on the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing's cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days' war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death."

How about that for claiming all Christians from Gods own country - that sent their army to war in Iraq on convictions of a man at the position of Defense secretary at the time - are terrorist.

Or that does not count since it was only written and not said, or because lets say the man did it in a civilised manner, you know it was only soldiers that were sent.

Kobojunkie go and continue with that software project u've been written in the programming section, which av been following to see where you would get to - and leave politics to those who don't scratch issues on the surface.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, there are humble muslims and we all know this. However i think it is safe to say the man in question is an Islamic terrorist. It is no coincidence he shouted Allah Akbar before the atrocious act occurred, this is my point and i don't think it is stereotyping in any way.

yeswecan:

Not all Muslims are terrorists, there are humble muslims and we all know this. However i think it is safe to say the man in question is an Islamic terrorist. It is no coincidence he shouted Allah Akbar before the atrocious act occurred, this is my point and i don't think it is stereotyping in any way.

Yeswecan

NO. Repeat after me: "A terrorist who is a Muslim." The adjective must not precede the noun terrorist because then it implicates Islam in the motive for terror. Let the accentuation be on "terrorist" first and let the reference to Islam be a trailing adjunct that explains more who the terrorist is but is inconsequential to the act.

@naliakar,

NO. Repeat after me: "A terrorist who is a Muslim." The adjective must not precede the noun terrorist because then it implicates Islam in   the motive for terror. Let the accentuation be on "terrorist" first and let the reference to Islam be a trailing adjunct that explains more who the terrorist is but is inconsequential to the act.

Regarding the statement in bold, I believe it is safe to say that the motivation the guy had to commit the terror act was Islam.  Would he have done the same thing if he was not a muslim?  The answer is NO.

Tayo-D:

@naliakar,
Regarding the statement in bold, I believe it is safe to say that the motivation the guy had to commit the terror act was Islam.  Would he have done the same thing if he was not a muslim?  The answer is NO.

Tayo-D

How are you? I thought I saw someone like you in the Michele Bechmann anti-reform demo on capital hill. Now to your rejoinder above: tell if if Tiller's killer can be referred to wholesomely as a christian terrorist?

@naliakar,

How are you? I thought I saw someone like you in the Michele Bechmann anti-reform demo on capital hill.

More liek anti-tyranny!

Now to your rejoinder above: tell if if Tiller's killer can be referred to wholesomely as a christian terrorist?

Tiller's killer didn't shout "Jesus is Lord" when he pulled the trigger, nor did he target innocent civilians who had no direct role in the issue at stake. He did not kill Tiller to protect the interest of Christianity or Christians. He killed Tiller to protect unborn babies who may have been born Christians, muslims, Hindus, Atheists or whatever.

We do not see a pattern of Christians killing abortionists as we see muslims do others. We did not see Christians rejoicing on the streets of Italy when Tiller was killed.

Bottomline is this. Tiller's killer deserves to be hanged with his scrotum as much as this cowardly Major. I find it hard to label Tiller's killer a Terrorist, much less a Christian one. However, if a group of Christians are indiscriminately killing innocent civilians to further the cause of Christianity, then I have no problem labelling them Christian Terrorists.

he was obviously a religious fundamentalist.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199501.php


Thanks to DB in the comment section who directs us to this post, which features a BBC interview by Gavin Lee with a member of the Killeen, Texas mosque outside Ft Hood, the Islamic Community Center of Greater Killeen, where Malik Nidal Hasan was currently attending.



In the interview (the whole interview can be heard here), mosque member "Duane" not only refuses to condemn Hasan, but justifies their murder because "they were troops who were going to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill Muslims".



Here's the relevant portion of the interview:





Duane : I'm not going to condemn him for what he did. I don't know why he did it. I will not, absolutely not, condemn him for what he had done though. If he had done it for selfish reasons I still will not condemn him. He's my brother in the end. I will never condemn him.
Gavin Lee : There might be a lot of people shocked to hear you say that.



Duane: Well, that's the way it is. I don't speak for the community here but me personally I will not condemn him.



Gavin Lee : What are your thoughts towards those that were victims in this?



Duane : They were, in the end, they were troops who were going to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill Muslims. I honestly have no pity for them. It's just like the majority of the people that will hear this, after five or six minutes they'll be shocked, after that they'll forget about them and go on their day.



Over at Biased BBC they wonder whether this is the same Duane Reasoner quoted today by the New York Times:



Duane Reasoner Jr., an 18-year-old substitute teacher whose parents worked at Fort Hood, said Major Hassan was told he would be sent to Afghanistan on Nov. 28, and he did not like it.
“He said he should quit the Army,” Mr. Reasoner said. “In the Koran, you’re not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”



Reasoner was also interviewed by Stars & Stripes:



Just last week, Hasan expressed views that Muslims shouldn't serve in the military and fight other Muslims, according to Duane Reasoner Jr., a recent Muslim convert who had been having dinner regularly with Hasan.
Hasan had taken 18-year-old Reasoner under his wing, mentoring him in his new faith. After evening prayers he would often buy a fish dinner for Reasoner and sometimes the iman at the Golden Corral, a chain buffet restaurant. Besides mentioning that he prayed for a wife, the conversation almost never strayed from religion, Reasoner said, describing Hasan as warm and caring.



Looks like Hasan has left some disciples to continue his work at Ft Hood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npAvM-VWwhc&feature=player_embedded

I ment to add this to the above post.

naliakar:

I want to think that there is a difference between so called "Islamic terrorist" and a "terrorist who is a Muslim". I wish to emphasize the latter as the most appropriate signifier when discussing the tragic events at Fort Hood. If there is anything I get from this thread, it is that most contributor sucked in what Said espouses as Orientalism.

Ofcourse there is such a difference, and you can usually tell which is which. A couple of months ago, an attack was carried out on a community by a lone shooter. Apparently he was angry at the system for the way his case was handled in court and decided committing suicide that way was best for him. We only found out later that he was a Muslim. That did not get the same reaction as this one is getting probably because the man did not announce that he was a) doing it in the name of Allah b) He instead took time to state his reason right as he was shooting his victims dead.

naliakar:

By equating terrorism with Islamic religion you seem to be purveying the same posture of one who has been constructed by the might of the empire as the Other. You seem incapable of coming out of your set up as a foil to enhance the West's domination. Achebe talks about this too in his Hopes and impediments when discussing Conrad.

From Columbine to Virginia Tech, I have never heard of collectivized accusation of White Christians or Korean immigrants respectively. Yet when a tragic action such as Fort Hood's happens and , caused by an aberrant individual who professes Islamic faith,we scream "Islamic terrorist". We are forgetting that by all counts this was an American citizen, born and bred in the US with minimal (iI presume) contact with Palestine,

So if the tea-bag republicans are wing nuts, am I suppose to think that Tayo or JeSoul (republicans in this forum) are also wing nuts? Hell NO. Let us deal with this as a tragic act committed by an individual who happens to be a Muslim. Let us not further the sin of dimorphic perception of them (Muslims) and Us (human beings). It is the cause of much hatred in the world.

UUmm . . . not sure why you go on and on about EQUATING Islam with TERRORISM, so maybe I should let those whom you are addressing to answer you But I am sorry, one cannot DENY that this particular case had something to do with Religion. The man himself took time to ANNOUNCE that to his victims right before he shot them in cold blood.

Ikomi:

How about that for claiming all Christians from Gods own country - that sent their army to war in Iraq on convictions of a man at the position of Defense secretary at the time - are terrorist.

Or that does not count since it was only written and not said, or because lets say the man did it in a civilised manner, you know it was only soldiers that were sent.

Kobojunkie go and continue with that software project u've been written in the programming section, which av been following to see where you would get to - and leave politics to those who don't scratch issues on the surface.

@Ikomi, I am going to say that you please GROW UP and learn to stay on FACT rather than offer straw man arguments that lead us nowhere at all. Again, the man took time to shout out ALLAH AKBAR. He did not shout “DIE M__F_ERS”. He made sure to announce it was RELIGIOUS in some way as he shot his victims dead.

It is OK to admit that you are probably not seeing this the right way --- visit the facts at least. But offering ramblings as rebuttal is annoying and ridiculous.

naliakar:

Yeswecan

NO. Repeat after me: "A terrorist who is a Muslim." The adjective must not precede the noun terrorist because then it implicates Islam in the motive for terror. Let the accentuation be on "terrorist" first and let the reference to Islam be a trailing adjunct that explains more who the terrorist is but is inconsequential to the act.

That, is absurd!! An Islamic Terrorist is one who happens to be of the Islamic faith, as well as a terrorist. Dude, English Language did not SUDDENLY change in the last 10 years. Stop MAKING things up!

The issue here is that:

- 99.99% of muslims are potential terrorists.
- they just need something to trigger them like an alarm clock.
- A moderate muslim is not a true muslim . . . cus a true muslim knows that allah directed them to kill jews and christians . . .

Hence i am not suprised that the muslims psychiatrist went on the rampage. . . .

I still can't get my head around how educated and intelligent people would read the quran and not know immediately that mohammed is a lying peadophile and megalomaniac who invented allah for his own personal purposes . . .

Kobojunkie:

@Ikomi, I am going to say that you please GROW UP and learn to stay on FACT rather than offer straw man arguments that lead us nowhere at all. Again, the man took time to shout out ALLAH AKBAR. He did not shout “DIE M__F_ERS”. He made sure to announce it was RELIGIOUS in some way as he shot his victims dead.

It is OK to admit that you are probably not seeing this the right way --- visit the facts at least. But offering ramblings as rebuttal is annoying and ridiculous.

Maybe you dont undestand what terrorism means that is why the case of the man and his shout of ALLAH AKBAR is all that matters to you.

Go look the definition of Terror

Then Terrorism

Then Terrorist and come back to answer my question about your a former secretary of defence using the highlited the words "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death." from the book of Psalms, to go to war in Iraq.

Am sure you think its only he thats shouts allah akbar and shoots a few individuals down that is a terrorist. You have'nt even started from the root you consider yourself grown up.

terrorism definition
ter•ror•ism (ter′ər iz′əm)
noun
1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way
Etymology: Fr terrorisme

Ikomi:

Maybe you dont undestand what terrorism means that is why the case of the man and his shout of ALLAH AKBAR is all that matters to you.

When it comes to determining THE REASON for the TERROR inflicted by this man on the people in Fort hood, it matters what HE SAID to them.

Ikomi:

Go look the definition of Terror

Then Terrorism

Now the word TERROR/TERRORISM is on trial? This is beyond political correctness now, this is well into the ABSURD regions.

Ikomi:

Then Terrorist and come back to answer my question about your a former secretary of defence using the highlited the words "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death." from the book of Psalms, to go to war in Iraq.

Am sure you think its only he thats shouts allah akbar and shoots a few individuals down that is a terrorist. You have'nt even started from the root you consider yourself grown up.

Again!! GROW UP!!! Stop trying to DE|FLECT from the topic with ridiculous straw man arguments.

Kobojunkie:

terrorism definition
ter•ror•ism (ter′ər iz′əm)
noun
1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way
Etymology: Fr terrorisme

What you call a straw man argument is what you are trying to run away from.

I knew you had a problem with the word Terror, so it affected your view of who a terrorist is.

Terror is a state of intense fear.

Terrorist is one that inspires this state of intense fear.

Terrorism is the act of inpiring this state of fear.

Now the inspiration of this so called state of fear could be through any action of word or deed.

So I ask you grown up man, when your defence secretary instigated a war with the words "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death." from the book of Psalms.

Why did we not invent the phrase Christian Terrorist for him?

Maybe if he was a muslim and used words from the Koran we would have quickly said he is an Islamic Terrorist.

That is the point I have been trying to make, and a question you could not answer but instead you hid behind insults of telling me you are not grown up enough to understand my point.

Kobojunkie:

That, is absurd!! An Islamic Terrorist is one who happens to be of the Islamic faith, as well as a terrorist. Dude, English Language did not SUDDENLY change in the last 10 years. Stop MAKING things up!

You need to learn one or two thing about modifiers that come before the nouns they modify. They are used to bestow in toto the adjectival attributes on the subject. You say "An Islamic Terrorist is one who happens to be of the Islamic faith, as well as a terrorist..  Right but you downplay the obvious association of terror and Islamic faith as  inextricable correlatives in the above assertion. I wonder what kind of grammar they teach you in 9ja nowadays. This is the general association that is being made with dangerous consequences for those who profess Islamic faith. Being Islamic has no equivalence with being a terrorist. And dare you call me Dude again, I will report you to the moderator before looking for a koboko you agbero.

naliakar:

You need to learn one or two thing about modifiers that come before the nouns they modify. They are used to bestow in toto the adjectival attributes on the subject. You say "An Islamic Terrorist is one who happens to be of the Islamic faith, as well as a terrorist,   Right but you downplay the obvious association of terror and Islamic faith as  inextricable correlatives in the above assertion. I wonder what kind of grammar they teach you in 9ja nowadays. This is the general association that is being made with dangerous consequences for those who profess Islamic faith. Being Islamic has no equivalence with being a terrorist. And dare you call me Dude again, I will report you to the moderator before looking for a koboko you agbero.

Although I quite agree with your point but give that country some respect, its called Nigeria. 

naliakar:

You need to learn one or two thing about modifiers that come before the nouns they modify. They are used to bestow in toto the adjectival attributes on the subject. You say "An Islamic Terrorist is one who happens to be of the Islamic faith, as well as a terrorist.. Right but you downplay the obvious association of terror and Islamic faith as inextricable correlatives in the above assertion. I wonder what kind of grammar they teach you in 9ja nowadays. This is the general association that is being made with dangerous consequences for those who profess Islamic faith. Being Islamic has no equivalence with being a terrorist. And dare you call me Dude again, I will report you to the moderator before looking for a koboko you agbero.

Lol . . . Oh now no one else KNOWS of modifiers except your person? By the way, the modifier in this case would be ISLAMIC if you did not realize that. What the modifier does , in this case,is stress that this was not your typical terrorist but an Islamic terrorist. It does not; I repeat, IT DOES NOT allude in any way to your claim that ALL ISLAMICS ARE CONSIDERED TERRORISTS by that phrase there. That is just YOU trying to insert your delusion into a simple phrase there.

Instead of trying to attack me with silly reasoning and insults, maybe you ought to head back to school to get yourself some English lessons to boot. Dude, I am not even an academic, and I can easily tell that you are full of bull with the above.

Ikomi:

What you call a straw man argument is what you are trying to run away from.

I knew you had a problem with the word Terror, so it affected your view of who a terrorist is.

Terror is a state of intense fear.

Terrorist is one that inspires this state of intense fear.

Terrorism is the act of inpiring this state of fear.

Now the inspiration of this so called state of fear could be through any action of word or deed.

So I ask you grown up man, when your defence secretary instigated a war with the words "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death." from the book of Psalms.

Why did we not invent the phrase Christian Terrorist for him?

Maybe if he was a muslim and used words from the Koran we would have quickly said he is an Islamic Terrorist.

That is the point I have been trying to make, and a question you could not answer but instead you hid behind insults of telling me you are not grown up enough to understand my point.

A man shouts ALLAH AKBAR and then shoots dead 11 people. In response, these two are here trying to TWIST AND PULL the English Language to make some moot point? Roflmao!!

Keep playing your WORD games, when you are done, you can join the rest in discussing the topic and not your personal insecurities.

Kobojunkie:

A man shouts ALLAH AKBAR and then shoots dead 11 people. In response, these two are here trying to TWIST AND PULL the English Language to make some moot point? Roflmao!!

Keep playing your WORD games, when you are done, you can join the rest in discussing the topic and not your personal insecurities.

Typicall of persons who cant argue contructively but sees every issue as black and white, and when the complication of the case is pointed out to them they ROFLMAO at their own lack of basics.

As I said before your only concern is the shout of Allah Akbar, hmmmm what shallow thought.

I have warned you to go back to your programming area, when we have issues of 2 + 2 which is obviously straight forward we will call on you, this matter would make you loose footing which would leave you in a very bad state.

Kobojunkie:

Lol . . .  Oh now no one else KNOWS of modifiers except your person?

Certainly, but not in a gratuitous sense as you suggest. I do it as an interlocutor of this language among others with like performance. You are not in that league judging by the length of time it takes you to make sense of  the point I am making.

Kobojunkie:

By the way, the modifier in this case would be ISLAMIC if you did not realize that. What the modifier does , in this case,is stress that this was not your typical terrorist but an Islamic terrorist. It does not; I repeat, IT DOES NOT allude in any way to your claim that ALL ISLAMICS ARE CONSIDERED TERRORISTS by that phrase there.

There are no delusions here: just plain facts pure and simple. let  me try one last time. The genesis of my grouse with the expression "Islamic Terrorist"   recognizes that the coinage has a burden of context and of history. If you scroll this thread  a few postings back, you will find my prior allusion to Said's orientalism and Achebe's take of the same as the template of my objection to continued use of such expressions. In short "Islamic terrorist" is not a simple signifier of individual who does harm such as the Major at Fort Hood, but a construction that reifies the sense of otherness of  Muslims in Western Mindset. In this mindset, terror is conceptualized as the butt end of beings not fully conceived as human in-fact bestial and whose faith stand in diametric opposition to real "civilized human beings. In other words the propensity to terror is projected as the[i] raison de etre[/i] of Islam. If you watched fox news you saw the result of this association where all at once, Muslims  became the target of accusation and not the individual culprit (the major). It is as if by declaring that I am a Muslim, the next word on that scale is terrorist. This is why wise counsel demand that we uncouple these two terms buddy especially if the intention is to equalize human worth and dignity across races and religions. It is as simple as this.

Kobojunkie:


Instead of trying to attack me with silly reasoning and insults, maybe you ought to head back to school to get yourself some English lessons to boot. Dude, I am not even an academic, and I can easily tell that you are full of bull with the above. 

I am not attacking you. I object to being called a dude. You cannot stand my attacks if I were to start. So take it simple and easy. Making sense of semantics and how they are contextually (culturally implicated) in the globalized world is certainly not the exclusive monopoly of  academics. Don't give them that much credit. As to being full of BULL,  lol, seems you like and relish the flavor of my bull so I will give you more. Tell me if you like its  green color and steamy aroma as well, or would you prefer it green  mixed with brown

Poor Kobojunkie
Consider this my last rejoinder to your postings on this matter. You can have the last word.

This why it is almost impossible to live the old ways of barbaric warfares.The world is a  global village and the so-called enemies or intended enemies are all within.

Modern wars can't be worn by soldiers,weapons and arms but by mental rejuvenation on all sides.The wrongs must be made right,the weak made strong and the ignorant made aware for peace to reign.

One love,equality,fairness and justice.

Those of you calling the man a jihad/terrorist and so on, that is so not correct. I read a post that said 99% of Muslims are terrorist, that is stereotyping and you have profiled particular persons. How does t feel when people say Nigerians are scammers and no one wants to do anything genuine with you? I have worked with quite a few middle eastern guys and just like we Nigerians, a lot of them do not support this Jihad war or perhaps terrorism. If the same U.S govt knows that they can't trust them, why put them in U.S. govt positions and even most are security cleared, yet should we say even after they cleared, you still refer to them as terrorist. I just wanted to add my own opinion

The psychatrist killer didnt even know he needed a shrink. I am very sure he was even worse than the patients he treated,

George Bush laid the foundation of the problem every one is now facing. My prayer is let Nigeria be safe.

In all sincerity, and from what i have seen, the real doctrine of Islam is synonymous to violence. Its a pity.Is Boko Haram not related to Islam? Can some one please tell me what is " HOLY WAR " and how is it fought? Not all moslems are violent; there are some who are humane. I have spoken to a typical moslem while i was serving in the north. His nickname is Osama bin Laden, and he's proud of what Obama did.

This is an issue which the moslem clerics should stand up and fight against. But i wont be surprised if some of them even sponsor the atrocities

@Ikomi,

Then Terrorist and come back to answer my question about your a former secretary of defence using the highlited the words "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death." from the book of Psalms, to go to war in Iraq.

I expect some better arguments from you. Pray tell, is it the Secretary of Defence who sends troops to war? Is he the one who declares war on behalf of the United States? So what has the unsubstantiate quote you attribute to this Secretary of Defense got to do with this?

Some arguments on nairaland just beggars belief.

Sometimes, I really wish Islam was a lot more accommodating

on the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing's cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days' war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death."

Are you now trying to tell me that the secretary of defence briefing classified top secret has no bearing on the presidents decision?

Moreover I have often used the word instigated, how does the word instigate mean decide.

Go to your local library and ask them for a dictionary. You are not doing very well.

Tayo-D try again. 

Most dumb punks, including the person that gave this thread its title, think that Drs are immune to medical problems. I wonder what they'd say when the Devil begins to burn in hell on judgement day!

Most dumb punks, including the person that gave this thread its title, think that Drs are immune to medical problems. I wonder what they'd say when the Devil begins to burn in hell on judgement day!

MUZBO:

Most dumb punks, including the person that gave this thread its title, think that Drs are immune to medical problems. I wonder what they'd say when the Devil begins to burn in hell on judgement day!

can you stick to the topic or gerrout and see your own shrink

Its so unfortunate for this world that we have islam!
These are a set of people that America opened her doors to, allow them the freedoms they wont even have in their own cursed countries,they are free to practice their religion worshiping their god(something they will never allow anyone else to do in their home lands) and yet they repay america with violence and killing of innocents, i mean even Olabowale in all his islamism lives in america and not saudi arabia, and abuzombie is hoping to win the next visa lottery from nigeria
I think America needs a reawakening to the fact that she cant allow these people roam freely in her borders. and lets stop playing semantics with religion and terrorism, we all know most terrorists of today are moslems,period!
Listen to the news everyday, most acts of terrorism are committed by groups claiming jihad or some relationship to alah.
You can rationalise, you can speak grammar, its just that you are somehow insulated from those crimes.My only prayer for you is that a relative of yours or you yourself taste in the destruction your brothers bring to the world, dont think you're safe wherever you are, at least they came here 07/07 and they can go anywhere.Then we'll see how your rationalisation helps you in your grief.
Lets call a spade a spade, islam is the mother of all terrors or why would they hesitate to condemn an act of violence against innocents?

regardless of who commits the acts: condemn violence(do you know how many americans demonstrated against bush's policies?why will we never see moslems demonstrating against terrorism,its simple the religion itself typifies bloodthirst.