Investigative reporter Bill Gertz has revealed: “Almost two years before the deadly Fort Hood shooting by a radicalized Muslim officer, the U.S. Army was explicitly warned that jihadism — Islamic holy war — was a serious problem and threat to personnel in the U.S., according to participants at a major Army-sponsored conference.”
Over 350 Army officials involved in counterterror efforts attended this February 2008 conference. One of the speakers, Lt. Colonel Joseph Myers, explains the topic of his lecture: “I noted that because of our lack of understanding of Islamic doctrines, Islamic Jihad and my view that our counterintelligence function is broken, outdated and being usurped in some cases by public affairs and equal opportunity officials, we were going to get soldiers killed in America, on our own bases for that professional ignorance.”
And that’s just what happened at Fort Hood.
What makes this so profoundly disturbing is that it shows that senior level officials knew. They were explicitly warned that jihadism — Islamic holy war — was a serious problem and a threat to military personnel and civilians alike. And still they did nothing. Not only did they do nothing, but they left known jihadis like Nidal Hasan, who murdered thirteen Americans at Fort Hood in his jihad attack of November 2009, in place and unsupervised.
They knew. And still they sacrificed Americans.
Showing posts with label Fort Hood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fort Hood. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Muslim hired to train soldiers after Fort Hood shootings under investigation for radical ties
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan wasn't the only guy with extremist ties counseling soldiers at Fort Hood last year, as my story in Sunday's Dallas Morning News shows.
There was at least one more: Louay Safi (shown at right). A month after the worst military-base massacre in U.S. history, he taught Islam to officers who were deploying to Afghanistan. He'd been doing this work on bases around the country, as a military subcontractor, since 2005.
That same year, federal prosecutors named Safi an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism-support trial of his old buddy Sami al-Arian. The reason: a wiretapped phone call in which the two men mocked a U.S. order banning dealings with foreign terrorist groups and agreed that Jews controlled the White House.
Al-Arian has since been convicted. But he still faces criminal contempt charges for refusing to testify before a grand jury about the International Institute of Islamic Thought -- a northern Virginia think tank that counterterrorism agents raided in 2002, when Safi was its research director.
Safi now faces a criminal inquiry by the military but has never been criminally charged. He denies wrongdoing. He also has described post-9/11 counterterrorism crackdowns as a "campaign against Islam."
Does that phrase sound familiar? "War against Islam" is a term used by both Hasan and the al-Qaeda-connected imam he consulted before the Fort Hood massacre.
Since 2004, Safi has been a top official at the Islamic Society of North America. An ISNA-related trust owns the northern Virginia mosque where Hasan met his imam in 2001.
The imam, a U.S.-born resident of Yemen named Anwar al-Awlaki, is now suspected of aiding the Underwear Bomber -- the young fellow who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25. Al-Awlaki was questioned by the FBI repeatedly about his ties to the 9/11 hijackers, some of whom attended his Virginia mosque.
There was at least one more: Louay Safi (shown at right). A month after the worst military-base massacre in U.S. history, he taught Islam to officers who were deploying to Afghanistan. He'd been doing this work on bases around the country, as a military subcontractor, since 2005.
That same year, federal prosecutors named Safi an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism-support trial of his old buddy Sami al-Arian. The reason: a wiretapped phone call in which the two men mocked a U.S. order banning dealings with foreign terrorist groups and agreed that Jews controlled the White House.
Al-Arian has since been convicted. But he still faces criminal contempt charges for refusing to testify before a grand jury about the International Institute of Islamic Thought -- a northern Virginia think tank that counterterrorism agents raided in 2002, when Safi was its research director.
Safi now faces a criminal inquiry by the military but has never been criminally charged. He denies wrongdoing. He also has described post-9/11 counterterrorism crackdowns as a "campaign against Islam."
Does that phrase sound familiar? "War against Islam" is a term used by both Hasan and the al-Qaeda-connected imam he consulted before the Fort Hood massacre.
Since 2004, Safi has been a top official at the Islamic Society of North America. An ISNA-related trust owns the northern Virginia mosque where Hasan met his imam in 2001.
The imam, a U.S.-born resident of Yemen named Anwar al-Awlaki, is now suspected of aiding the Underwear Bomber -- the young fellow who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25. Al-Awlaki was questioned by the FBI repeatedly about his ties to the 9/11 hijackers, some of whom attended his Virginia mosque.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Mark Steyn on Fort Hood shooter:"political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way"
,,,a constrained and regulated culture policed by politically correct enforcers leads to slaughter. I’m not being speculative here, as Commissar Lynch is about my murderous prose style. It’s already happened, just a couple of weeks back. Thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the U.S. Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. In the days that followed, the near parodically absurd revelations piled up like an overripe satire, but a two-panel cartoon at the Toronto blogger Scaramouche’s website provided the pithiest distillation:
“This is your brain. This is your brain on political correctness”—a small and shrivelled thing.
“This is your brain. This is your brain on political correctness”—a small and shrivelled thing.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Fort Hood shooter may offer insanity plea
An Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people during an attack on his Texas post will likely plead not guilty to the charges against him and may use an insanity defense at his military trial, his attorney said Monday.
John Galligan, the civilian attorney for Maj. Nidal Hasan, said he is considering an insanity defense among other options, but that it's too early to determine his defense strategy.
"Based on the evidence thus far, his mental status must be raised," Galligan told The Associated Press by phone from his office near Fort Hood, about 130 miles southwest of Dallas. "Anybody who allegedly engages in conduct that is completely contradictory to his lifestyle and military career—an insanity defense has to be considered."
Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 shooting at Fort Hood, and military officials have said they may file more charges. More than two dozen others were wounded in the shooting spree, which happened at a building where soldiers finalize their wills and are medically screened before they are deployed.
Galligan said military law requires his client to plead not guilty if prosecutors seek the death penalty, but he said that decision has not been made.
John Galligan, the civilian attorney for Maj. Nidal Hasan, said he is considering an insanity defense among other options, but that it's too early to determine his defense strategy.
"Based on the evidence thus far, his mental status must be raised," Galligan told The Associated Press by phone from his office near Fort Hood, about 130 miles southwest of Dallas. "Anybody who allegedly engages in conduct that is completely contradictory to his lifestyle and military career—an insanity defense has to be considered."
Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 shooting at Fort Hood, and military officials have said they may file more charges. More than two dozen others were wounded in the shooting spree, which happened at a building where soldiers finalize their wills and are medically screened before they are deployed.
Galligan said military law requires his client to plead not guilty if prosecutors seek the death penalty, but he said that decision has not been made.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Voters blame political correctness for failure to stop Nidal Malik Hasan's shootings at Fort Hood
Sixty-three percent (63%) of U.S. voters say political correctness prevented the military from responding to warning signs from Major Nidal Malik Hasan that could have prevented the Fort Hood shootings from taking place.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 16% disagree and do not believe political correctness kept military authorities from possibly stopping the killing of 13 people and the wounding of many others in the November 5 incident. Twenty-one percent (21%) are not sure.
Voters also have very mixed feelings about how President Obama and the Army responded to the Fort Hood incident.
Older Americans are more suspicious of political correctness than voters under 40. Whites were more likely than African-Americans to think political correctness kept the military from responding to warning signs from Hasan.
Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major political party overwhelmingly believe political correctness held the military back. That view is shared by 49% of Democrats while 23% of those in the president’s party disagree.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 16% disagree and do not believe political correctness kept military authorities from possibly stopping the killing of 13 people and the wounding of many others in the November 5 incident. Twenty-one percent (21%) are not sure.
Voters also have very mixed feelings about how President Obama and the Army responded to the Fort Hood incident.
Older Americans are more suspicious of political correctness than voters under 40. Whites were more likely than African-Americans to think political correctness kept the military from responding to warning signs from Hasan.
Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major political party overwhelmingly believe political correctness held the military back. That view is shared by 49% of Democrats while 23% of those in the president’s party disagree.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Top psychiatrist at Walter Reed warned Fort Hood that Hasan was reckless nnd incompetent
One of the top psychiatrists at Walter Reed was so concerned about Hasan, that he wrote a memo outlining his belief in the terrorist's incompetence and reckless behavior.
Daniel Swerdling of NPR has the scoop:
Two years ago, a top psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was so concerned about what he saw as Nidal Hasan's incompetence and reckless behavior that he put those concerns in writing. NPR has obtained a copy of the memo, the first evaluation that has surfaced from Hasan's file.
Officials at Walter Reed sent that memo to Fort Hood this year when Hasan was transferred there.
Nevertheless, commanders still assigned Hasan - accused of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood on Nov. 5 - to work with some of the Army's most troubled and vulnerable soldiers.
The Damning Memo
On May 17, 2007, Hasan's supervisor at Walter Reed sent the memo to the Walter Reed credentials committee. It reads, "Memorandum for: Credentials Committee. Subject: CPT Nidal Hasan." More than a page long, the document warns that: "The Faculty has serious concerns about CPT Hasan's professionalism and work ethic. ... He demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and a lack of professionalism." It is signed by the chief of psychiatric residents at Walter Reed, Maj. Scott Moran.
When shown the memo, two leading psychiatrists said it was so damning, it might have sunk Hasan's career if he had applied for a job outside the Army.
That's not all. The behavior the psychiatrist bases this memo on is just incredible:
The memo ticks off numerous problems over the course of Hasan's training, including proselytizing to his patients. It says he mistreated a homicidal patient and allowed her to escape from the emergency room, and that he blew off an important exam.
According to the memo, Hasan hardly did any work: He saw only 30 patients in 38 weeks. Sources at Walter Reed say most psychiatrists see at least 10 times that many patients. When Hasan was supposed to be on call for emergencies, he didn't even answer the phone.
Daniel Swerdling of NPR has the scoop:
Two years ago, a top psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was so concerned about what he saw as Nidal Hasan's incompetence and reckless behavior that he put those concerns in writing. NPR has obtained a copy of the memo, the first evaluation that has surfaced from Hasan's file.
Officials at Walter Reed sent that memo to Fort Hood this year when Hasan was transferred there.
Nevertheless, commanders still assigned Hasan - accused of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood on Nov. 5 - to work with some of the Army's most troubled and vulnerable soldiers.
The Damning Memo
On May 17, 2007, Hasan's supervisor at Walter Reed sent the memo to the Walter Reed credentials committee. It reads, "Memorandum for: Credentials Committee. Subject: CPT Nidal Hasan." More than a page long, the document warns that: "The Faculty has serious concerns about CPT Hasan's professionalism and work ethic. ... He demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and a lack of professionalism." It is signed by the chief of psychiatric residents at Walter Reed, Maj. Scott Moran.
When shown the memo, two leading psychiatrists said it was so damning, it might have sunk Hasan's career if he had applied for a job outside the Army.
That's not all. The behavior the psychiatrist bases this memo on is just incredible:
The memo ticks off numerous problems over the course of Hasan's training, including proselytizing to his patients. It says he mistreated a homicidal patient and allowed her to escape from the emergency room, and that he blew off an important exam.
According to the memo, Hasan hardly did any work: He saw only 30 patients in 38 weeks. Sources at Walter Reed say most psychiatrists see at least 10 times that many patients. When Hasan was supposed to be on call for emergencies, he didn't even answer the phone.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
In a room full of soldiers, only the bad guy was armed; no Hollywood director would buy it
An unscientific poll of an unspecified number of rational American citizens found Wednesday that the country has two questions about the U.S. military effort in the Middle \East.
The questions are:
Why are we still in Iraq?
Why are we still in Afghanistan?
One notorious skeptic offered the comment that, given America's inability to establish a minimally rational government on the continental mainland, how could it achieve any semblance of rational government in distant, more primitive societies where citizens are still killing each other over events that may, or may not, have taken place in the Seventh Century.
The cranky one also noted that U.S. and allied forces are going to great lengths to stamp out poppies, Afghanistan's only cash crop, required for the making of heroin, while Mexican drug gangs are blissfully tending to marjuana farms they have set up in the middle of national parks in the American West.
Aren't American policy makers aware of the principle of substitution?
If the poppies are destroyed, perhaps the Afghan war lords will start buying marijuana from the Mexican gangs, and the war lords will fight to protect their trade routes and storage sheds? The kiling will go on, and perhaps spread along the supply line.
Meanwhile, the Mexicans will take over more and more U.S. park land to meet the new demand from Afghanistan. Unemployed aliens in the U.S. illegally, sharing a language with the marijuana growers, will be drawn to the domestic side of the marijuana trade, enlarging America's criminal class.
Then, predictably, it will be discovered that the Mexican marijuana farmers have been receiving stimulus checks from the Obama administration.
We have been preparing for war, or waging war, for nine years. Our original motive was unambiguous. Our original attack was well planned and effective. Then the transitions began, each one murkier and less persuasive than the last.
Now, we have reached another turning point, perhaps the most consequential one since the Afghan war began. We have been attacked lethally on the home front, at least in part because of the continuing war in Afghanistan.
An American-born muslim soldier, Army Major Nadal Malik Hasan, murdered 13 and wounded many more at Fort Hood. His emails and conversations make it clear that his intent was to punish Americans for waging war against muslims.
Disarmed by a deranged liberal education establishment and its principal accomplishment, a smothering and pervasive regime of political correctness, we can't even bring ourselves to call it a terrorist attack without risking stern rebuke, or worse.
If scripted, the crime scene would have left any Hollywood director shaking his head. It was too preposterous.
In a room filled with American fighting men and women, some of them battle tested, the only one armed was the bad guy. How could that happen?
As Andrew McCarthy points out in National Review, "To stop bad things from happening, you have to come to grips with what causes them. We won’t."
"... with Hasan, the biggest challenge was not whether to investigate an infiltrator wearing a neon 'Islamist' sign, but how to promote him up the ladder and burnish our diversity cred while intimidating the suspicious into silence.
"Mission accomplished."
The questions are:
Why are we still in Iraq?
Why are we still in Afghanistan?
One notorious skeptic offered the comment that, given America's inability to establish a minimally rational government on the continental mainland, how could it achieve any semblance of rational government in distant, more primitive societies where citizens are still killing each other over events that may, or may not, have taken place in the Seventh Century.
The cranky one also noted that U.S. and allied forces are going to great lengths to stamp out poppies, Afghanistan's only cash crop, required for the making of heroin, while Mexican drug gangs are blissfully tending to marjuana farms they have set up in the middle of national parks in the American West.
Aren't American policy makers aware of the principle of substitution?
If the poppies are destroyed, perhaps the Afghan war lords will start buying marijuana from the Mexican gangs, and the war lords will fight to protect their trade routes and storage sheds? The kiling will go on, and perhaps spread along the supply line.
Meanwhile, the Mexicans will take over more and more U.S. park land to meet the new demand from Afghanistan. Unemployed aliens in the U.S. illegally, sharing a language with the marijuana growers, will be drawn to the domestic side of the marijuana trade, enlarging America's criminal class.
Then, predictably, it will be discovered that the Mexican marijuana farmers have been receiving stimulus checks from the Obama administration.
We have been preparing for war, or waging war, for nine years. Our original motive was unambiguous. Our original attack was well planned and effective. Then the transitions began, each one murkier and less persuasive than the last.
Now, we have reached another turning point, perhaps the most consequential one since the Afghan war began. We have been attacked lethally on the home front, at least in part because of the continuing war in Afghanistan.
An American-born muslim soldier, Army Major Nadal Malik Hasan, murdered 13 and wounded many more at Fort Hood. His emails and conversations make it clear that his intent was to punish Americans for waging war against muslims.
Disarmed by a deranged liberal education establishment and its principal accomplishment, a smothering and pervasive regime of political correctness, we can't even bring ourselves to call it a terrorist attack without risking stern rebuke, or worse.
If scripted, the crime scene would have left any Hollywood director shaking his head. It was too preposterous.
In a room filled with American fighting men and women, some of them battle tested, the only one armed was the bad guy. How could that happen?
As Andrew McCarthy points out in National Review, "To stop bad things from happening, you have to come to grips with what causes them. We won’t."
"... with Hasan, the biggest challenge was not whether to investigate an infiltrator wearing a neon 'Islamist' sign, but how to promote him up the ladder and burnish our diversity cred while intimidating the suspicious into silence.
"Mission accomplished."
Monday, November 9, 2009
Robert Spencer: Jihad at Fort Hood
...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.
Nidal Malik Hasan was born in Virginia but didn’t think of himself as an American: on a form he filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as “Palestinian.” A mosque official found that curious, saying: “I don’t know why he listed Palestinian. He was not born in Palestine.”
Center. He is a graduate of Virginia Tech and has a doctorate in psychiatry from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. While there, NPR reports, Hasan was “put on probation early in his postgraduate work” and was “disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues.”
(snip)
On May 20, 2009, a man giving his name as “NidalHasan” posted this defense of suicide bombing (all spelling and grammar as it is in the original):
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.
Nidal Malik Hasan was born in Virginia but didn’t think of himself as an American: on a form he filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as “Palestinian.” A mosque official found that curious, saying: “I don’t know why he listed Palestinian. He was not born in Palestine.”
Center. He is a graduate of Virginia Tech and has a doctorate in psychiatry from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. While there, NPR reports, Hasan was “put on probation early in his postgraduate work” and was “disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues.”
(snip)
On May 20, 2009, a man giving his name as “NidalHasan” posted this defense of suicide bombing (all spelling and grammar as it is in the original):
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.
Radical muslim cleric praises Fort Hood shooter
The personal Web site for a radical American imam living in Yemen who had contact with two 9/11 hijackers is praising alleged Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a hero.
The posting Monday on the Web site for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the attacks on the Texas military base last week are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.
Two U.S. intelligence officials told The Associated Press the Web site was Al Awlaki's. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence collection.
Anwar said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."
The posting Monday on the Web site for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the attacks on the Texas military base last week are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.
Two U.S. intelligence officials told The Associated Press the Web site was Al Awlaki's. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence collection.
Anwar said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."
Friday, November 6, 2009
Ralph Peters: "'there’s no such thing as 'Islamist terrorism' in ObamaWorld'"
On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.
What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.
This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.
When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."
But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.
And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."
And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.
What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.
This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.
When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."
But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.
And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."
And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
