Posted on 11/10/2009 5:25:24 AM PST by Kaslin
Nidal Malik Hasan was two men.
One was the proud Army major who wore battle fatigues to mosque; the other, the proud Arab who wore Muslim garb in civilian life.
What brought Hasan's identities into fatal conflict was his belief that Iraq and Afghanistan were unjust wars, and his shock that he, a Muslim, was to be sent to serve in one of those wars, against fellow Muslims -- a sin against Allah meriting damnation.
Hasan was conflicted by a dual loyalty -- to the country he had sworn to protect, and to his perceived duty as a Muslim. When Hasan told his neighbor that morning, "I am going to do good work for God," the call of jihad overrode his oath of loyalty as an American soldier.
Hasan proceeded to shoot, wound or kill 44 U.S. soldiers, and die on what he saw as the side of right, the side of Islam, against America. "Allahu Akbar!" -- "God is great!" -- Hasan shouted as he began firing.
An Internet posting by "Nidal Hasan" compared suicide bombers to medal-of-honor winners who throw themselves on grenades to save fellow soldiers. Hasan had decided to become a suicider for Allah.
Though this was an act of treachery against his fellow soldiers, of treason in wartime, of terrorism and mass murder, Hasan must have seen himself as a hero and martyr.
Few ever commit atrocities like this. But conflicts in identities and loyalties are common in the cauldrons of war.
"Let none but Americans stand guard tonight," said Washington at Valley Forge. Irish Catholics deserted the Union army to fight beside Mexican Catholics in the San Patricio battalion against what they thought was American aggression. Honored today by Mexico, the San Patricios were hanged when captured by Winfield Scott's army.
In Scott's march to Mexico City was Robert E. Lee. The hero of Buena Vista was Col. Jefferson Davis, who had married the daughter of his commanding officer, future President Zachary Taylor. Davis went on to serve in the Cabinet of Franklin Pierce and the U.S. Senate.
Yet, in 1861, Davis and Lee would depart the service of their country to wage war against the United States on behalf of their new nation and the kinfolk to whom they belonged and whom they believed had a right to be free of the Union. Were they traitors -- or patriots?
This is not to compare the deeds of the San Patricios, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, all of whom declared themselves openly and fought heroically and honorably, with the crimes of Maj. Hasan.
But it is to raise the issue of conflicting loyalties in the hearts of men in a nation that has declared religious, racial and ethnic diversity to be not only a national good but a national goal.
Whence came this idea? No previous generation believed this.
In World War I, Wilson feared that if he went to war, German-Americans might march on Washington. FDR was so fearful that the blood ties of Japanese citizens and residents would trump their loyalty to the United States he ordered 110,000 transferred from California to detention camps for the duration of the war.
In Arkansas last year, a Muslim opposed to the U.S. wars shot two soldiers at a recruitment center, killing one. In Kuwait, before the invasion of Iraq, a Muslim soldier threw a grenade into the tent of his commanding officer, killing two and wounding 14.
This is not to suggest that all American Muslims or Arabs should be citizens under suspicion. Muslims have died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, as German-Americans died fighting against Germany in two world wars. But it is to say this:
America is unraveling. No longer are we one nation and one people. Tens of millions have come and tens of millions are coming whose first loyalty is to the kinfolk and country they left behind, and to the faith they carry in their hearts. And if, in our long war against "Islamofascism," we are seen as trampling on their nation, faith or kinsmen, they will see us, as Hasan came to see us, as the enemy of their sacred identity.
There is no American Melting Pot anymore. It was discarded by our elites as an instrument of cultural genocide. Now we celebrate America as the most multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural country on earth, the Universal Nation of Ben Wattenberg's warblings.
And, yet, we are surprised by ethnic espionage in our midst, the cursing of America from mosques in our cities, the news that Somali immigrants are going home to fight our Somali allies, and that illegal aliens march under Mexican flags to demand American citizenship.
Eisenhower's America was a nation of 160 million with a Euro-Christian core and a culture all its own. We were a people then. And when we have become, in 2050, a stew of 435 millions, of every creed, culture, color and country of Earth, what holds us together then?
He's a Muslim through and through.
So many Muslims....So many “Pretenders” like Hasan.
Has anyone heard about this?
Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse...Tomorrow, the wolves will be herding the sheep
Obama Appoints two ‘Devout Muslims’ to homeland security posts. Doesn’t this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano Appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development Source announcement: Homeland Security Press Room.
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is proud to announce that the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). http://www.adc.org/
Excuse me, but has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a “devout Catholic, Jew or Protestant.”..?
Just wondering...
Doesn’t this make you feel safer already??
“Devout Muslims” being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions...
That should make our homeland much safer, huh?
Wasn’t it men of the “Devout Muslim Faith” that flew airplanes into some U.S. buildings not too long ago?
Yeah, I thought so...
What IS this president thinking?
This announcement was made on Aug 20, 2009. Why are we just now hearing about it???
It's all the IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE'S FAULT ! ! ! They are bringing multi-generational terrorists into the country. Let's see: 911, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the Fort Hood shootings, the drug wars, all because of the INS. Someone should be in prison!
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE INS NOW ! ! ! !
And no ethnic groups on earth believes it now except PC, guilt-ridden white people in the West. You don't see China and India, or any non-Western nations trying to destroy their own identity and traditions, only the self-hating whites of the West practice this self-destructive lunacy.
i said something about this ages ago on another blog. no one listened. I think it was posted here, too. Just one of those ‘thing’ that got brushed over in the midst of all the other bs going on.
Why do we have to insist that he was conflicted? Nothing in his writings or actions suggests he was conflicted. His actions that day suggest the opposite of conflict. He got his cup of coffee at the 7/11, handed out Korans, smiled a few times and then murdered innocent people. It really is that simple. He was a radical muslim intent on harming Americans.
Must been the fault of the jjjjjjjoooooossssssssss.
Root causes, you know.
What the article doesn’t say points out the obvious: expectations of loyalty, throughout human history, have always been greatest for those who are “native and natural” to their banner. The flip side of this is that those who are further away from “native and natural” are, and *should* be, treated with less trust. This is not to say mistrust, just with less trust.
This points out one of the many glaring problems that exist with “multiculturalism”, the belief that humans are generic, with the same or similar enough motivations for there to be an appeal to their “common ground”.
Importantly, this does *not* mean that xenophobia is correct. But what it does mean is that mixed loyalties *must* be taken into account.
The article mentions the Nisei camps. But what it did not mention was the flip side of that. The 442nd Infantry Regiment was recruited almost exclusively from Nisei Japanese, and they served with great distinction in combat.
But not fighting other Japanese. They were sent to Europe, and fought in Italy, France and Germany.
They *could* have been sent to fight the Japanese in the Pacific theater. This would have been a profound example of “multiculturalism”, but had it been suggested at the time, the idea would have been laughed at, because it would be “obvious” that you do not send people to fight their own countrymen.
So why in blue blazes does the US military ever deploy Muslim personnel to combat theaters where they will be in conflict with, even if not personally fighting, fellow Muslims? What a ridiculous idea.
If there was a conflict in Italy, in which the Pope and the Vatican had taken sides, and somehow the US military was involved, fighting in support of the other side, would the US military send Catholics to fight against the Vatican?
The argument that US Catholics would have no problem fighting other nations Catholics is only half true. Muslims regularly fight other Muslims as well. But I imagine a *lot* of US Catholics would have a serious problem fighting against the Vatican.
This is just common sense. And yes, I know that there are a goodly number of John Kerry type pseudo-Catholics out there, who would have no problem bayoneting Catholic nuns by the dozen, as long as he was not personally at risk, but that is beside the point.
There are a lot of Muslims in the US military, some thousands. But they are not indispensable to this mission. Certainly they can be deployed elsewhere.
But both the grenade thrower and the Psychiatrist Muslim were being sent against other Muslims. And this was just dumb.
Out of some twisted belief in multiculturalism, US military personnel have been murdered, twice. This does not mean that Muslims cannot serve in the US military. But what it does mean, is that they should not be asked to go to a combat theater where conflict is involved with Muslims.
It also means that they should be scrutinized by the military, and if it looks as if one is becoming radicalized, they should be investigated, and if necessary, discharged for the good of the service.
Sorry, I have read what Muslims have said, and have seen what they have done and I am pretty sure that the opinion that I have formed is exactly what they want me think about them. I would be a fool not to be suspicious.
FWIW, let's not try to say Hasan had multiple personalities. He was a predator and traitor who carefully choreographed his military career to put him in a position to exploit soldiers suffering from mental illness and actively cultivated a relationship with the enemy. He had one 'face' and deliberately hid it to aid and abet the enemies of freedom.
“conflicted by a dual loyalty — to the country he had sworn to protect, and to his perceived duty as a Muslim.”
No one should be allowed to be an officer or enlisted person in the U.S. military if he cannot swear loyalty first and foremost to the U.S. Problem is, these muslims don’t have the decency to declare themselves “conscientious objectors”.
YNC, if he was so conflicted about going to war with muslims, as an officer couldnt he have resigned his commision and get on with a job, perhaps at Cair or with a company of equal belifs. No i belive that hasan wanted to commit islamic jihadist acts aginst our military. Now our military must live with the fear of weather they and their loved ones are now safe on our military bases and that is the real intent of his terroist act
My point was that this problem goes far beyond Muslims. There is almost no instance in which the US can use military force in which *some* service member won’t have a problem with it.
Conscientious Objection applies almost exclusively to religious objection, not to cultural, ethnic, or other problems. As a recent example, Serbia and Croatia are longstanding enemies. When they got into a fight, and the US intervened as peacekeepers, it undoubtedly had soldiers of both Serbian and Croatian heritage.
Common sense would dictate that US personnel who were either Serbian or Croatian heritage *not* be brought along for that mission, as they would be problematic for the purposes of the US, as a neutral force between them. Pretending that their heritage wouldn’t matter is a very recent contrivance. Serb and Croat civilians in the US were fighting with each other at the time, so it was not an invisible problem.
At no time should this ever result in a conflict with their military oath, because the Personnel Command should flag their file, so that they will not be sent on that mission in the first place. Problem solved.
So right now there should be a review of forces deployed and deployable to Iraq and Afghanistan. Muslims in those two groups should be sent transferred back to the US, and if they haven’t left, they should not be included in any mission to those countries.
In future, such file flags should be permanent. “This person is a _____, so should not be deployed to conflicts in ______, or ______.”
This is how we used to do it, so there is no real problem with doing it that way again.
During WWII, about 20% of our Armed forces were Italian Americans, in those days with parents from Italy. Do you think that Joe Dimaggio was going to fight for Mussolini, even after his father's fishing boat was confiscated? Nope. They and the German Americans slew NAZIs and Fascists without a qualm.
We were worried about the Japanese ... but they fought damn well in Europe, even while their parents and citizen brothers and sisters were in internment camps (as were other "enemy aliens.") There WAS SOME basis in being fearful of sending them up against the Japs.
Different world then. So different that now, not to take the ethnicity of the millions of new residents who are not Americans yet, and show comparatively few signs of wholeheartedly becoming so in language and customs, would be as you say, really stupid.
This goes triple and quadruple for Muslims, whose religious leaders teach them to hate us and dissemble about it. No place for it in America.
One more thing that must be taken into account: Muslims are so inbred, that by our standards, many of them are mentally impaired. They are simply inbred far beyond the bounds of what is legal in this country. Simple fact: In Muslim lands, for many centuries, the children of first and second cousins have been marrying first and second cousins. Marriage is usually within a blood-related Clan, and very rarely outside it, or the tribe to which the Clan belongs.
Sounds really racist, doesn't it? Look it up.
During WWII, about 20% of our Armed forces were Italian Americans, in those days with parents from Italy. Do you think that Joe Dimaggio was going to fight for Mussolini, even after his father's fishing boat was confiscated? Nope. They and the German Americans slew NAZIs and Fascists without a qualm.
We were worried about the Japanese ... but they fought damn well in Europe, even while their parents and citizen brothers and sisters were in internment camps (as were other "enemy aliens.") There WAS SOME basis in being fearful of sending them up against the Japs.
Different world then. So different that now, not to take the ethnicity of the millions of new residents who are not Americans yet, and show comparatively few signs of wholeheartedly becoming so in language and customs, would be as you say, really stupid.
This goes triple and quadruple for Muslims, whose religious leaders teach them to hate us and dissemble about it. No place for it in America.
One more thing that must be taken into account: Muslims are so inbred, that by our standards, many of them are mentally impaired. They are simply inbred far beyond the bounds of what is legal in this country. Simple fact: In Muslim lands, for many centuries, the children of first and second cousins have been marrying first and second cousins. Marriage is usually within a blood-related Clan, and very rarely outside it, or the tribe to which the Clan belongs.
Sounds really racist, doesn't it? Look it up.
You know that there was also an Italian camp, and selected Germans were also detained during WWII?
“As early as 1939, when war broke out in Europe and while armed conflict began to rage in East Asia, the FBI and branches of the Department of Justice and the armed forces began to collect information and surveillance on influential members of the foreign communities in the United States. These data were included in the Custodial Detention index (”CDI”). Agents in the Department of Justice’s Special Defense Unit classified the subjects into three groups: A, B and C, with A being “most dangerous,” and C being “possibly dangerous.”
“Upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor and pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526 and 2527 were issued designating Japanese, German and Italian nationals as enemy aliens. Information from the CDI was used to locate and incarcerate foreign nationals from Japan, Germany and Italy (although Germany or Italy did not declare war on the U.S. until December 11).”
“Crystal City, Texas, was one such camp where Japanese Americans, German Americans, Italian Americans, and a large number of US-seized, Axis-descended nationals from several Latin-American countries were interned.”
However, this was based on ethnic and national origin. Things became much more difficult at the end of WWII, because the new threat were communists, not based on race or national origin. This meant that a determination of threat had to be based on the beliefs and communications of an individual, and if they were in league with, or working for a foreign communist government.
(It does need to be noted that even during WWII, communists were regarded as “unreliables”, and were usually posted to the Aleutian Islands after the end of the serious Japanese threat to those islands.)
Belief in a religion is similar in difficulty, and it should be mentioned that in the 1930s, Catholics were looked at with considerable suspicion, in that they were believed by many to have divided loyalties between the United States and the Papacy. They were even the primary focus of the Indiana based Ku Klux Klan of the period.
So, once again the question becomes, “Can Muslims perform in the military when their actions are not in conflict with other Muslims?”
I think I have some particular insight into this question, because many years ago, my supervisor in the Army was a blond haired, blue eyed, Irish Muslim convert Captain. Even in the 1980s, there was considerable concern about his loyalty, and periodically he was interrogated to determine if he had any extremist motivations.
Ironically, his being a Muslim was of considerable value to the military on that post, as there was training of international officers there, many of whom were Muslim. Each group required very different facilities, customs and courtesies, and he was tasked to provide them a private house off post to use as a mosque, and to schedule them so hostile nations would not come into contact with each other.
He was also propositioned by foreign Muslim officers to join their military at many times his US salary, which he steadfastly declined.
Generally a good officer. However, under no circumstances should have he been deployed to a conflict involving either Muslims or Israelis, as I can see the considerable conflict of interest involved. Outside of that, I don’t see him being much of a problem, and in fact, he was a considerable asset.
I've seen you mention this before and I am fascinated to learn more. Where, exactly should I research for more information?
Our debt to the Chinese.
I Love That Man.
So, you're suggesting that we create a new privileged class for muslims in the military: one which will receive the same benefits and training as everyone else, but will be excused from having to fight. That will work out very badly on every level, and most particularly on its affect on troop morale and inevitable resentment.
But both the grenade thrower and the Psychiatrist Muslim were being sent against other Muslims. And this was just dumb.
The final result was the same for both, but Hasan presents an even more egregious problem. He was a radical, ideologically dedicated Muslim, trained to counsel returning or in-theater troops fighting against Muslims in time of war. We've already seen that he was reprimanded for proselytizing Islam to his patients at Walter Reed, and at least one mother of a brain-injured soldier has come forward to state that only the efforts of the other doctors at Walter Reed kept Hasan, who she considered "evil," from playing with her son's troubled mind.
How the Army can justify this insanity -- training an Islamist as a psychiatrist -- is really and truly beyond me. Are we totally lost as a country?
Gee! Maybe the Founding Fathers knew something about allegiance when they put that itty bitty clause in the Constitution about having a **natural born** citizen for president. But...We the citizens have no standing to ask about this.
There are a lot of Muslims in the US military, some thousands. But they are not indispensable to this mission. Certainly they can be deployed elsewhere.
“So, you’re suggesting that we create a new privileged class for Muslims in the military: one which will receive the same benefits and training as everyone else, but will be excused from having to fight. That will work out very badly on every level, and most particularly on its affect on troop morale and inevitable resentment.”
I didn’t say that. I said “redeployed”. Like the Japanese were used to fight in Italy, France and Germany—just not against other Japanese.
Only a tiny fraction of the US military is in Iraq and Afghanistan, or in other Muslim countries, or in countries fighting Muslims. So why not send US Muslim military personnel to Korea? Heck, leave them in the US as non-deployable. Still plenty of jobs for them to do here.
As far as the Major goes, he was obviously an extremist kook, and should have been separated a long time ago. And it was a serious screw up that he wasn’t.
Going way back, the US Army used Apache scouts because it had to. They were essential in tracking down renegade Apaches. However, it only used scouts that were from an Apache tribe at war with the renegade Apache tribe, not the renegades own tribe. And even then, the Apache scouts were looked at as unreliables.
At the time of the last Sun Dance (revolt) in the US, in Arizona in the 20th Century, the Apache scouts used to track down the Sun Dancers were hesitant in conflict with their fellow Apaches, and prone to desertion. But just a few years later, when General Pershing launched his punitive mission into Mexico against Poncho Villa, hundreds of Apaches expressed a desire to join in the expedition to fight loyally beside the US Army against the Mexicans.
They were very disappointed when Pershing declined their services, and offered to pay their own way, and bring their own horses and weapons.
First. let me assure you that this is for real. In KSA, the main genetic studies are conducted at the Swedish Hospital, the Swedish doctors there having made this an area of specialization. They are heavily subsidized by the Saudi government.
Our own NIH is also involved. Other than that, good luck in researching this eminently politically incorrect topic. One thing more, in Muslim cultures, cousin marriage is the rule .... not the exception. In fact, it is often considered only polite to marry sisters, so the cousins won't be lonely.
Try and remember, we ain't dealing with prairie Methodists. Islam is another planet. Major Dr. Hassan,? If his parents aren't at least second cousins, I'll buy every worthy oriental gentleman in that family a drink.
Yeah, he should have resigned. Obviously he knew we were in a War on Terror and it was against radical islam. So, the dummy never should have joined. And, yes, makes sense that he joined up perhaps to be an undercover enemy agent. Am I jumping to conclusions ?
Everything you said makes sense to me. Problem is, I can’t remember what I posted that you are resonding to. he, he. I do recall that japanese-americans were not sent to the Pacific theatre in WWII, but sent to Italy instead. That makes sense. ;)
I have no doubt that this is of substance. I've read enough of your posts to know that you shoot straight from the hip. My interest in pursuing for sources is genuine. I have had an “aha” moment and know if I pass this most intriguing knowledge on to others that I'm going to be asked what my source(s) are. Inquiring minds will want to know. The ones I have in mind to convince are likely to give me that “look” that says “yeah, yeah,sure, sure...where’d you hear this?”
I have read that the Pakistani Muslim population in Great Britain accounts for more than 30% of the recessive birth defects in a society where they account for only 3-4% of total live births. (Does that make sense?)
Nah, just telling the truth. thats what the investigators have a hard time telling the rest of us.....
Very interesting post. The part about being inbred was something I didn’t know, but it makes sense.
“The part about being inbred was something I didn’t know, but
it makes sense.”
I don’t know about the wider Muslim world, but I have heard there
is a substantial amount of inbreeding in the Palestinian population.
Ditto, the entire Muslim world, except perhaps Bosnia.
The Muslim countries are not the only people in the world to whom a closed gene pool has posed a medical challenge. They are just the last to do something about it. Since there are so damned many of them, it just exacerbates the problem within their countries. It's our problem when they move here.
To correct it, they are trying to "cross-pollinate" by trading "breeding stock" from widely separated Muslim countries and trying to find the genetic markers they need to monitor. In KSA, it means that if you have a rich dad, he might try to buy you a Turkish or Albanian bride ... or two.
In the meantime, VOA, you'll just have to trust me and the other "old hands," when we tell you that your chances of running into an X-eyed, deaf Arab with bad kidneys, who's nuttier than Auntie Laura's Christmas Fruitcake, are statistically very high.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.