HisChildForever Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091116/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_imam Mon Nov 16, 8:32 am ET WASHINGTON – [b]A radical Muslim cleric with suspected links to al-Qaida considered himself a confidant of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan,[/b] the Army psychiatrist accused in the Fort Hood shootings, The Washington Post reported Monday. But the cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, insisted in an interview with a Yemeni journalist contacted by the Post that he did not pressure Hasan to harm Americans. Al-Awlaki is a former imam at a Falls Church, Va., mosque where Hasan and his family occasionally worshipped. Al-Awlaki, a native-born U.S. citizen, left the United States in 2002, eventually traveling to Yemen. He said Hasan first e-mailed him in December 2008. Eventually, al-Awlaki said, Hasan came to view him as a confidant. "It was clear from his e-mails that Nidal trusted me," al-Awlaki told the journalist. "Nidal told me: 'I speak with you about issues that I never speak with anyone else.'" He showed the journalist his correspondence with Hasan but would not provide it to the Post. [b]He said Hasan questioned the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and said the Army psychiatrist cited Islamic law that demanded "that what America was doing should be confronted."[/b] "So Nidal was providing evidence to Anwar, not vice versa," said the Yemeni reporter, Abdulelah Hider Shaea. Hasan, 39, was charged last Thursday with the Nov. 5 shooting spree at Fort Hood, in which 13 people were killed. [b]The imam told Shaea that the Fort Hood attack was acceptable under Islam. "America was the one who first brought the battle to Muslim countries," al-Awlaki said.[/b] Al-Awlaki also denounced Muslims who condemned the attack. "They say American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should be killed," the imam argued, "so how can they say the American soldier should not be killed at the moment they are going to Iraq and Afghanistan?" [b]Al-Awlaki is considered to have deep and close links with al-Qaida, former U.S. intelligence officials have told The Associated Press. In 2001, al-Awlaki had contact with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, according to law enforcement officials.[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 This is horrible. But I suppose that's what happens when people feel they have the right and duty to impose their beliefs on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='16 November 2009 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1258393240' post='2003743'] This is horrible. But I suppose that's what happens when people feel they have the right and duty to impose their beliefs on others. [/quote] It supports what I and a few others were saying in a different thread: Hasan is an Islamic terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='16 November 2009 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1258393357' post='2003744'] It supports what I and a few others were saying in a different thread: Hasan is an Islamic terrorist. [/quote] Terrorist implies killing for the sake of causing terror. If he killed because he felt it was his duty to his god, that's not really terrorism. Horrible and wrong, yes. Terrorism? Not by definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='16 November 2009 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1258393442' post='2003745'] Terrorist implies killing for the sake of causing terror. If he killed because he felt it was his duty to his god, that's not really terrorism. Horrible and wrong, yes. Terrorism? Not by definition. [/quote] You don't think he wanted to inspire terror? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) [quote name='HisChildForever' date='16 November 2009 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1258393599' post='2003749'] You don't think he wanted to inspire terror? [/quote] I don't presume to know. And for the record, I'm not trying to be supportive of him or radical actions on the part of anyone. I'm just saying that this is a symptom of believing that your "truth" is the only truth worth believing. It seems to me that his motivation was retaliation against the troops who were invading Muslim lands. Being that he was a Muslim, he felt this to be wrong on the part of the military ergo he felt it justified to take lives. ETA: Also note, i'm not trying to imply that Catholicism is radical like this, either. Edited November 16, 2009 by fidei defensor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Dude...it was terrorism. Were people terrorized? Yeah, I think so. Now another place considered as safe is another place where people have to look over their shoulder. Terrorism is not only for al-Qaida. It is for anyone. You state that terrorism is killing for the sake of causing terror. You really think that his sole motive was to just kill people for God? Why then did he choose the method he did? Why did he choose the population he did? Why the small number? You don't have a doubt in your mind that he could have also tried to deter people through terror? Pressure doesn't have to be nagging. It could be subtle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 [quote name='picchick' date='16 November 2009 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1258393968' post='2003751'] Dude...it was terrorism. Were people terrorized? Yeah, I think so. Now another place considered as safe is another place where people have to look over their shoulder. Terrorism is not only for al-Qaida. It is for anyone. You state that terrorism is killing for the sake of causing terror. You really think that his sole motive was to just kill people for God? Why then did he choose the method he did? Why did he choose the population he did? Why the small number? You don't have a doubt in your mind that he could have also tried to deter people through terror? Pressure doesn't have to be nagging. It could be subtle. [/quote] I don't pretend to know the reasons for why he did it, and neither should you. I am inferring from the article that it had to do with his religious beliefs and what he believed the military was doing to Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Servus_Mariae Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='16 November 2009 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1258393760' post='2003750'] I don't presume to know. And for the record, I'm not trying to be supportive of him or radical actions on the part of anyone. I'm just saying that this is a symptom of believing that your "truth" is the only truth worth believing ETA: Also note, i'm not trying to imply that Catholicism is radical like this, either. [/quote] Just for clarification...this is the case with all ideology not just religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 [quote name='Servus_Mariae' date='16 November 2009 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1258394298' post='2003755'] Just for clarification...this is the case with all ideology not just religious. [/quote] This is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 now I know I might be chastized for asking this but... If he genuinely believed he was at war with the US - then wouldn't this be an act of war (maybe treason) instead of an act of terrorism? I mean, his goal does not seem to be to terrorize, it seems to be to inflict millitary damage to what he considered to be an ennemy... Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Servus_Mariae Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Didacus' date='16 November 2009 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1258394542' post='2003758'] now I know I might be chastized for asking this but... If he genuinely believed he was at war with the US - then wouldn't this be an act of war (maybe treason) instead of an act of terrorism? I mean, his goal does not seem to be to terrorize, it seems to be to inflict millitary damage to what he considered to be an ennemy... Just saying... [/quote] I take it that terrorism as it is being used here is an umbrella term for the assault of radical Islam on their perceived enemy. I would agree in this case we are dealing with treason or an act of war. Edited November 16, 2009 by Servus_Mariae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 The article put me to mind of some of the things that were said about Obama and his former minister. If someone you respect espouses a certain ideology, and you sit and listen long enough, you may believe that you don't agree, but deep down it can profoundly change how you view the world. Those in positions of authority have to be aware and know they are responsible in part if someone acts on their words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamiller42 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Muslims needs to decide if terrorists represent Islam or not. If they do, then there is an obvious problem with their religion. If the terrorists do represent Islam, as they have claimed, then there is no conflict in conscience with killing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='16 November 2009 - 12:56 PM' timestamp='1258394196' post='2003754'] I don't pretend to know the reasons for why he did it, and neither should you. I am inferring from the article that it had to do with his religious beliefs and what he believed the military was doing to Muslims. [/quote] It goes beyond "his" religious beliefs though: [b]He showed the journalist his correspondence with Hasan but would not provide it to the Post. He said Hasan questioned the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and said [u]the Army psychiatrist cited Islamic law that demanded "that what America was doing should be confronted."[/u][/b] According to Islamic law, his actions were justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now