« Counter-Moonbattery Alert: American Seniors Association Accepts Torn AARP Cards | Main | Eyewitness Report From DC Patriot Rally »

Another murderous muslim! Let's see how few msm outlets mention that he was a muslim and that this had any part to play in him going postal!

Wait - you're sure he wasn't a blue-haired granny? They always seem to attract the most suspicion in airports.

Very few.

I just talked to my son and he heard two different media outlets start out saying they just got the name of the shooter -- and then abruptly went to a break without saying his name.

Liberal political correctness is like a suicide cult.

Before any of the facts were known, MSDNC was speculating that it was a mentally ill soldier who committed the shootings.

MSDNC can roast in Hell with Malik Hasan.

The Religion of Peace again shows its true colors.

Fox news just verified the name.

(Somebody's gonna be in trouble for letting that get out.)

Pray for the soldiers and their families. And while you're at it, better pray for the country too.

The cult of islam is not now and never will be compatable with civilized western culture.

I wonder if malik nadal hasan knew barack hussein obama? May both of them rot in hell!!! I swear, this country needs to be purified now!

I'm sure that our half-muslim president will tip-toe around the fact that this jihadist was a muslim.

And our clueless CinC (Commander in Chief)referred to Ft. Polk, an ARMY facility, as a "base." Someone needs to give the joker a crash course in military protocol. It's a POST, you neophyte.

hope he rots in hell and those who helped him, tried for treason and shot. damn muslim extremists.

Wow........ people do realize that this was a huge part of what destroyed the Roman Empire, don't they? Foreigners in the military who had no loyalty to Ceaser or father Rome.

You should only be able vote and join the military if and only if 3/4 of your grandparents were born in the USA. No whining.

I just talked to my son and he heard two different media outlets start out saying they just got the name of the shooter -- and then abruptly went to a break without saying his name.

Of course they went to break. They need to brew up an extra strong batch of multicultural Kool-Aid before covering this.

I expect that we will all be hearing how the shooter was "just a quiet guy" or "a very peaceful man" from his neighbors and the local Imam of the Religion of Peace.

I expect Olbermann and company to blame the military for causing an "innocent and peaceful" man to snap.

The liberals will whine about the lack of mental health pork, and promptly load up the next spending bill with more research earmarks, while simultaneously failing to note that military members receive government-run health care.

They will, in the name of PC, blame everything except proper background checks. Meanwhile, our troops will continue to shake their heads silently at all the pentacrats who put politics before national security.

By the way, I have nothing against Muslims serving in the military. All able Americans who wish to serve this nation with honor should be allowed to do so.

But that doesn't absolve the system for failing to spot the warning signs associated with every act of mass murder, be it terror, a postal shooting, or a school shooting.

DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!

What happened to your nation, White Man?

According to the AP, a defense official said Hasan was a mental health professional—either an Army psychologist or psychiatrist. It's not known if he was treating people at the post.

Fox wouldn't release the shooter's name until the Army officially did. Shep Smith remarked that it was irresponsible to give out the name of the as-yet unnamed by the Army shooter, in case it might not be correct.

RE: Posted by: Anonymous at November 5, 2009 4:23 PM

E pluribus unum, Anonymous. Diversity is not our strength - UNITY IS. "Out of many, one!!"

RE: Posted by: BambiInHeadlights at November 5, 2009 4:12 PM

You may want to rethink that, Bambi.

Some very good soldiers have been immigrants, quite a number of whom want to serve this great nation of ours BECAUSE they are new arrivals and appreciate what they have found here.

A perfect example of this would be Rick Rescorla.

Rick was a United States Army officer of British birth who served with distinction in Rhodesia as a member of the British South African Police (BSAP) and as British soldier and the Vietnam War as an American officer.

You may have seen his picture - he participated in the 1965 Battle of Ia Drang, described in the book and movie We Were Soldiers Once… And Young, and is the soldier pictured on the book jacket cover. Co-author Lieutenant General Hal Moore described him as "the best platoon leader I ever saw". Rescorla's men nicknamed him "Hard Core" for his bravery in battle, and revered him for his good humor and compassion towards his men.

He is also mentioned in the book Baptism by Larry Gwin who also fought at Ia Drang. The fourteenth chapter of the book is called Rescorla's Game and describes him as the "Cornish Hawk".

Rescorla's Vietnam honors included the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, a Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.

As the World Trade Center security chief for the financial services firm Morgan Stanley, Rescorla anticipated both attacks on the towers and implemented evacuation procedures that are credited with saving many lives.

He died in the attacks of September 11, 2001, while leading the evacuation efforts.

We'll take all the Rick Rescorlas we can get.

As for the other immigrants that come here and join our military, most will not have a carrrer as storied as Rick rescola. Most will serve with honor, go home and get on with their lives, and be the kind of good Americans we need more of.

And I sincerely wish they all live a good and long life, and pass away peacefully at a ripe old age. All talk of glory aside, that's what all soldiers wish for one another.

Nice post Tony.

Perhaps this will be when Barack Hussein Obama's words begin to have meaning for the oh-so-progressive passive liberals:

"Should the political winds turn in an ugly direction, I will stand with the Moslems."

I'm taking him at his word. And we'd better wise up to these fifth columnists putting everyone to sleep with their "we're your friends" bullshit. They KILL us, then say "Don't you DARE say it's because of our religion!" Then they do it again. Over and over. And we keep on taking it.

Well VtK, I'd say that's actually a fair assessment by MSNBC. Anyone who would carry out something like this, regardless of affiliation, ideology, ethnicity, status, whatever, is extremely sick in the head.

The actual quote from "Audacity of Hope page 261:

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, 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. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

That's all well and good - as long as we're talking about loyal citizens. Disloyal citizens - of whatever stripe - are...traitors, by definition. Agreed?

Does "disloyalty" have a criminal definition?

I believe Japanese Americans at the start of WWII were considered "disloyal". Those who fought with the 442 proved otherwise.

Really Lao, Not even a little!!

Audasity of Hope Page 261

You find me a Moslem that, when pressed, will denounce this stuff utterly. I'll be waiting a long time. There are people brought up in the Moslem faith that are wonderful...but if they truly abhor this behavior, THEY AREN'T CONSIDERED MOSLEM by the brethren.

Even the "moderates", if truly religious, go with the flow. No, they might not strap on a suicide vest or shoot up a church, they will NEVER unequivocally say "This is wrong, it should not happen". Nope. You'll get "we condemn ALL violence, whether by Jews, Christians or anyone else..." blah blah blah.

So to my way of thinking, because of the pattern of behavior of this group, they HAVE got something to prove. Respect and trust are EARNED.

Hasan is from Virginia, and converted to Islam some time ago.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner~y2009m11d5-Muslim-Army-officer-identified-as-shooter-in-Fort-Hood-massacre

It will be interesting to see if he's a graduate/alumni of the saudi academy in Fairfax.

Well Wyatt, would you care to acknowledge that the quote you attributed to Obama at 4:49 was false?

RE: Posted by: Lao at November 5, 2009 4:47 PM

Thanks.

RE: Posted by: Lao at November 5, 2009 4:58 PM

Lao includes this quote from Ayers / Obama, "They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Why is it that we hear about the Japanese internments, but nary a word about the tens of thousands of Germans and other Europeans that were also interned during the war?

Even Ken Burns, in his PBS epic, "The War", went out of his way to neglect this story. When he picked his four points on the compass, one was "Rock County, Minnesota" - and that part of the country is ground zero for German-American internment. There are still lots of people in that area that remember it first hand.

Why does the political Left ignore this? Because of RACISM. If we talk about the Germans and Italians, it minimizes the racial element of Japanese internment.

Most of it was wrong, no mattter who we're talking about - but those were dark days, with over 50 million dead to prove it.

All things being equal, I'll also say that I'm with Jay on this - disloyal citizens ARE traitors, and should be treated as such, regardless of race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or membership in any other victim group, real or imagined.

OMG!!! I'm an ANONYMOUS!!!

Not sure what happened, but I am most definitely NOT an "Anonymoose"!!!!

Does "disloyalty" have a criminal definition?

I'm somewhat disturbed that you have to ask, but try this one on for size: levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. (Article 3, U.S. Constitution).

Granted the last two clauses hit half of the Democrat Party, but for present purposes let's pretend that that's not the case.

Let me turn the question around: what would you consider disloyalty?

Tony, another thing you'll notice is that liberals always talk about "the internment" of the nisei, or that the "Government interned them."

Never will you see them say the Franklin Roosevelt personally signed the Executive Order mandating internment. It either just sorta "happened," or the "U.S. Government" did it - never FDR.

FWIW, I don't think it was that bad a decision, given the times and the situation, so I'm not making a partisan point here.

the guy's cousin on Fox news, already blamed racism and being "picked on" - doesn't everyone know you can't call a muslim a name? you know what happens when their feelings get hurt!

RE: Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 5, 2009 5:37 PM

I agree, Jay. No partisan points here - we should let history be what it is, for better or worse.

The Left has "selective memory" about internment and how it came about.

They have an agenda to sell, historical truth be d#mned.

Oh NO!!! I'm ANONYMOUS again!!!

Now when the HUAC asks me, "Do you now or have you ever posted on Moonbattery as an Anonymous?" I'll have to answer YES!

I could be (gulp!) BLACKLISTED!!!!

I heard him, puff. Seems he didn't like being called out by folks who had kin deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan when he stated that he didn't want the US over there, and that the muslims had a right to fight the troops on the ground and he supported that right.
If he didn't want to go, and didn't support the mission, why didn't he just resign his commission and join his buds at the mosque?

FDR's decision was sound - given the circumstances. Sure, we now know that the nisei weren't a problem, but he didn't know that then. Many Japanese immigrants came to the West Coast strictly and solely to earn a living, not to become Americans. (To this day some Japanese in Hawaii, where I used to live, send their kids to Japan to be educated.)

One of the things that annoys me about leftists is their tendency to make smug wisecracks, with the benefit of hindsight, about a decision someone had to make on the spot, with fragmentary and/or flawed information.

Turn it around: if FDR hadn't interned the nisei, and they had turned out to be disloyal, then the same people would be flaying him for that decision. He decided to err on the side of caution and prudence, and to choose the least unacceptable option before him. No shame in that.

Nah, T, we'll vouch for ya!

...he stated that he didn't want the US over there, and that the muslims had a right to fight the troops on the ground and he supported that right.

Uh...where the hell was his CO?

And why did the Army not boot this useless bastard out on his fat ass in the first place?

Maybe because Leftards like Lao, pansy90210, Fex. Goatse and the gang would complain that the US Army discriminates against Muslims.

RIGHT?

Damn straight! SPIT!

When I first heard about it, before much info was revealed, I of course prayed for the victims and their families, then prayed that the shooter would face justice.
Looks like the killer is facing God's justice now. I would NOT want to be in his shoes.

Further to my comment above re internment, I lived for many years in Europe and have a European bride. Neverhteless, if Europe had (foolishly!) gotten into a war with America, they'd have been wise indeed to intern my ass.

and that the muslims had a right to fight the troops on the ground and he supported that right.

Let's parse this statement (assuming it is true). "Adhering to the enemies of the United States?" Uh...yup.

RE: Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 5, 2009 5:54 PM

"He decided to err on the side of caution and prudence, and to choose the least unacceptable option before him. No shame in that."

Nope - no shame in that.

A contemporary example that proves your point about "D#mned if you do / D#mned if you don't" is the fight against domestic terrorists.

Ever notice how any time we stop a terror plot the maistream media paints the terrorists as harmless bumblers who "never really did anything"?

But, when we have an attack it's, "Why didn't they connect the dots? Why, oh why, has our intellegence community failed us so? Waaaahhh!!"

Oh, and I'm not an Anonymoose this time!

I feel better already!

I'll stand with anyone, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity, who is a loyal American, and no loyal American should be prevented from serving if they are qualified, including Muslims.But why in God's name is the army allowing people who are "a strong critic of US military policy" to the point of sympathizing with enemy, to serve our armed forces? Isn't that a strong indicator that the man was a traitor? This didn't happen out of the blue, this guy gave clear warning of who he was. This tragedy is a failure of those in command who tolerated someone who openly stated his contempt for his country, and eleven good soldiers are dead as a result.

I think leftists fall into two groups: the straight-up Reds, who will say anything in the interests of agitprop, and the (much larger) group of nitwits who actually take the leftist crap seriously, at face value.

This latter group, which I call the Starbucks barista brigade, has never held a position of responsibility (fortunately), and therefore never had to choose between the awful and the worse as the only options. Choice of any less than perfect option strikes them as perfidy, because they've never been in the decider's position, and cannot imagine having to choose between options that differ only in their degree of unpalatability.

Turn it around: if FDR hadn't interned the nisei, and they had turned out to be disloyal, then the same people would be flaying him for that decision. He decided to err on the side of caution and prudence, and to choose the least unacceptable option before him. No shame in that.

If you want to err on the side of caution and prudence, history has shown us that governments cannot be trusted with the power to round people up based on race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or political views.

Citizens facing a roundup for such an arbitrary reason would be well advised to err on the side of caution and prudence and either flee into the wilderness or overseas, or start shooting back.

Out of the hundreds of millions of people forced into such camps in the 20th century alone, most didn't make it out alive, and those who did had their lives forever scarred by totalitarian thuggery.

I'm glad the Supreme Court has held such camps to be unconstitutional.

Just for the sake of argument, how would you react to an order to be rounded up based on your race, religion, or political views? Would you report quietly and orderly if suddenly capitalists or conservatives were deemed such an imminent threat to the nation?

He went to Damascus U...... yep, nothing to see here.
Remember during WW2 when we put Japanese and German loyalists in positions of power?
Yeah...neither do I.
He was a bad doctor too...so why again were we taxpayers paying his salary?
http://www.vitals.com/doctor/profile/1811199052

Could it be that the Poser in Chief once said that if things got ugly he would "stand with the Muslims"....I think the rest of that line was "against the country I am supposed to be representing"

But why in God's name is the army allowing people who are "a strong critic of US military policy" to the point of sympathizing with enemy, to serve our armed forces?

Multicultural political correctness is to blame.

The Armed Forces can't conduct effective background checks and exclude potential threats when the PC brigade is ready to smear recruiters for an alleged bias against Muslims, when the real bias is against unstable political extremists.

Imagine what would have happened if the Army kicked this guy out, based on suspicion of extreme anti-Americanism. They would be branded as bigots and as prejudiced against the Muslim community.

Twelve soldiers are dead because moonbats constantly pursue a policy of extreme identity politics, under which any minority subjected to any detriment is presumed to be a victim of bigotry until proven otherwise (read: almost never).

christmasghost that supposed Obama quote is utterly BOGUS.

See my post at 4:58 that provides the actual quote and its context.

AC, fair point.

Without meaning to prevaricate, the answer to your question is, it depends on the situation. In wartime, the margin for error is smaller. Much smaller. When attacked by people for whom a certain fraction of the population have an emotional affinity, and where one might not get a chance to rectify a proper but ill-considered decision, then yes, considering internment is valid, in my opinion.

Recall that during the Civil War Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and suppressed freedom of the press. Ideal? No. Defensible? Yes. In peacetime, indefensible.

Our system - both political and economic - is based on a shaking out over the long-term. Sometimes unpalatable decisions have to be taken in the short-term to ensure that there will be a long-term. That's why during wartime we have resorted to what the Germans in WWI called "war socialism" - government direction of the economy. No time to let price signals work - the signal comes from a government bureaucrat signing an order.

And just for the record, for my money, we need to revive HUAC and investigate ACORN, SEIU, and, of course, CAIR.

Recall the HUAC was originally instituted to investigate ...the German-American Bund. How exactly is the Bund different from CAIR?

Give CAIR the CHAIR (Westinghouse version).

Without meaning to prevaricate, the answer to your question is, it depends on the situation. In wartime, the margin for error is smaller. Much smaller. When attacked by people for whom a certain fraction of the population have an emotional affinity, and where one might not get a chance to rectify a proper but ill-considered decision, then yes, considering internment is valid, in my opinion.

That is all well and good, but it is predicated on faith in government not using such camps in an oppressive way, as they usually are.

Even then, one has to consider that, even though a subgroup might have a disproportionate affinity for treason, none of these broad subgroups has ever been a treasonous force. How should the government go about ensuring compensation for that deprivation of liberty? How are you going to compensate all of the interred loyal citizens for destroyed businesses, destroyed careers, destroyed families, and the horrific experience of being a prisoner despite having done nothing wrong?

How are we to trust the government that internment camps will not be death camps? Interred persons can't effectively evade a transition from internment to genocide once they have already submitted to total governmental domination of their lives.

Every government that used death camps in the 20th century always established such camps as being for social resettlement or national security purposes. None of these governments ever began their programs of genocide or political purges by being honest about the purpose of the camps.

Much like censorship or deprivation of due process, camps are a tool of statist power that is at too high of risk of abuse to ever be allowed to exist. Free societies bar such government action, because government can't be trusted not to abuse the power.

Even if the current government is fully trustworthy (a feat which has never been achieved), who is to guarantee that future governments won't use precedent as a tool of oppression?

Much like censorship, if you stand by idly while the rights of others are violated, it may not be long before they come after your rights.

Recall that during the Civil War Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and suppressed freedom of the press. Ideal? No. Defensible? Yes. In peacetime, indefensible.

History also shows that such actions were not necessary. Those actions didn't stop Confederate agents.

Lincoln did use the sedition laws to sanction those critical of his policies. Our Constitution does not permit leaders to stifle political disagreement by force of law. Our leaders represent us; they do not rule us.

Our system - both political and economic - is based on a shaking out over the long-term. Sometimes unpalatable decisions have to be taken in the short-term to ensure that there will be a long-term. That's why during wartime we have resorted to what the Germans in WWI called "war socialism" - government direction of the economy. No time to let price signals work - the signal comes from a government bureaucrat signing an order.

If that were the case, then the Constitution would have disclaimers attached to each recognition of a fundamental right regarding when and how it may be suspended.

The Founding Fathers attached no such disclaimers for a very good reason. The American Revolution was sparked, in large part, due to widespread abuses of liberty by the British, acting according to their own definition of emergency necessity. They abused it, just like every government before them, and every government after them.

The Founding Fathers recognized that such power, even though it might seem useful in the abstract, is simply too corrupting to entrust to men.

If, tomorrow, you received word that you had been selected to be interred for an indefinite period, based on some vague characteristic, such as race, religion, or political opinion, would you report to the camp as ordered, or would you run or fight back? Are you prepared to follow that order yourself?

Lao, in case you scroll all the way down and see this, here is my answer:

I stand by what I wrote. OK, you want to parse words? Fine. As your head is being sawed off with a dull kitchen knife, I'll remind you that B. Hussein Obama was slightly misquoted...but NOT misunderstood! The meaning is quite clear. (And it's now coming out that the Member Of The Religion Of Peace that killed our soldiers was spouting pro-Moslem "rage-boy" style dogma in the months preceeding this incident. But that's just racism on MY part...right?)

before this one dies down, BHO &/or Hillary will apologize to the Muslims Nations for killing this freedom fighter.
His relatives will sue the USA for a zillion dollars & win. They will send the money to Iran.

The Nisei were exceptionally understanding, and, fortunately, we weren't evil. I wouldn't count on that anymore. If they came for me, I'd fight where I stand (I have something wrong with my leg I need to get fixed while healthcare is still available) but I would not go. I'm well prepared to take a good number of them with me.

Now, I don't actually have a problem with "racial profiling" as such. Stereotypes don't just jump up out of nowhere. If the diaperheads don't like being eyed with suspicion, they should demonstrate to us that theirs is a religion of peace. Trouble is, they can't. The intolerance and violence are encoded into islam right in the koran. Have you studied it? Those who aren't terrorists are the hypocrites. Everyone who isn't a muslim is a second-class citizen at best, marked for death otherwise. Are you willing to accept that? I'm not.

it is now being reported that Hasan is not in fact dead, but in stable condition.

Well, he's NOT dead. The shooter is alive.

More to come.....

Lao.....really? Yeah, not so much it seems as I heard him read that part of it.

Don't talk to me about parsing words, you are the one who decided to re-quote what has been a long-standing right wing slur of the sleaziest kind.

That slur took a fragment from a much longer quotation, ADDED the word "Muslim" and used it to paint Obama as some kind of Muslim sympathizer. It is totally bogus and you know it.

The actual quote from "Audacity of Hope" page 261:

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, 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. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Interesting. Four hours into the post, and not one of the trolls have condemned the shooting or expressed sympathy for the victims.

Very interesting.

Well let's just scroll on back to 3:57 and read V the K's expression of sympathy for the victims shall we?

At 3:57, I expressed the wish that the shooter should roast in hell. That is to say, I condemned the shooter.

But dishonesty is pretty much what I expect from Lao.

I forgot that irony is not something you understand. I was not suggesting that your 3:57 post actually expressed sympathy for the victims. I was pointing out that, when you had a chance, you didn't do so.

Now, you want to suggest that by failing to express sympathy, here, in this thread, the so-called "trolls" are guilty by omission.

But not you. Hypocrite.

Muslims are scum rotted filth who are a severe threat to the stability of Western Civilization that should be removed from the West and sent back to the sand infested hell holes they originated from.

Oh, and Lao: you are a race baiting piece of shit. FOAD.

That is all well and good, but it is predicated on faith in government not using such camps in an oppressive way, as they usually are.

True.

How should the government go about ensuring compensation for that deprivation of liberty? How are you going to compensate all of the interred loyal citizens for destroyed businesses, destroyed careers, destroyed families, and the horrific experience of being a prisoner despite having done nothing wrong?

It shouldn't, frankly. The burdens of citizenship (indeed, of life) fall inequitably sometimes. Consider those maimed or killed in combat. For loyal citizens belonging to a group with disproportionate affinity for treason, my advice would be: make damned sure to distinguish yourselves from the traitorous segment.

How are we to trust the government that internment camps will not be death camps?

We can't. We have to trust to the basic decency of our people. All the more reason to forestall circumstances where internment is not on its face an unreasonable option.

If that were the case, then the Constitution would have disclaimers attached to each recognition of a fundamental right regarding when and how it may be suspended.

See "martial law." Provision already exists for suspension of civil rights, under specific circumstances. For example, after the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, looters were summarily shot. The draft is another example.

Lincoln did use the sedition laws to sanction those critical of his policies. Our Constitution does not permit leaders to stifle political disagreement by force of law. Our leaders represent us; they do not rule us.

Ideally, yes. In extremis, however, our elected leaders become more like military commanders when exigent circumstances do not permit debate and democratic consideration. In exigent circumstances, we cannot afford the luxury of debate and reflection. The argument is what constitutes exigent circumstances that justify such action. That such circumstances can exist I take as a given.

I think in the ideal case an American Cincinnatus would take the necessary steps, and answer for them later, as both Lincoln and FDR would have done, had either survived. To be clear, I'm not advocating such action, but only recognizing that circumstances can arise that necessitate such actions, within the judgment of a decision maker, with the clear understanding that he should answer for it as well.

Since you want to be absolutely, positively accurate Lao, I said MOSLEM not MUSLIM. That is the way my people have spelled and pronounced it for a long long time.

But as usual, anything that puts a chink in the armor of B.Hussein Obama is RACIST and a RIGHT WING SLUR!! Well, buddy boy, be as PC as you want. The one thing I can say for the Moslems is they absolutely do NOT give a hang about being "correct" or "inclusive". They say "Death to Israel, Death to the United States" right up front...before hiding behind our Constitutional rights, that is.

B. Hussein Obama stands with the Moslems, apologizes for the United States and is ushering in Marxism and Tyranny. Other than that, he's great.

Now that the brothers V the K and SK have arrived, the discussion is getting sabotaged.

I would like to commend TonyD, Jay and AnonCounter for some very thoughtful posts to this thread.

Yes, you are such a Rhodes Scholar, Lao and your contributions rank up there with those of Henry Kissinger.

Get over yourself, you bigoted, Marxist fuckstick.

SK do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

A reporter on FOX just a few moments ago stated his neighbors said this morning he was giving away all his personal belongings to them and handing out copies of koranlet paper.

My mother is dead. Has been since lymphatic cancer took her in 1997, you liberal puke.

If you want to sass me from behind the safety of your keyboard, you better pick another approach.

I'm sorry to hear you lost your mom SK.

But be honest, look at your own comments to me and ask how you would have responded had they been directed at you.

For the record, unless you present something of actual substance, I won't bother responding to you in future.

Fort Hood shooter a devout, observant Muslim

Evidently he was not a convert to Islam, but was a lifelong -- and observant -- Muslim. "At least 12 killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.," by William Branigin and Carrie Johnson for the Washington Post, November 5 (thanks to Peter Collier):

Posted by: Chairman Lao at November 5, 2009 7:35 PM- "That slur took a fragment from a much longer quotation, ADDED the word "Muslim" and used it to paint Obama as some kind of Muslim sympathizer. It is totally bogus and you know it."

How on Earth could that be construed as "bogus"? Nobody needs to "paint" Hussein as a "sympathizer". Soetoro IS a Muslim. You can't get more sympathetic than that.

You're breaking my heart, Lao. /sarc

If you were worth responding to as other folks are here, I would.

You are a Marxist supporting waste of space. Why anyone else here thinks they can reason with an admitted Red, let alone burns up their precious time trying, is a mystery to me -- but that's their business.

Posted by: Chairman Lao at November 5, 2009 9:00 PM- "For the record, unless you present something of actual substance, I won't bother responding to you in future."

He did present something of actual substance. You are actually a substantial f***stick.

I'm glad the shooter lived.

Now I have time to pray* for his soul before he is rightfully put to death at Leavenworth.

Too bad the Army doesn't hang them any more.

*To the One True God - not the fake muslim god.

Amen, Jimbo. Amen to that.

from this source:

"Cryptically, ABC's senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, concluded a story on reaction at Fort Hood: “As for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, 'I wish his name was Smith.'” So, a concern this will lead to groundless fear of Muslims?"

Yeah, Martha - that would make it all better. ::smirk::

Groundless fears of Muslims?

Muslims give us plenty of fears - all grounded in blood soaked reality.

The military is not the same since I was in.

snowjobama knows...

nanz - is that like my "groundless fear of heights"?

HA! I kill me!

HA! YOU KILL ME TOO!

...Jimbo? I didn't say that...

No - I made that up all by myself.

It will take a typical liberal days (weeks or years) to get my quip!

I am rather disappointed that shooter is still alive. I always feel a certain sense of cosmic justice when someone goes on a rampage, and is either cut down by an armed bystander or commits suicide at the end.

Too bad the murdering Moose Limb is still alive, now taxpayers will have to spend money on endless trials for this clown because he is an American citizen - at least the military has his birth certicate - unlike someone else we all know . He looks alot like Private Pyle in FULL METAL JACKET. Spooky.

If he lives B. Hussein will find a way to set him free or put him in some sort of country club prison. Hide and watch...

Perhaps the most noteworthy: terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11th, 2001. Why, Why, Why would this evil event have to occur at all? Why at this particular time?

It's just pure, unadulterated, evil.

All this shows is the absolute corruption of the military hierarchy. Our troops bear the brunt of this nonsense again!

What is not thought of by people is the fact sometimes the only way to communicate with certain vermin you use violence to communicate with them since the Dr. Spock approach doesn't work on these types. Violence gets a point across faster, if the General Pershing approach was done after this incident or even after 9/11 you never would see another act of terrorism like this for a long long LONG time.

And today we find out he screams "Allah'u Akbar" before murdering non-Moslem's. But of course, we must NOT DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS from this.

Funny how quiet Lao has gotten, no?

When will we wake up? Muslims will never be good and loyal Americans (or citizens of any western nation for that matter). They are muslims first and foremost; where they live is just a place to rest and crap on the locals.
I say we round them (muslims) up along with all the ileagals and deport them to a point about one thousand miles east of my home of Virginia. The United States are for those who where born here or came here in accordance with the law. Perhaps our European friends could take a similar approach and send their muslims to the same place where they can all tread water together.