>> are you promoting euro-suicide bombers in burnley and marseilles?

>No, I am not promoting anything, I am explaining

>> not anywhere that i can see

>Takes intelligence to understand the teacher.

> November 7, 2009 6:00 AM

> The Hole at the Heart of Our Strategy
> We’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives
> terrorism.

> By Mark Steyn

> Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in
> Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in
> Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a
> processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to
> combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called
> it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have
> called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt
> down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and
> security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in
> and supports everything the enemy does.

> And he’s a U.S. Army major.

> And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but
> seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as
> if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the
> aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet
> paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed,
> objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded
> as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general
> vibrancy of the base.

> But he didn’t really need to “  it up” at all. He could pretty much say
> anything he liked, and if any “red flags” were raised they were quickly
> mothballed. Lots of people are “anti-war.” Some of them are objectively on
> the other side — that’s to say, they encourage and support attacks on
> American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter
> category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised?
> Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as “If I saw an
> American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would
> kill him because that is my obligation” is an adviser to Britain’s Crown
> Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the U.S. attorneys). In Toronto
> this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passant that, on
> flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the
> purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she
> revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her:
> “We are not to question sharia.”

> That’s the guy manning the airport-security desk.

> In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only
> obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no
> religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas
> says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his
> door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out
> copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired.
> But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s
> no terrorism angle.

> That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying
> member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in
> Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the
> pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the
> end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his
> psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American
> identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale,
> Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized”
> daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S.
> residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for
> plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who
> commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother
> shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make
> sense to another culture,” he says.

> Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of
> us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t
> conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of
> their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make
> it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather
> talk about anything else — even in the Army.

> What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible
> symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on
> the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took
> seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and
> fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that
> drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.

> When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal
> Malik Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of
> posts with the striking formulation: “Please judge Major Malik Nadal [sic]
> by his actions and not by his name.”

> Concerned Tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that —
> and not just in the sense that the New York Times’s first report on Major
> Hasan never mentioned the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” or that ABC’s Martha
> Raddatz’s only observation on his name was that “as for the suspect, Nadal
> Hasan, as one officer’s wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’”

> What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name
> were Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions
> that allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and
> into the heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about
> the essence of this man.

> Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their
> actions — flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali
> nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad
> or Tikrit. And on the whole we’re effective at responding with action of
> our own — taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency
> networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and
> Toronto and Dearborn.

> But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man
> to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a
> hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like
> “radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old
> “radical extremism.” But we never make any effort to delineate the line
> which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam. Indeed, we go to
> great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in that woozy blur
> the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An army psychiatrist,
> Major Hasan was an American, born and raised, who graduated from Viriginia
> Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed Services
> University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, which works out to the best
> part of half a million dollars’ worth of elite education. But he opposed
> America’s actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and made approving
> remarks about jihadists on American soil. “You need to lock it up, Major,”
> cautioned his superior officer, Col. Terry Lee.

> But he didn’t really need to “lock it up” at all. He could pretty much say
> anything he liked, and if any “red flags” were raised they were quickly
> mothballed. Lots of people are “anti-war.” Some of them are objectively on
> the other side — that’s to say, they encourage and support attacks on
> American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter
> category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised?
> Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as “If I saw an
> American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would
> kill him because that is my obligation” is an adviser to Britain’s Crown
> Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the U.S. attorneys). In Toronto
> this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passant that, on
> flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the
> purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she
> revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her:
> “We are not to question sharia.”

> That’s the guy manning the airport-security desk.

> In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only
> obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no
> religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas
> says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his
> door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out
> copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired.
> But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s
> no terrorism angle.

> That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying
> member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in
> Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the
> pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the
> end his Islamic impulses trumped his

>November 7, 2009 6:00 AM

>By Mark Steyn

>Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in
>Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in
>Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a
>processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to
>combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called
>it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have
>called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt
>down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and
>security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in
>and supports everything the enemy does.

>And he’s a U.S. Army major.

>And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but
>seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as
>if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the
>aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet
>paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed,
>objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded
>as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general
>vibrancy of the base.

>But he didn’t really need to “  it up” at all. He could pretty much say
>anything he liked, and if any “red flags” were raised they were quickly
>mothballed. Lots of people are “anti-war.” Some of them are objectively on
>the other side — that’s to say, they encourage and support attacks on
>American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter
>category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised?
>Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as “If I saw an
>American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would
>kill him because that is my obligation” is an adviser to Britain’s Crown
>Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the U.S. attorneys). In Toronto
>this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passant that, on
>flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the
>purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she
>revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her:
>“We are not to question sharia.”

>That’s the guy manning the airport-security desk.

>In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only
>obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no
>religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas
>says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his
>door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out
>copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired.
>But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s
>no terrorism angle.

>That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying
>member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in
>Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the
>pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the
>end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his
>psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American
>identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale,
>Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized”
>daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S.
>residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for
>plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who
>commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother
>shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make
>sense to another culture,” he says.

>Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of
>us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t
>conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of
>their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make
>it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather
>talk about anything else — even in the Army.

>What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible
>symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on
>the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took
>seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and
>fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that
>drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.

>When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal
>Malik Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of
>posts with the striking formulation: “Please judge Major Malik Nadal [sic]
>by his actions and not by his name.”

>Concerned Tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that —
>and not just in the sense that the New York Times’s first report on Major
>Hasan never mentioned the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” or that ABC’s Martha
>Raddatz’s only observation on his name was that “as for the suspect, Nadal
>Hasan, as one officer’s wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’”

>What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name
>were Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions
>that allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and
>into the heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about
>the essence of this man.

>Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their
>actions — flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali
>nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad
>or Tikrit. And on the whole we’re effective at responding with action of
>our own — taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency
>networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and
>Toronto and Dearborn.

>But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man
>to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a
>hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like
>“radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old
>“radical extremism.” But we never make any effort to delineate the line
>which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam. Indeed, we go to
>great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in that woozy blur
>the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An army psychiatrist,
>Major Hasan was an American, born and raised, who graduated from Viriginia
>Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed Services
>University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, which works out to the best
>part of half a million dollars’ worth of elite education. But he opposed
>America’s actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and made approving
>remarks about jihadists on American soil. “You need to lock it up, Major,”
>cautioned his superior officer, Col. Terry Lee.

>Excellent piece.  Thanks for posting.  Scroll up to see comment midway-
>through the piece.

>>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhj...

>>November 7, 2009 6:00 AM

>thanx for posting it...
>for assistance i've removed the section you duplicated

>regards

>>The Hole at the Heart of Our Strategy
>>We’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives
>>terrorism.

>>By Mark Steyn

>>Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in
>>Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in
>>Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a
>>processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to
>>combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called
>>it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have
>>called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt
>>down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and
>>security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in
>>and supports everything the enemy does.

>>And he’s a U.S. Army major.

>>And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but
>>seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as
>>if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the
>>aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet
>>paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed,
>>objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded
>>as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general
>>vibrancy of the base.

>>But he didn’t really need to “  it up” at all. He could pretty much say
>>anything he liked, and if any “red flags” were raised they were quickly
>>mothballed. Lots of people are “anti-war.” Some of them are objectively on
>>the other side — that’s to say, they encourage and support attacks on
>>American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter
>>category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised?
>>Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as “If I saw an
>>American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would
>>kill him because that is my obligation” is an adviser to Britain’s Crown
>>Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the U.S. attorneys). In Toronto
>>this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passant that, on
>>flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the
>>purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she
>>revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her:
>>“We are not to question sharia.”

>>That’s the guy manning the airport-security desk.

>>In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only
>>obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no
>>religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas
>>says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his
>>door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out
>>copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired.
>>But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s
>>no terrorism angle.

>>That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying
>>member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in
>>Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the
>>pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the
>>end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his
>>psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American
>>identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale,
>>Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized”
>>daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S.
>>residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for
>>plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who
>>commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother
>>shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make
>>sense to another culture,” he says.

>>Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of
>>us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t
>>conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of
>>their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make
>>it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather
>>talk about anything else — even in the Army.

>>What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible
>>symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on
>>the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took
>>seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and
>>fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that
>>drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.

>>When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal
>>Malik Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of
>>posts with the striking formulation: “Please judge Major Malik Nadal [sic]
>>by his actions and not by his name.”

>>Concerned Tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that —
>>and not just in the sense that the New York Times’s first report on Major
>>Hasan never mentioned the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” or that ABC’s Martha
>>Raddatz’s only observation on his name was that “as for the suspect, Nadal
>>Hasan, as one officer’s wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’”

>>What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name
>>were Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions
>>that allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and
>>into the heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about
>>the essence of this man.

>>Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their
>>actions — flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali
>>nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad
>>or Tikrit. And on the whole we’re effective at responding with action of
>>our own — taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency
>>networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and
>>Toronto and Dearborn.

>>But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man
>>to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a
>>hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like
>>“radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old
>>“radical extremism.” But we never make any effort to delineate the line
>>which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam. Indeed, we go to
>>great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in that woozy blur
>>the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An army psychiatrist,
>>Major Hasan was an American, born and raised, who graduated from Viriginia
>>Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed Services
>>University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, which works out to the best
>>part of half a million dollars’ worth of elite education. But he opposed
>>America’s actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and made approving
>>remarks about jihadists on American soil. “You need to lock it up, Major,”
>>cautioned his superior officer, Col. Terry Lee.

>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:35:23 -0500, FACE <AFaceInTheCr...@today.net>
>>wrote:

>>>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhj...

>>>November 7, 2009 6:00 AM

>>thanx for posting it...
>>for assistance i've removed the section you duplicated

>>regards

>Thank you.  I felt that something did go wrong in my cut and paste but
>from the below it appears that you also removed page 2 which begins "But
>he didn’t really need to “lock it up” at all. ..."

>>>By Mark Steyn

>>>Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in
>>>Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in
>>>Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a
>>>processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to
>>>combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called
>>>it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have
>>>called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt
>>>down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and
>>>security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in
>>>and supports everything the enemy does.

>>>And he’s a U.S. Army major.

>>>And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but
>>>seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as
>>>if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the
>>>aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet
>>>paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed,
>>>objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded
>>>as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general
>>>vibrancy of the base.

>>>But he didn’t really need to “  it up” at all. He could pretty much say
>>>anything he liked, and if any “red flags” were raised they were quickly
>>>mothballed. Lots of people are “anti-war.” Some of them are objectively on
>>>the other side — that’s to say, they encourage and support attacks on
>>>American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter
>>>category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised?
>>>Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as “If I saw an
>>>American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would
>>>kill him because that is my obligation” is an adviser to Britain’s Crown
>>>Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the U.S. attorneys). In Toronto
>>>this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passant that, on
>>>flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the
>>>purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she
>>>revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her:
>>>“We are not to question sharia.”

>>>That’s the guy manning the airport-security desk.

>>>In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only
>>>obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no
>>>religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas
>>>says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his
>>>door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out
>>>copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired.
>>>But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s
>>>no terrorism angle.

>>>That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying
>>>member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in
>>>Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the
>>>pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the
>>>end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his
>>>psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American
>>>identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale,
>>>Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized”
>>>daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S.
>>>residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for
>>>plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who
>>>commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother
>>>shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make
>>>sense to another culture,” he says.

>>>Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of
>>>us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t
>>>conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of
>>>their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make
>>>it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather
>>>talk about anything else — even in the Army.

>>>What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible
>>>symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on
>>>the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took
>>>seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and
>>>fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that
>>>drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.

>>>When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal
>>>Malik Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of
>>>posts with the striking formulation: “Please judge Major Malik Nadal [sic]
>>>by his actions and not by his name.”

>>>Concerned Tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that —
>>>and not just in the sense that the New York Times’s first report on Major
>>>Hasan never mentioned the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” or that ABC’s Martha
>>>Raddatz’s only observation on his name was that “as for the suspect, Nadal
>>>Hasan, as one officer’s wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’”

>>>What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name
>>>were Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions
>>>that allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and
>>>into the heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about
>>>the essence of this man.

>>>Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their
>>>actions — flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali
>>>nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad
>>>or Tikrit. And on the whole we’re effective at responding with action of
>>>our own — taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency
>>>networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and
>>>Toronto and Dearborn.

>>>But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man
>>>to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a
>>>hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like
>>>“radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old
>>>“radical extremism.” But we never make any effort to delineate the line
>>>which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam. Indeed, we go to
>>>great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in that woozy blur
>>>the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An army psychiatrist,
>>>Major Hasan was an American, born and raised, who graduated from Viriginia
>>>Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed Services
>>>University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, which works out to the best
>>>part of half a million dollars’ worth of elite education. But he opposed
>>>America’s actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and made approving
>>>remarks about jihadists on American soil. “You need to lock it up, Major,”
>>>cautioned his superior officer, Col. Terry Lee.

>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim.  He was so obviously
>> correct.

>Well,  except for the Irish and Basque ones...

>> FACE wrote:

>>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
>>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim.  He was so obviously
>>> correct.
>> Well,  except for the Irish and Basque ones...

> Read all the words William

>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:01:43 +0100,  in alt.politics,  abelard
>><abela...@abelard.org>, wrote

>>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:35:23 -0500, FACE <AFaceInTheCr...@today.net>
>>>wrote:

>>>>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhj...

>>>>November 7, 2009 6:00 AM

>>>thanx for posting it...
>>>for assistance i've removed the section you duplicated

>>>regards

>>Thank you.  I felt that something did go wrong in my cut and paste but
>>from the below it appears that you also removed page 2 which begins "But
>>he didn’t really need to “lock it up” at all. ..."

>yeah well...you'll find you'd already put that in as para 3 :-)

>>I was rather hoping that people would just go to the URL to read
>>it........

>i went to check when it go muddled

>regards

>>>>The Hole at the Heart of Our Strategy
>>>>We’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives
>>>>terrorism.

>>>>By Mark Steyn

>>>>Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in
>>>>Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in
>>>>Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a
>>>>processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to
>>>>combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called
>>>>it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have
>>>>called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt
>>>>down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and
>>>>security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in
>>>>and supports everything the enemy does.

>>>>And he’s a U.S. Army major.

>>>>And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but
>>>>seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as
>>>>if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the
>>>>aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet
>>>>paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed,
>>>>objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded
>>>>as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general
>>>>vibrancy of the base.

>>>>But he didn’t really need to “  it up” at all. He could pretty much say
>>>>anything he liked, and if any “red flags” were raised they were quickly
>>>>mothballed. Lots of people are “anti-war.” Some of them are objectively on
>>>>the other side — that’s to say, they encourage and support attacks on
>>>>American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter
>>>>category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised?
>>>>Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as “If I saw an
>>>>American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would
>>>>kill him because that is my obligation” is an adviser to Britain’s Crown
>>>>Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the U.S. attorneys). In Toronto
>>>>this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passant that, on
>>>>flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the
>>>>purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she
>>>>revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her:
>>>>“We are not to question sharia.”

>>>>That’s the guy manning the airport-security desk.

>>>>In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only
>>>>obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no
>>>>religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas
>>>>says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his
>>>>door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out
>>>>copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired.
>>>>But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s
>>>>no terrorism angle.

>>>>That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying
>>>>member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in
>>>>Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the
>>>>pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the
>>>>end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his
>>>>psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American
>>>>identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale,
>>>>Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized”
>>>>daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S.
>>>>residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for
>>>>plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who
>>>>commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother
>>>>shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make
>>>>sense to another culture,” he says.

>>>>Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of
>>>>us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t
>>>>conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of
>>>>their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make
>>>>it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather
>>>>talk about anything else — even in the Army.

>>>>What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible
>>>>symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on
>>>>the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took
>>>>seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and
>>>>fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that
>>>>drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.

>>>>When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal
>>>>Malik Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of
>>>>posts with the striking formulation: “Please judge Major Malik Nadal [sic]
>>>>by his actions and not by his name.”

>>>>Concerned Tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that —
>>>>and not just in the sense that the New York Times’s first report on Major
>>>>Hasan never mentioned the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” or that ABC’s Martha
>>>>Raddatz’s only observation on his name was that “as for the suspect, Nadal
>>>>Hasan, as one officer’s wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’”

>>>>What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name
>>>>were Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions
>>>>that allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and
>>>>into the heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about
>>>>the essence of this man.

>>>>Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their
>>>>actions — flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali
>>>>nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad
>>>>or Tikrit. And on the whole we’re effective at responding with action of
>>>>our own — taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency
>>>>networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and
>>>>Toronto and Dearborn.

>>>>But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man
>>>>to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a
>>>>hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like
>>>>“radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old
>>>>“radical extremism.” But we never make any effort to delineate the line
>>>>which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam. Indeed, we go to
>>>>great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in that woozy blur
>>>>the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An army psychiatrist,
>>>>Major Hasan was an American, born and raised, who graduated from Viriginia
>>>>Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed Services
>>>>University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, which works out to the best
>>>>part of half a million dollars’ worth of elite education. But he opposed
>>>>America’s actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and made approving
>>>>remarks about jihadists on American soil. “You need to lock it up, Major,”
>>>>cautioned his superior officer, Col. Terry Lee.

>>> FACE wrote:

>>>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
>>>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim.  He was so obviously
>>>> correct.
>>> Well,  except for the Irish and Basque ones...

>> Read all the words William

>'Almost all'.

>I assume you have some figures about how many terrorists there are in
>the world today.

>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were
>> not
>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim.  He was so obviously
>> correct.

> Well,  except for the Irish and Basque ones...

> >> FACE wrote:

> >>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
> >>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim.  He was so obviously
> >>> correct.
> >> Well,  except for the Irish and Basque ones...

> > Read all the words William

> 'Almost all'.

> I assume you have some figures about how many terrorists there are in
> the world today.

> --
> William Black

> Well,  except for the Irish and Basque ones

> --
> William Black

> "Any number under six"

> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
> single handed with a quarterstaff.

>> Well,  except for the Irish and Basque ones

>There are No "Irish or Basque ones" Ect out of their
>respective regions..... However,
>Islamist terrorists are world wide in every country and region.

>>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims
>>> were not
>>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim.  He was so obviously
>>> correct.

>> Well,  except for the Irish and Basque ones...

> And what about those buggers in 1776?

>> I assume you have some figures about how many terrorists there are in
>> the world today.

>> --
>> William Black

> A proud graduate of Diversity Training joins the fray to let his
> superiors know that his indoctrination in anti-Western thought was a
> success.