TO WHAT LEVEL IS US MILITARY, FBI, CIA, DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY INFILTRATED W. MUSLIM JIHADISTS? walid shoebat

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joan K. Central NY Director on November 5, 2009 at 10:30pm

If they cannot assimilate in our society they should not come here.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Barbara on November 5, 2009 at 11:00pm

That is their purpose....destroy us by infiltrating all aspects of our lives. He could have just killed himself but, he had the desire to kill as many infidels as he could. I've never seen Muslims assimilate much with Amerians anyway.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sunshiney Day on November 6, 2009 at 11:08am

They're not coming desiring to assimilate.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joan K. Central NY Director on November 7, 2009 at 12:15am

There are differences between Muslims. The Sunni Muslems from Saudi Arabia and others from the middle east are more likely to be a problem where Wahhabism flourishes I have neighbors who are from India and they are not radical. Their children are grown and do not dress at all in Muslim clothes. Do not use a wide brush and paint all Muslims as radical.

This man's family were Palestinian. Don't forget how they all danced in the street after 9.11. Their children are raised to hate all Jews and Christians.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Paul Revere on November 6, 2009 at 11:53am

A story as old as Daniel in the lions den, the personal conflict between doing what the government wants you to do or honoring our faith.

Personally, I don't think it was PTSD since he had never been in combat. I don't believe it was terrorism and I'll explain why.

This foreign-born Muslim had issues with the U.S., but he was also using our country for his benefit. He was educated and the military offered a way to pay for that education. He chose to benefit from us in two ways while only having to tolerate his service for a short time. A tough decision for him, I'm sure, but at least he wasn't required to personally do any shooting of fellow Muslims.

Then came orders for him to go to Afghanistan and possibly shoot some Muslims. Suddenly he had a personal conflict, just as Daniel had thousands of years ago.

When faced with the decision to honor government or religion, most people will go with their faith. How they go about doing that is the real issue here.

Daniel chose to endure the consequence of his decision, which was to refuse orders at the risk of personal suffering which hurt no one else. Hasan could have done that if he had been an honorable man. He would have been punished for refusing to follow deployment orders and paid the personal price for his decision (most likely jail time, dishonorable discharge, and loss of funds to pay his education expenses).

Unlike Daniel, Hasan fits the same profile as others who have committed mass shootings: loner, single, introverted, depressed, unliked by others, etc. He chose another way out, which was to take as many others with him when he went down. It was a personal choice for him to honor his faith above orders, to hurt those who put him in this situation involving a conflict of allegiances, and a way to entirely avoid consequences for his actions (he didn't intend to survive as it was reported he gave away his possessions before the shooting started).

Having said all this, I don't believe it was PTSD or terrorism. It was a man choosing to honor his personal beliefs rather than his government. This happens more often than we might imagine, even among Christians, but a few people are more prone to committing this kind of violence.

The honoring of Second Amendment rights would have helped after this situation began, but there is also a lesson to be learned in how to prevent the situation from happening in the first place. That lesson can apply to most any aspect of life, which is the fact we must be wary of those who have split allegiances. Not only in our soldiers and our friends, but also our elected officials. I could easily start talking about Obama now, but that's another topic.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by FireFly on November 6, 2009 at 11:57am

The immigrants of TODAY are not the same as the ones that started this country. They have no desire to become what we consider Americans.

I had new carpet laid a few weeks ago and they guys doing it were all from mexico. I demanded to the owner that no illegals would be allowed in my house. He assured me they were not illegals. Do I have to start asking for green cards now?

Anyway back to my point, one of them actually was talking to me about how proud he was to be a mexican and that his father sneaked into this country so he could be born here. He was talking about his mayan and aztec past. Well unless this guy is in direct lineage with them, these people are not his ancestors. The indigineous Indians of mexico and central america are treated like crap by the mexicans. And exactly WHY is he so damned proud of his mexican culture if he is an AMERICAN? I find this to be happening more and more. These people DO NOT WANT TO ASSIMULATE. They come here to use us, and then take their money and run home. This is outrageous.

My neighbor of 30 years is chinese and to this day, does not speak english. Give me a break!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda on November 6, 2009 at 12:15pm

What irks me and many others, is that not only do they come here not ever intending to become citizens /Americans, but then demand that WE in every aspect of our lives, make allowances for them, rewrite instructions and all other notices in their own languages (have you ever seen how many languagues the drivers' license is available in???) force our teachers to learn their languages and teach their kids in their own language, rather than learning and speaking English, now the muslims are demanding and GETTING their own schools, prayer areas, swimming time and showers for the women, and more; refusing to carry out normal aspects of their jobs that conflict with their beliefs - like refusing to serve people who order pork products, drive passengers who carry the forbidden items into their cabs, etc. Are INSULTED and OFFENDED when we say Merry Christmas and practice our religion. Yet, you go over to any of these other countries, and, heaven forbid, mock their mosques, their sacred cows, or whatever else they believe, and you will be imprisoned or tortured. Enough already. Americans need to respect immigrants and heritage, but STOP giving away AMERICA and OUR HERITAGE and Beliefs based on the Judeo -Christian religion! They don't like it???? Then go back where they came from!!!!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by MollieB55 on November 6, 2009 at 12:22pm

Supposedly he was born here. It was his parent that were immigrants. So he is NOT Jordanian. He is American. If Obama is, so is this guy! At least he spent his whole life here! That is more than our President can say. We don't know all the facts yet.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Wendy A Kansas State Director on November 6, 2009 at 12:57pm

Another country that lives by the "peaceful" religion of Islam:

Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead design – secret report

Exclusive: Watchdog fears Tehran has key component to put bombs in missiles

• Julian Borger, diplomatic editor
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 November 2009 20.45 GMT
• Article history

An Iranian long-range Shahab-3 missile being fired at an unspecified location. Photograph: Press TV/AFP/Getty Images

The UN's nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian has learned.

The very existence of the technology, known as a "two-point implosion" device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as "breathtaking" and has added urgency to the effort to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

The sophisticated technology, once mastered, allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads than older models. It reduces the diameter of a warhead and makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile.

Documentation referring to experiments testing a two-point detonation design are part of the evidence of nuclear weaponisation gathered by the IAEA and presented to Iran for its response.

The dossier, titled "Possible Military Dimensions of Iran's Nuclear Program", is drawn in part from reports submitted to it by western intelligence agencies.

The agency has in the past treated such reports with scepticism, particularly after the Iraq war. But its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said the evidence of Iranian weaponisation "appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran".

Extracts from the dossier have been published previously, but it was not previously known that it included documentation on such an advanced warhead. "It is breathtaking that Iran could be working on this sort of material," said a European government adviser on nuclear issues.

James Acton, a British nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "It's remarkable that, before perfecting step one, they are going straight to step four or five ... To start with more sophisticated designs speaks of level of technical ambition that is surprising."

Another western specialist with extensive knowledge of the Iranian programme said: "It raises the question of who supplied this to them. Did AQ Khan [a Pakistani scientist who confessed in 2004 to running a nuclear smuggling ring] have access to this, or is it another player?"

The revelation of the documents comes at a time of growing tension. Tehran has so far rejected a deal that would remove most of its enriched uranium stockpile for a year and replace it with nuclear fuel rods which would be much harder to turn into weapons. The Iranian government has also balked at negotiations, which were due to begin last week, over its continued enrichment of uranium, in defiance of UN security council resolutions.

There are fears in Washington and London that if no deal is reached to at least temporarily defuse tensions by the end of December, Israel could set in motion plans to take military action aimed at setting back the Iranian programme by force, with incalculable consequences for the Middle East.

Iran has rejected most of the IAEA material on weaponisation as forgeries, but has admitted carrying out tests on multiple high-explosive detonations synchronised to within a microsecond. Tehran has told the agency that there is a civilian application for such tests, but has so far not provided any evidence for them.

Western weapons experts say there are no such civilian applications, but the use of co-ordinated detonations in nuclear warheads is well known. They compress the fissile core, or pit, of the warhead until it reaches critical mass.

A US national intelligence estimate two years ago said that Iran had explored nuclear warhead design for several years but had probably stopped in 2003. British, French and German officials have said they believe weaponisation continued after that date and may still be continuing.

In September, a German court found a German-Iranian businessman, Mohsen Vanaki, guilty of brokering the sale of dual-use equipment with possible applications in developing nuclear weapons. The equipment included specialised high-speed cameras, of the sort used to develop implosion devices, as well as radiation detectors. According to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, testified at the trial that there was evidence that Iran's weapons development was continuing.

The IAEA is seeking to find out what the scientists and the institutions involved in the experiments are doing now, but has so far not been given a response. The agency's repeated requests to interview Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, whose name features heavily in the IAEA's documentation and who is widely seen as the father of the Iranian nuclear programme, have been turned down.

The agency has also asked Iran to explain evidence that a Russian weapons expert helped Iranian technicians to master synchronised high-explosive detonations.

The first implosion devices, like the "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki on 9 August 1945, used 32 high-explosive hexagons and pentagons arrayed around a plutonium core like the panels of a football. The IAEA has a five-page document describing experimentation on such a hemispherical array of explosives.

According to a diplomat familiar with the IAEA documentation, the evidence also points to experiments with a two-point detonation system that represents "a more elegant solution" to the challenges of making a nuclear warhead, but it is much harder to achieve. It is used in conjunction with a non-spherical pit, in the shape of a rugby ball, or explosives in that shape wrapped around a spherical pit, and it works by compressing the pit from both ends.The IAEA has expressed "serious concern" about Iran's failure to give an account of the research its scientists have carried out.

Descriptions of "two-point implosion" warheads designs have occasionally appeared in the public domain (there are extensive descriptions on Wikipedia) and they were first developed by US scientists in the 1950s, but it remains an offence for American officials or even non-governmental nuclear experts with security clearance to discuss them.

• Send to a friend
• Share

Email

Close

• • Advertising guide
  • License/buy our content

World news

• Iran ·
• Nuclear weapons

More news

• Read more

  Iran: The dossier

  Julian Borger: The UN's relationship with Iran is weighed down by a host of unanswered questions 14 comments

• Iran's conditions push nuclear deal close to collapse

• Robert Kagan: Is Obama being played?

  84 comments

• Iran protesters hijack 30th anniversary of US embassy seizure

• A faultline runs down Tehran's streets

  48 comments

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by frederick j haiss on November 6, 2009 at 11:58pm

When I first heard of the incident the immediate thought in mind was the soldiers and there families a second thought came into my head gun control

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Wendy A Kansas State Director on November 7, 2009 at 12:12am

And the Press Conference Obama gave where he was supposed to address the attack on the soldiers of Fort Hood by a shooter.

He first spent a lot of time doing his jovial campaigning and congratulating everybody he wanted to buy votes from. And he said this:

Obama Gives Shout Out to 'Congressional Medal of Honor Winner' Who Isn't

By Mike Bates

Newsbusters.org

The Washington Post this afternoon reported "President Obama delivers remarks on Ft. Hood shooting at end of tr... The transcript begins:

SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

[*] OBAMA: Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference.

I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you.

Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter.  Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient.  As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society:

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Crow's name is not included on the Society's Medal of Honor recipient list.  He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, in August.

Obama, often described as "cerebral" by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow.  Don't expect his blunder to receive wide coverage.  It's not something he can blame George Bush for.

▶ Reply to This