shocked that the masjid doors were locked from the inside and they had a camera pointed at the door to monitor the visitors,’ a Los Angeles resident, Sabahat Tanvir, told Dawn.


At some places in California, authorities have already deployed police officers outside mosques as a precaution.

Congressman Andre Carson, one of two Muslims in the US Congress, warned Americans at a news conference in Washington not to focus on the gunman’s religion.

‘This is no way a reflection of Islam any more than Timothy McVeigh’s actions are a reflection of Christianity,’ said Carson, who supervised an anti-terrorism unit in Indiana’s Department of Homeland Security and comes from a family of Marines.

Yet Muslim organisations complained that they had received dozens of death threats and hate e-mails since Saturday.

‘We do fear a backlash every time an Arab or a Muslim is found involved in an incident like this,’ said Imam Mohammed Abdullahi, of the Muslim Community Centre in Silver Spring, Maryland. Major Hasan attended this mosque before moving to Fort Hood.

In his Friday sermon, Imam Abdullahi urged worshippers to tell their non-Muslim neighbours that what happened was the act of an individual, not of a community.

Yet Bruce Hoffman, professor of security studies at Georgetown University, saw a pattern behind such attacks. ‘I’m not saying it’s part of an organised campaign or a systematic strategy, but we’re seeing a sea change when we have once a month a plot that is related somehow to Afghanistan, Iraq, or what these people see is a war against Islam,’ he told the Washington Post. ‘It’s too easy to dismiss them as unstable individuals when they have expressed strong religious beliefs with politics.’

Robert Salaam, a blogger and former US Marine who converted to Islam shortly after 9/11, warned that one man’s actions would affect all Muslims.

‘The actions of this mad man cost us, the many Muslims who have served this country honourably over the years, so much,’ he wrote. ‘Already our military loyalties, our honour, and our integrity are being questioned.’

He noted that some non-Muslims still believed that ‘an entire religious community shares responsibility for the actions of one guy that we didn’t even know existed until Thursday.’

All major US Muslim organisations urged Americans Muslims to be vigilant, both at home and at mosques.

The Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Public Affairs Council-DC, the Islamic Society of North America Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council and many others denounced the shooting as ‘a barbaric act of violence’ and urged other Americans not to blame an entire religion for the actions of one individual.

DAWN.COM | World | Mosques in US seek protection

 

[SSGPA1]

No...You cannot. Performance reviews are done by the commander and if his religion got in the way of his duties as a psychiatrist, someone who pokes around in people's minds, then a poor or even negative performance review is deserved. You cannot or should not avoid a negative opinion just for fear that person will react in a violent manner.

No he should not have. He made a commitment and he should be held accountable. The US Army paid for his education and promoted him to higher ranks when the Army felt he deserved them. The Army kept its end of the bargain.

He was a clear and present danger and imagine 2 grenades or a M16 in his hands. Funding students and having them contribute back to their communities is one thing but pushing mentals to achieve the same goal is another.

Here are some thoughts by his colleagues:

Some of the people who knew Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding 29 others in a shooting spree at Fort Hood military base in Texas, say they were concerned he did not belong in the military.


While he was a student in a military medical program, classmates complained to their instructors after Hasan expressed anti-American views. But they stopped short of filing a formal complaint in order to avoid the appearance that they were discriminating against a Muslim colleague.

When Hasan spoke with Osman Danquah, a community leader in nearby Greater Killeen, Texas, he was given blunt advice.

"I told him, 'There's something wrong with you,"' Danquah said in an interview with The Assocaited Press. "I didn't get the feeling he was talking for himself, but something just didn't seem right."

In one classroom presentation, Hasan reportedly argued that suicide bombings were justified. He also complained of being persecuted by the military because of his Muslim beliefs.

Acquaintances saw warning signs from Fort Hood suspect | Sympatico.ca News

His officers should have sent him for an eval.

 

[ARSENAL6]

. I don't care and you've gone to "IGNORE".

AT last the crazy goon IS GOING TO ignore me Hooray!
Nice to see your blood boil and getting a heart attack on the truth, that you want to hide about your countries involvement. lol

 

[ARSENAL6]

[\\\\\\\\\\\\Comment withdrawn by author \\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

[waraich66]

U.S. WAR IN AFGHANISTAN HAUNTED BY BUSH’S WAR CRIMES

By Michael Haas

While additional American troops are being deployed to Afghanistan, George W. Bush’s misdeeds continue to handicap combat effectiveness there. Past disrespect to the country must be reversed by an immediate apology to the Afghan people and new orders to field commanders to follow the Geneva Conventions on the battlefield.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan began in 2001 as a war of aggression similar to the attack on Iraq. Prior to the start of that war on Oct. 7, 2001, the Taliban government in Kabul offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, if the U.S. provided proof he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Bush deemed Kabul’s response insufficient and he attacked without adequately seeking an alternative or peaceful way to resolve differences…and the UN was not given a proper role. This attack violated Article 2 of the UN Charter that states “All members shall refrain…from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity…of any state…”

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the United States, so neither war was based on self-defense. Preemptive war is not an accepted form of self-defense under international law.

The list of U.S. war crimes committed in Afghanistan alone documented in my book include the following:


# The U.S. bombed the children’s hospital in Kabul and a hospital in Herat, resulting in 100 deaths. This violated the Red Cross Convention of 1864 that established even military hospitals as “neutral” and that must be “respected by belligerents.”

# Clearly marked Red Cross warehouses were bombed on three occasions in the Afghan War during October 2001, a violation of the Geneva Convention of 1929 that protects “the personnel of Voluntary Aid Societies.”

# During its 2001 offensive in Afghanistan, at least 1,000 civilians were killed by U.S. carpet bombing. This violates Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions prohibiting “indiscriminate attacks” against civilians.

# While the Hague Convention of 1899 requires that prisoners be “humanely treated,” this was often not the case in Afghanistan where the conditions in the prisons were so shocking that Canadian forces stopped sending prisoners to the American-run prisons at the end of 2005, preferring to send them to facilities run by the Afghan government.

# Although the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbids “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,” captives were murdered in Afghanistan’s prisons. Some were chained naked to the ceiling, cell doors, and the floor. One man, Ait Idr, had his face forced into a toilet that was repeatedly flushed. Another, Mohammed Ahmed Said Haidel, was hit with his arms tied behind his back until his head began to bleed. Another, Ahmed Darabi, was hung by his arms and repeatedly beaten, though he survived---unlike (a) taxicab driver (named) Dilawar, who died from the same treatment.

# Prisoners of war “shall be lodged in buildings or in barracks,” says the POW Convention of 1929 but many cells at American-run prisons in Afghanistan lack windows and adequate ventilation. Some prisons lacked heat during cold weather so that prisoners died of exposure. What’s more, some prisoners have been held in solitary confinement for years.

# Where the Geneva Convention decrees sick or wounded prisoners “shall not be transferred as long as their recovery may be endangered by the journey,” some prisoners transferred in Afghanistan were thrown to the ground from helicopters and badly injured. Still others were kicked or beaten en route and others died while stuffed into sealed cargo containers. Not surprisingly, the deaths of some Afghan prisoners have never been recorded, another war crimes violation.


Aggressive war was first declared to be illegal when the U.S. and France coauthored and later ratified the multilateral Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, thus incorporating that document into what the U.S. Constitution calls ”the law of the land.” Furthermore, the U.S. is a signatory to both the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, and the Tokyo Charter of 1946.

The Nuremberg Charter, for example, defines crimes against peace as “planning, preparation, initiation or the waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties…,” a definition that fits U.S. actions in Afghanistan during 2001.

It is not only the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq whose rights have been trampled, for today the globe is being transformed into an unchecked superpower playpen where might appears to make right. Hundreds of years of human rights progress are in serious jeopardy as long as governmental war criminals live blissfully in the knowledge that they will never be accountable for their crimes.

The more the public observes reference in the news to possible war crimes violations, the more decision makers will be accountable. Otherwise, the impunity of high Bush administration officials for the immense violations documented….threatens to turn back the clock on human progress by shredding the Magna Carta, the American Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and similar agreements that have advanced humanity from barbarism toward civilized behavior.

Bush has accomplished what Osama Bin Laden never thought possible---a transformed United States where leaders have abandoned democratic principles and loyal citizens are profoundly ashamed of how the ideals of the country they love so much have been abandoned. Something must be done or Americans will believe that whatever Bush has done was right.

Bringing George W. Bush and his administration to justice for war crimes is the most compelling way in which to dispel the fiction that what has been done was necessary and proper. Otherwise, the specter of war crimes will continue to haunt the world, and civilization itself will unravel helplessly. #

Professor Haas, a distinguished authority on international law and human rights, is the author or editor of 33 books on government and world politics. Haas has taught political science at Northwestern, Purdue, and the University of London. To receive his book “George W. Bush, War Criminal?”(Praeger), from which the information for this article was drawn, please send check in the amount of $32 to Haas at P.O. Box 46127, Los Angeles, CA 90046. Haas may be reached at mikehaas@aol.com.

Further Information: Sherwood Ross Associates, Suite 403, 102 S.W. 6th Ave., Miami, FL 33130

 

[The Patriot]

Really ? YOu mention about innocent peoples death what about the Innocent people who died in Afghanistan and Iraq who had nothing to with terrorism.

There is no blind hate of America its a hate that the US created due to the fact of mass murdering millions in those countries and dancing on their grave saying that it was necessarily and don't have a cares in the world if you carpet bombed them just to find a small band of murderers. Your action speaks just like a terrorist.

The only blind hate that exsits is the Blind hate on men wearing a beard and practising Islam, 5 time prayers OR someone who is not white. THats the REAL Blind hate nothing else.


Taking the lives of any Innocent individual - be it a Muslim or Non-Muslim constitutes a major sin in Islam. Taling about Forces is a difficult especailly the ones who havent been shipped out to fight so I put this to you when in Desert Storm back 1990 ( and this only a tipp of the Ice berg here)


JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: Five Years After


Did those inoccent people namly 5 year old children came to your country and killed your families ?

WHAT THE HELL DID THEY DO TO DESERVE THIS !

RIP and curse the one who did it, ORGANISE IT, SURPPORTS IT AND EVEN SUPPORTS THE CRIMINALS WHO DID IT.

All I'm hearing in the US sending more troops why to start more problems ? more hate ?
YOu are just throwing more fuel - thats what those ALkder wants you to do! so they can spread their propaganda through out the Muslim countries - you are helping them by invading and killing more innocent people.

i suggest you read my post again. you are mixing things up. i am not defending America for whatever it does anywhere in the world, and why should i. my post was about the innocent people that Major Nidal killed. its simple. those soldiers were not at war and Nidal had the sworn duty to obey the laws. they were in their own country not on enemy turf and Nidal was not the sworn soldier of enemy country.
in other words, you suggest here that as the US kills innocent people in Muslim countries so it is justified to kill innocent Americans. i bet this logic is flawed not only according to islam but human rights and international law too.

and that is why i said blind hate. because people hate America for their wars in Muslim countries, so they appreciate and justify murder of americans be they innocent. this is why it is BLIND hate.

and i believe nobody should be hated because of his or her religion be it a Muslim, Christian or Hindu or any other. so if someone is blind here too, i wont condone that either.

 

[Barrett]

i suggest you read my post again. you are mixing things up. i am not defending America for whatever it does anywhere in the world, and why should i. my post was about the innocent people that Major Nidal killed. its simple. those soldiers were not at war and Nidal had the sworn duty to obey the laws. they were in their own country not on enemy turf and Nidal was not the sworn soldier of enemy country.
in other words, you suggest here that as the US kills innocent people in Muslim countries so it is justified to kill innocent Americans. i bet this logic is flawed not only according to islam but human rights and international law too.

and that is why i said blind hate. because people hate America for their wars in Muslim countries, so they appreciate and justify murder of americans be they innocent. this is why it is BLIND hate.

and i believe nobody should be hated because of his or her religion be it a Muslim, Christian or Hindu or any other. so if someone is blind here too, i wont condone that either.

I second you on that..... "Two wrongs don't make one right"

No religion,law,society or logic can justify the right to take the life of any individual unless proven guilty.

Islam teaches us: "Killing one innocent individual (be it christian, jew, hindu or muslim etc) is the same as killing, the whole of humanity"


No Muslim and by Muslim I don't mean anyone who has a Muslim name and has Muslim parents. By Muslim I'm referring to someone who knows his religion and understands it in the right context will ever take the life of any innocent individual.

We associate a person for his wrongdoings with his religion without realizing the fact that his religion teaches him something completely different, so its not fair to give religion a bad name for someones own ignorance.

When Jerusalem was surrendered to Salahdin ... He ordered his troops to escort every man and woman(Christians/Jews) to safety, regardless of the slaughter of Muslims earlier.

People like Maj.Nidal have only given their religion a bad name and by justifying their acts lets not do the same.

Islam is not a religion of enmity.

Continue to disagree with policies of aggression and barbarianism, not by joining their Armies and killing unarmed individuals like cowards but by fighting them bravely in battle fields.

 

[ARSENAL6]

\\\\\\\\\\\\Comment withdrawn by author \\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

[The Patriot]

Bismillah



I have read your post Patriot, I just can't see any sympathy of coalition troops bombing innocent people - Plus the hypocracy that drums into you that the US the right to kill.
Although I would not be the one of those people who would shout at
those soldiers coming home but I wouldn't be please to see them. Blame on my education on WW2 who taught us that any country that invades or/and commits to mass murder should be considered to be evil doers. Films from Hollywood portray freedom fighters against occupying forces - watch the movie RED DAWN
a typical Hollywood film starring Patrick Swayee and Lee Thomson are dong the jobs like Taliban in AFganistan. Simple.


I have never suggsted that Muslims have the right to kill non-muslims in the west just because of the action thats happening more than 4000 miles away. In fact, I condenm it and Islam does not see them as Muslims. Its like justifying IDF (Israelis ) killing Palistiens

The 7/7 bomber in London back in 2005, you think they went to Junnah living with their 72 virgins ? No way ! thier first sin was to commit sucide - Islam for bids it full stop ! then they killed 56 people literally innocent people ( these people are NOT the ones who pulled the trigger in Afganistan/Iraq) heck I bet you that they were there in the protest of the anti-war in 2003:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/London_anti-war_protest_banners.jpg

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Furthermore there is something about Prophet Mohammid (PBUH)saying that if a Muslim causes harm on an innocent (I stress this strongly on some people here on this forum who claim to be) non-muslim then the Prophet (PBUH) will testify against him on they day of Judgment.
Can someone can correct me and give me links.
Ask any Muslim about the Day of Judgement how servere its going to be ?

the Patriot I don't support such acts as you have suggested, i understand where it come from and why, the root causes of it.
There is a major difference, two wrongs don't make a right otherwise we all get ourseves in the revenge/hate cycle that will go on forever.

To stop this particular man would have stop this incident but to stop and erridicate the root causes will surely stop every incident occuring in the future whether it is from the Muslim side or from the non-muslim side or both.

I would like to add, this during time of horredious aftermath of 9/11
a lot of Muslim living in the west were abused not just by people but also law enforcement, some were beaten, wrongly arrested with no proof, homes and mosques were vadalised, Quran were burnt and some muslims were murdered.
No justification were given to those innocent muslim living in the west properly.

i think we started discussion on the actions of Nidal. now you have stretched it to the coalition operations in Muslim countries. As far i have understood your post, correct me if i am wrong, that the action of nidal is the result of coalition forces killing of innocent people in Muslim countries which you call the root cause. i would say that muslims living in the US and other coalition countries already knew the US policies and coalition policies and they chose to stay there. they also joined their armies like Nidal. Nidal also made his choice like others. now it is Nidal himself responsible for whatever he did. if they have objection of coalition policies they can make their choice. it is not that the right of choice has been denied to them.
now, it is for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq if they want to take up arms against coalition forces or not. because it is their countries and their people who are getting killed.
about the Taliban let me ask you. if they are freedom fighter, what about the Afghan government and their forces. one may argue that Afghan govt is puppet regime, then tell me who is not. in today's world all the countries are interdependent and sovereignty is no more virgin terrain.
about the harassment of 9-11, i condemn all the harassment meted out to Muslims but i think it was not that much prevalent. and in the end it was the terrorist, who were Muslims, who trigger this. if someone has to be blamed its them.

 

[ARSENAL6]

\\\\\\\\\\\\Comment withdrawn by author \\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

[Barrett]

about the harassment of 9-11, i condemn all the harassment meted out to Muslims but i think it was not that much prevalent. and in the end it was the terrorist, who were Muslims, who trigger this. if someone has to be blamed its them.

Why is it that every time a Misguided,ignorant and uneducated Muslim is involved in an act of terrorism he is tagged as a "Muslim Extremist" a "Muslim Terrorist" a "Muslim Fundamentalist" eventually creating fear and hatred towards the religion of Islam.

Why weren't the Irish called "Christian Terrorists" or the Tamils "Hindu Extremists" or the Khalistan movement "Sikh Fundamentalists" ???

People are motivated religiously for Political goals.

SAD

 

[The Patriot]

I understand fully that you are totally against coalition troops in Afganistan and Iraq.



Correct.




Correct I agree with you with you about the choice thing

however I'll say this I have mention about the protest of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - one such example . It suggest that people did not want the troops to fight this war hence the huge protest (I was one of them) and we were lied as well as tricked to go into this war. Where was the democracy ? However killing innocent people like Nidal did doesn't get my sympathy at all or any person who is a Muslilm.





Agreed but my agruement were the Islmaphobes and Neo-con.
Taliban rule maybe a Much harsher Islamic rule having a American Neo-con who has Islmaphobe view is far worse Obviously you know Furthermore some people here think Captilsm Christain democracy is the solution in those islamic countrries and nothing else.

Edit what I'm trying to say is double stadard thats been practice here and mention all over on this forum. No one said that the Taliban the solution of Afaganistan and if you agree that Afgan people should be left then I can't see any evidence at all as more troop are pouring in.

Patriot I agree most what you said in your last post.

more things are coming up in your post now like Capitalist Christian democracy, democracy in the West which lied and tricked you, neo-cons, islamophobia, double standard of the people on the forum, and me being against the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq etc. Its stretching a lot. i would end my arguments here.
thanks

 

[ARSENAL6]

Why is it that every time a Misguided,ignorant and uneducated Muslim is involved in an act of terrorism he is tagged as a "Muslim Extremist" a "Muslim Terrorist" a "Muslim Fundamentalist" eventually creating fear and hatred towards the religion of Islam.

Why weren't the Irish called "Christian Terrorists" or the Tamils "Hindu Extremists" or the Khalistan movement "Sikh Fundamentalists" ???

People are motivated religiously for Political goals.

SAD

Barret thats how it is Muslim are put on the lime light.

the good news here in england there are a lot of Non-muslims anti-war protestors had put up this very agrument during question time BBC.

 

[ARSENAL6]

\\\\\\\\\\\\Comment withdrawn by author \\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

[The Patriot]

Why is it that every time a Misguided,ignorant and uneducated Muslim is involved in an act of terrorism he is tagged as a "Muslim Extremist" a "Muslim Terrorist" a "Muslim Fundamentalist" eventually creating fear and hatred towards the religion of Islam.

Why weren't the Irish called "Christian Terrorists" or the Tamils "Hindu Extremists" or the Khalistan movement "Sikh Fundamentalists" ???

People are motivated religiously for Political goals.

SAD

Spare me Barret. If you read again my post you will notice that i did not use "islamic or Muslim terrorist". I said "terrorists, who were Muslims." and because they were Muslims there was a reaction to the Muslim community, and that is why i had to say it there.

there is a consensus among journalists and academicians that they will not use the term Islamic terrorism. it is now rather called religious terrorism, or global terrorism or international terrorism. however, there are exceptions.

as far as i know, terrorists who are Muslims are called Muslims extremists or fundamentalists because they are motivated by their faith for violence. Irish were not called christian terrorists because their agenda was ethnic. they did not want a separate christian land but a separate or independent Irish land. Tamils too had ethnic agenda. Tamil wanted a separate land for Tamils from the majority Sinhalese. but there was a religious dimension to it too. they are hindus while Sinhalese are Budhists. Sikh could be termed as religious or Sikh extremists as their political agenda was based on their faith.