Friday, November 06, 2009

One Of My Worst Fears [Added Links]

Ever since the horrendous terrorist attack that occurred on U.S. soil on 9/11/01 by radical Islamic terrorists, one of my worst fears has been infiltration of terrorist individuals (or cells) here in the United States. Why should we ever believe that they aren't already here? They have been for some time.

Yesterday was a shock beyond belief. It was the worst terrorist attack perpetrated against our military on a military base here in the United States. I could not sleep last night! I kept waking up and turning on the T.V. for more news about the murderer.

Sometimes, I have found that it is better for other people to give details rather than express my own thoughts and worries on the matter. The following two links are not the usual politically correct spin that you will most likely hear on the MSM news broadcasts. At least Fox News has been more up front about the possible motive. Bill Hemmer reported that the shooter yelled "Allah Akbar" before gunning down 44 people. Personally, I think that the details coming forward now show that the man was a radical Islamic terrorist. Whether he was radicalized after being in the army (or before 9/11) or after is what might need to be investigated.


6 November 2009: The shooting attack at Ft. Hood Thursday by a Muslim soldier is anything but an isolated incident. It is the latest in a series of attacks by Muslim soldiers who have violated their oath to protect and defend this country, instead placing their allegiance in the religion, culture and political system known as Islam. Even if it is ultimately determined that Nidal Malik HASAN was the sole perpetrator in this mass murder, there are co-conspirators.

The co-conspirators are each and every politician, policymaker and pundit who has force-fed the American people the lie that Islam “is a religion of peace” or is a “religion hijacked. Whether it is for the shallow purposes of political expediency, political correctness or just plain naiveté, those who espouse and advance this perilous view have their share of innocent blood on their hands.

The latest murderous rampage should be sufficient to illustrate that Islam is totally incompatible with freedom, democracy and Western culture. Faced with the choice between upholding their oath to the United States and advancing Islam by any means possible, it will always be the latter. As soon as people begin to understand and accept this concept, we can better secure our homeland and lower the potential body count of innocent men, women and children.

There are some who contend - with a straight face, no less - that “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” (PTSD) might be the cause for HASAN’s murder spree. The only “stressors” in this case would result from attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable.

If the mass murder at Ft. Hood yesterday is not convincing enough, how about the March 23, 2003 grenade attack by Muslim Sgt. Hasan Karim Akbar that killed Army Captain Christopher Seifert and Air Force Major Gregory Stone and wounded 14 others? Or the June 1st, 2009 shooting attack at the Little Rock recruiting center by 23 year-old Muslim Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed two officers?

Of course, the treachery is not just limited to murder. While serving as a naval signalman on board the USS Benfoldin the months following the attack on the USS Cole, Hassan Abujihaad (a/k/a Paul R. Hall) actively provided Islamic terrorists with sensitive information about the location of Navy ships and their weaknesses. He also discussed sniper attacks on military personnel and attacks on U.S. military recruitment sites with Muslim terrorists as well. For his crimes, Abujihaad is currently serving a ten-(10) year sentence.

There is also U.S. Army captain James “Yousef” LEE, the former Muslim chaplain charged with espionage while serving at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. YEE was arrested at a U.S. airport on charges of espionage after he was caught in possession of detailed maps of the detention facility along with other classified materials. In addition to YEE, two other Islamic Arabic translators stationed at Guantanamo were convicted of unauthorized possession of classified documents.

Ultimately, the U.S. Army opted not to proceed with the espionage charges against YEE due to national security concerns arising from the evidence that would be made available to the public at the trial.Nonetheless, the facts are the facts.

The common thread here is Islam. Allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military in 2009 makes as much sense as if we would have allowed Nazi’s to serve in our armed forces in 1939. It would have been lunacy then, and its lunacy now.

Continue reading here.

Military jihadists fill 'every branch'
Ultimate 5th column penetration, warns best-selling 'Muslim Mafia'


"Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor." That's what Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan said about America before he and possibly other Muslim soldiers at Fort Hood shot 43 fellow soldiers, killing 12, who were returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"He said Muslims had a right to attack" the U.S., said Col. Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at the Texas post, where the devout Sunni Muslim refused deployment. "He said Muslims shouldn't be fighting Muslims," he added. "He was very clear on that."

Shockingly, a growing number of other Muslim American soldiers as well as civilian contractors have put their religion before their duty. Some like Hasan have killed, or tried to kill, their fellow soldiers. Others have infiltrated the military in order to undermine it and aid and comfort the enemy.

According to an explosive new book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating within the ranks of the U.S. military – which is too blinded by political correctness to see the threat.

Security officials at Gitmo have been investigating a possible new spy ring involving several "dirty" Arabic linguists who are accused among other things of:

omitting valuable intelligence from their translations of detainee interrogations;

slipping notes to detainees inside copies of the Quran;

coaching detainees to make allegations of abuse against interrogators; and

meeting with suspects on the terrorist watch list while traveling back in the United States.

More than 75 former Gitmo detainees have returned to the battlefield or anti-American jihad. Some met with the suspect Muslim translators. Others were privately counseled by chaplains also under investigation for security breaches.

Gitmo security officials recently met with FBI agents in Philadelphia to aid their investigation into one of the Muslim linguists under contract at Gitmo, according to sources quoted in the book who are familiar with the investigation.

They also this summer briefed members of Congress about the prison camp's internal security breaches, according to "Muslim Mafia," which is co-authored by former federal agent P. David Gaubatz and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington," which is being used by law enforcement and the military.

"Three years of investigations have revealed the presence of pro-jihad/anti-Western activities among the civilian contractor and military linguist population serving Joint Task Force Guantanamo," states a copy of the classified Gitmo briefing, which was prepared in May 2009 for the FBI and CIA, as well as the congressional intelligence committees.

Continue reading here.

Hat Tips to both links.


There is a page full of articles with more details at World Net Daily


More blog posts:

Nice Deb: How Did The Army Miss All The Red Flags?

The Obama File: Major Malik Nadal Hasan -- Jihadii

Concluding quote:

And this morning, the military-loathing Obama, showing no emotion, said, "blah, blah, blah, . . . don't jump to conclusions . . . blah, blah, blah," and ran and hid in the White House, taking no questions from the press.

Emerging Bias: Newsweek Claims Fort Hood Shooter Exposed Overstretched 'Military on the Brink'

This is certainly scary to learn:

Constitutionally Speaking: Ft. Hood Shooter Was a Member of Obama's Homeland Security Transition Team

Even though authorities are still searching for "the motive," perhaps all we need to know to figure it out is:

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE, Associated Press Writer Brett J. Blackledge, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – His name appears on radical Internet postings.

Atlas Shrugs: Major Muslim Hasan Advised Obama's Department of Homeland Security

Evil Conservative Online: Ft. Hood Shooting: Obama's Insensitivity Shocks and Awes


But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.

Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch at the event.

Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.

I must admit, I had the same, sick-to-my-stomach reaction when Obama showed just how soulless he really can be...

America's Right: A History of 'Frightening Insensitivity'

A More Likely Scenario


madmath1 said...

So an Islamic spewing his usual hate for all to see, is being watched by the FBI (where were they? Hiding under their rock?) and then goes on a shooting rampage and we're not suppose to believe it's terrorism. Muslim will always have their religon, a religon of peices, first. It's no shock that Muslim will betray their country before their religon and Obama knows this because he said so in his book. What's worse, and this will explain his reaction because he's on the terrorists side as if his apology tours aren't enough proof, but a quote (and I got the audio books quoted from his very own mouth) When it comes to a conflict with the United States with the Islamic world, I will take the sides of the Muslim every time. I've never forgotten that statement, tried to warn others about him on his stance with terrorism, and now this happens. Frankly, I would had been shocked if he showed any emotion at all, other than delight or disappointment the terrorist didn't cause more causalties.

What's worse, a civilian, A CIVILIAN!!!! shot and stop this animals. How is it on the biggest military base in the world with the most powerful army in the world shot down by one to three lunatics and nobody was able to stop them? Where were the guns, the MP's? Why a police officer had to stop him. If I was a member of an Islamic cell, I would be rejoicing and preparing for more attacks because the US is so weak and stupid, they can't even fire back. What's interesting to note that when Bush was president, we didn't get hit on our soil after 9-11. Since BO has taken office and it hasn't even been a year yet, there's already been three. This is only the beginning folks. These evil monsters have more planned all in the name of Islam.

GMpilot said...

Oh brother...

I'm surprised that you—or one of your fellow Fringers—hasn't actually tied this tragic incident directly to Obama. I'm sure, however, that someone will, probably someone affiliated to WND.

I'm also certain that it'll be tied-in to that last TEA party event, where SO MANY angry citizens turned up that the administration had to do something to knock it off the headlines—so it staged a mass shooting on a military base, because we all know several dozen dead and wounded soldiers are far more newsworthy than legislation that Congresswoman Bachmann wants to kill.

How many did show up at that event, BTW? Five hundred thousand? Fifty thousand? Did they take the time off from their jobs and go there, or did that Astroturf-roots organization Dick Armey's a part of pay for the buses to take them there? And what about the five people who suffered heart attacks while there—did they still bitch about the government-run health care they received on the spot?

I really shouldn't be here right now, because you're still out there, eyes aflame in holy indignation, seeking to place the blame on “Muslim” terrorism. But Timothy McVeigh killed for similar beliefs, and no one dared label him a “Christian” terrorist.
Until we know for sure, if we ever do (because Hasan may not survive), it might be wiser to wait. We can, and should, mourn the dead, and let events show us if it was Muslim terrorism by a 'sleeper', or just as senseless a killing as Virginia Tech was.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine, there is no doubt that what happened is pretty horrific. However, we can't blame all of Islam on what this person did, any more than we can say that all Christians are terrorists because of someone like Timothy McVeigh. We all know what the Christians did in the Crusades, so does that mean all Christians are terrorists? Far from it.
Besides, people have a Constitutional right to practice whatever religion they choose. To say (as one of your links said) that we need to keep Muslims out of the army because they practice a certain religion is unconstitutional.
Anyway, as I said, what happened is pretty awful.

Gary Baker said...

GM does make a valid point. If the man was strictly acting on his own, if there were no links to like-minded others, then it is difficult to classify this as traditional terrorism. But does that really make it better?

GM also brought up the example of McVeigh. He was also a lone person acting according to a set of believes. The problem with the comparison comes when we examine how many others have acted in accordance with the same beliefs that McVeigh expressed. The answer is none. While he claimed to be a Christian, was he really acting according to what Christ commanded? No, he wasn't. Now, take a look at our current lone major. Have others acted like him in going on lone rampages? Yes, they have because that is at least a part of what their beliefs call for.

So while this may be not be terrorism, it does beg a disturbing question: If individuals can feel compelled to join institutions in our society knowing that they will be compelled to commit violence and feel it is their sacred duty to do so, how can we trust any adherent when they claim to be non-violent or "moderate"?

Christinewjc said...


Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and comments. I can see that none of us are going to completely agree with each other.

Ultimately, (IMHO) it comes down to whether or not you are a believer that radical Islam is at war with the West, or, that we are engaged in an "Overseas Contingency Operation" which refuses to name our enemy as Islamic terrorists.

It also comes down to believing that terrorist cells (including sleeper cells) and individuals have infiltrated many institutions (including our military) here in America, or, you ignorantly want to believe that Islam is a "religion of peace."

I think that Joe Lieberman's interview on Fox News Sunday reveals the truth. The massacre needs to be investigated. I was so glad that Joe wasn't like all the rest of the "politically correct" people out there in the news media - scared to tell it like it is. The reality is that there is increasing evidence that this was a terrorist attack upon our military by a radicalized, home-grown Muslim terrorist.

One of the best essays on this issue can be found over at The Obama File: Obama Urges Americans To Deny Reality.

The entire article (supplied with links as evidence) concludes with several paragraphs that show how Obama and the left are actively denying reality on this issue:

Robert Spencer, an Islamic expert, said Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear -- but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened -- and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored.

David Horowitz, a rehabilitated Leftist, describes America as "our brain-dead country," arguing a Muslim fanatic with an Internet site praising Islamic suicide bombers as defenders of their comrades is a Major in the U.S. Army with access to military intelligence and lethal weaponry. And it’s not as though the army didn’t know that he was a Muslim fanatic and supporter of the Islamic jihad against the West. He was under investigation for six months because of his anti-American, jihadist rants. He did not want to be deployed. He wanted to be discharged.

Obama will fight hard -- really hard -- to make sure Hasan's jihad is not described as a terrorist attack, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Why? Because the last thing Obama wants is to follow George Bush's record of having prevented any further attacks on US soil by having one happen on his watch in the first year of his coup.

George Bush kept us safe for 8 years -- Obama, 9 months and 15 days.

Remember Obama said this -- "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Christinewjc said...

I have started reading all of the links provided in The Obama File essay. Over at Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog, a commenter wrote this:

Posted by: Nate Lenz | Saturday, November 07, 2009 at 01:55 PM


see the forest, see the trees, ...

mikal nada hasan was on the obama team. this was a man who in may of 2009 while stationed at walter reed hospital in washington, d.c. was supposed to be caring for the needs of american servicemen.

he was engaged with george washington university in the preparation of a "proceedings report of the hspi presidential transition taskforce."

now, i have seen press reports that try to spin this by saying that nadal hasan was just in the audience, and had been there only in response to invitation to attend.

this is bunk.

he was on the policy team with a united states congresswoman, and two members of the department of homeland security, and he was responsible for formulating "security priorites" for the next administration.

someone has to bite these people on the neck, and keep biting. this person, was working for the president of the united states in may of 2009 in setting "security priorities" for our nation. this man, who has killed 13 of our service people and wounded scores of others, several of whom battle for their lives even now, ... , this man, worked for a transition team which answered to and was to advise the president of the united states.

he was/is, hardly a man who is "incidental" to events.

pamela will not let this go by unnoticed. the rest of you have to stand and shout, and let it be known, that this murderous assassin was connected to obama, and we cannot let obama and the d.h.s. try and distance themselves from this fact, by implausible denial.

g_d bless you, pamela geller, for this post. mitzvahs shower upon you.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

p.s. friends, so often we read things, and really don't digest the significance of what we are reading. please, please, read that program note again & again, and understand its significance. this murderer, this islamic murderer, this muslim murderer, was working on behalf of the transition team for the president of the united states. you think a congresswoman and two home land security employees were there for coffee and scones? do you?


My question: will the significance of this find be ignored (just like every other criminal/anti-American/unconstitutional thing that Obama and his cohorts have done!)by the media?

Christinewjc said...

Take a look at this list!

Atlas Shrugs: Round-up of Jihad in America just this past month

Christinewjc said...

Oops - correction. Previous comment at Atlas Shrugs was posted by:

Posted by: jj | Saturday, November 07, 2009 at 02:13 PM

Gary Baker said...


Yes, we all know what Christians did in the Crusades, which might be a great concern if we lived hundreds of years ago. Why, they were as brutal in war as the Muslims. On the other hand, take a look at Muslim countries today and how well anyone confessing to be gay over there today might do, and you can see that there really is a startling difference. And, as I mentioned in my previous comment, there is quite a difference between calling the man at Ft. Hood a Muslim extremist and calling Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist or extremist. McVeigh was acting directly contrary to the commands of Christ. The major was acting fully in accordance with the directives of Mohammad, which is why violence against others in the name of religion is such a large part of the culture in Muslim dominated countries. I'm sure you can see the truth if you will allow yourself to do so.

Christinewjc said...

Thank you Gary. What you have pointed out is truly the difference between those who would kill while "professing" to be Christian, vs. those who kill professing to be devout Muslims.

A Christian who kills does so in direct opposition to what Christ actually taught; whereas a Muslim kills in accordance to what Mohammad DID teach - and what the Koran directs them to do.

From Obama File link:

Hasan has said Muslims should "rise up" and attack Americans in retaliation for the US war in Iraq, and that he was "happy" when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June, and "maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square" in New York."

At Walter Reed, as an Army psychiatrist, Hasan was supposed to give a "grand round" -- a medical lecture. Instead, he treated medical personnel to a dawah session, trying to frighten them into Islam with threats of hell. Hasan made four assertions about the Koran:

1. "If you don't believe, you are condemned to hell" -- Koran 4:140; Koran 9:49; Koran 9:68; Koran 9:73

2. If you don't believe, "your head is cut off" -- Koran 8:12; Koran 47:4

3. If you don't believe, "you're set on fire" -- Koran 33:64; Koran 48:13; Koran 76:4

4. If you don't believe, "burning oil is burned down your throat" -- Koran 18:29; Koran 44:43-46

Christinewjc said...

GMPilot -

You wrote:

"I'm surprised that you—or one of your fellow Fringers—hasn't actually tied this tragic incident directly to Obama. I'm sure, however, that someone will, probably someone affiliated to WND.".

Someone already has tied Hassan to Obama. See this post and this one.

More importantly, however, is the cold-hearted disconnect that Obama showed when the American people were reeling and grieving over the horrible attack that killed 12 U.S. army men/women and one civilian, while wounding 30 (with seven in critical condition) others.

Kevin McCullough says it better than I can: Why Obama is Blind to Terror... & Freedom


But the rank and sophomoric way he began the speech was off-putting. Commentators for NBC even wrote in shock at the President's lack of protocol, sensitivity, or even awareness of the pain the nation was feeling at that moment roughly two hours after the drama began.

But if all that was merely an innocent mistake by an increasingly wet-behind-the-ears rookie some nine months after taking office, what was to be revealed within the hour would be stomach churning.

In his remarks President Obama called for everyone to remain calm and to not jump to conclusions about the cause, rationale, and motivation behind the shooting incident.

Evidently what President Obama meant was for the average American to disengage their mind from the truth his lying eyes and ears easily showed them.

Within the hour Stephen Hayes reported on "the panel" on Fox News' Special Report that sources inside the Obama administration's FBI leadership had confirmed that the investigation was not to be giving any discussion to the possible merits of connecting the shooting at Ft. Hood to terrorism.

Incredible...A man yells, "Allah Akbar" before unloading his weapon, after posting repeatedly on pro-terrorist web-sites for months, and had been ranting about not being forced to serve in Iraq nor Afghanistan because he objected to the purposes of the U.S. Military in those regions, but his connections to terrorism were not to be "considered."

How could such a posture come about in the FBI? We real Americans would like to know.

Millions of Americans have taken note of Obama's callousness and disconnectedness to the sorrow that we all were feeling on that dreadful day. Obama's stone-cold, soulless attitude was quite evident - and the American people will never forget it.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary and Christine,
Gary--I do agree with you that it probably isn't the best analogy with the Crusades. My point is that religion can be used for horrible purposes--including misreading what the Bible has to say (of course, there are pretty clear war-like statements in the Old Testament).
About the gay situation--I agree with you on that. To be gay here is certainly safer than to be gay there. But I'm not sure what this has to do with this massacre and what I said. The U.S. was not a safe place for the glbt community until relatively recently (yes, there were no hangings and beheadings, but none the less, not a pleasant place to be--and in some places it still isn't safe to be out).
We all know that there are many different kinds of Christianity out there, who interpret the message of Jesus. It is the same with Islam. Some groups pick out the most violent messages and decide that that is their religion. Some also pick out the peaceful messages and make that their religion.
I've found that even in the most simple cases of the statements of Jesus there is debate on what he meant. That leads to problems.

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

"My point is that religion can be used for horrible purposes"

Quite so, but evil people can use anything for evil purposes. In the last century, the largest mass murders and terrorist acts were performed under the banner of atheism. At the same time, far more people were killed, imprisoned or persecuted for Christianity in the past century than in the 2000 years previous, so continually casting it along side the more violent religions is hardly a fair comparison. For example, when surveyed, fifteen percent of Muslims in England stated the belief that violence was justified to spread Islam. If anywhere near that number of Christians felt the same, you would have Christians blowing things up in the mid-East all the time. But you don't. And the reason that you don't is that Christ very unambiguously stated that Christians were not to engage in violent means, and anyone who did so was not following his commands. So any attempt to make the comparison between Islam and Christianity as violent religions fails. Yes, there are definitely some passages where Christ was not completely clear, but anything regarding use of violence is not among them. The main problem created in that regard is for Muslim apologists.

With regards to the glbt situation and your question, the comment was included for this reason: The more that the level of education among Christians has increased, the less violence against others there is. During the middle ages, the continent of Europe was nominally Christian, but no one knew what the message said outside of the priests. As that has changed, the human rights situation has improved. You can't make that claim in Muslim dominated countries. They remain repressive because that is what their religion calls for.

GMpilot said...

I hope your friends at Obama File did their homework with those Koranic quotes. The last time you quoted someone who claimed specific verses in that book, I exposed him--and you--for the lazy, imprecise Islamophobes that you are.

Mr. Baker, you are right that such governments are repressive because that's what their religion calls for, but the same claim could have been made about Christianity, and not all that long ago. What great revelation from God changed everyone’s mind about slavery, for example?

But I digress. As it stands, we still have no conclusive evidence that Maj. Hasan was part of any secret cell, or that he was anything more than a Muslim who was deeply troubled by his beliefs, the possibility that he may have to engage in combat with others who shared those beliefs, and the traumatic stories he’d heard from soldiers who had been exposed to battle conditions in Islamic nations.
Absolutely none of this excuses what he did, but we don’t want an excuse. We want an explanation, and frothing at the mouth about how Islam is eee-vil will not provide that.

Gary Baker said...

Hi GM,

You could make the same claim about Christianity, but it would be incorrect, and would seem very hypocritical in light of the criticism that you leveled against Christine about being lazy and imprecise. In point of fact, there is no call in the words of Christ to repress anyone. People used some of the writings of St. Paul to justify their desire to maintain slavery, but that doesn't mean that they were actually in support of them, now does it? In fact, at a time when much of the world embraced slavery in one form or another, it was largely through the actions of Christian abolitionists that it was finally outlawed in England, the US, and much of the Western world. It's very odd how seldom atheists bring up that point, isn't it? Of course, it's also very odd that they are so often condemning any religious teaching as being "repressive" considering that the most murderous and repressive governments of the 20th century were dedicated to imposing atheism on the populous, to the tune of millions beaten, imprisoned, tortured, murdered, etc.

Now, while correctly point out that there is no evidence linking the major to coordinated action, there is indeed evidence that he is far more than a "Muslim who was deeply troubled by his beliefs." Had that been the case, he would not have sought communication with organizations known for violence against the US and their own people who disagreed with a violent form of Islam. Your argument about him being upset at the possibility of having to engage in combat with others sharing the same view is also lame and illogical. As a therapist, he had no combat responsibilities. As an officer, he had the option of resigning. And most importantly, if he had issues about serving, no one held a gun to his head (and pardon me if that sounds like an insensitive turn of phrase) to join. He joined of his own will. He stayed of his own will. He killed helpless innocents of his own will when it would have been easy to avoid. This is also hardly the first case of such religious inspired shootings. As for explanation, as I have mentioned before, a survey in Britain showed that 15% of Muslims believe that violent Jihad is acceptable. There has also been no evidence that American Muslims are any less radical. Evidence is quite to the contrary, in fact.

We've given the "religion of peace" the benefit of the doubt. I think it's time for them to start having to prove their good intentions.