Spencer at NRO: "'Islamophobia' was duly avoided at Fort Hood. All it cost was 13 dead and 38 wounded."

Casey says that diversity is what makes the military strong...And I always thought it was dedication, training and arms...
Is 'diversity' a weapon? It is in the hands of the left and Islam...but it is a weapon that blows up in your hands...How much proof of that does the AINO (American In Name Only) Casey need?

"Now General Casey says that if the Army loses its “diversity” because of Hasan’s jihad, that would be worse than his murders;"....

AHHH - The well versed student of B Hussein O's school of islamocommie sociology - ALL FOR THE SAKE OF DIVERSITY!!

If THIS doesn't wake up the general public, pretty much NOTHING will!!

I believe we have a (not so) new category of TREASON here, folks - Twenty years in Levenworth, a stripping of citizenship, and depositing in an islamocommie shithole should do the trick!

Now General Casey says that if the Army loses its "diversity" because of Hasan's jihad, that would be worse than his murders;

Apart from the killings themselves, this is perhaps the single most offensive thing I've seen on this subject.

Assuming that Casey actually said something this insane and treasonous, at a minimum he should be stripped of command and rank and be pilloried.

And just for the record, the answer is no.

If the Army were to lose its "diversity", if it were entirely made up of white guys, or black guys, or east Asian guys or whatever, that wouldn't be a particularly bad thing.

Who gives a damn?

We really don't get much out of decorative color balance. It's an Army for Christ's sake! Not a freaking ballet troupe.

And BTW, a "diversity" of opinion that includes the opinion that American soldiers should die ... that doesn't help us much either.

Diversity and tolerance are great things if judgement and discernment accompany them.

Problem is, "judging" is deemed a bad thing by too many of us. We turn off our brains and our reasoning ability when we cease to judge. Not judging presumes there is no good and evil, no right and wrong. It is not "judging" that should be discouraged. It is judging in ignorance that is the problem.

The amorality (one doctrine, one behavior, one religion, one culture is as good as any other) practiced by Casey and others results in "diversity exremeism": Diversity without judgement; diversity with no right or wrong. This is an amoral diversity, a corrupting and destroying diversity.

General Casey and other diversity-Nazis are being asses with blinders on. That is my discerning judgment.

Following Gen. Casey's so called reasoning, the question is then what would be a sufficient loss of life that would exceed the loss of diversity? Hundreds, thousands, perhaps an incinerated community?

duh_Swami

I left the party in June 2003, for amongst other reasons, the "compassionate conservatism" which was, and is, destroying the nation's original party, the party of patriotism, turning it into a subservient underclass of the full-blown communists, whining and claiming to be different, but enabling the same end result, just at a different pace.

Hard to escape the conclusion that General Cassey is a very foolish man. Not a very caring man either considering that he thinks that losing diversity is worse than murder.

"This is the fruit of long-term efforts by groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others to demonize everyone who speaks honestly about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. People are afraid to speak up about Muslims who behave suspiciously."

The problem is not merely "CAIR and others". If it were only "CAIR and others" demonizing Islamorealist critics, we would not have this general antipathy throughout the West to condemn Islam and to condemn Muslims who follow Islam. Surely "CAIR and others" do not have that kind of reach and power. The source of this immediate fruit -- this massive denial about Fort Hood -- as well as the much more massive cornucopia of denial throughout the West about Islam in general, is not merely "CAIR and others": it is much broader and much deeper than that. It is a sociological phenomenon reflecting a general predisposition among Westerners, not a phenomenon of individuals and small groups exerting strangely extraordinary influence over strangely passive Western subjects. The broader and deeper sociological phenomenon, the sea change of Western consciousness into PC MC dominance over the past 50-odd years, explains why "CAIR and others" enjoy the remarkable degree of traction they do. Absent that broader and deeper sociological phenomenon, "CAIR and others" would be a marginal, and largely ridiculed if not also officially condemned and legally prosecuted rag-tag collection of eccentrics. As it is, unfortunately, their propaganda tactics resonate within a larger sociopolitical climate that is not of their own devising, but which they cleverly exploit.

duh_Swami

I left the party in June 2003, for amongst other reasons, the "compassionate conservatism" which was, and is, destroying the nation's original party, the party of patriotism, turning it into a subservient underclass of the full-blown communists, whining and claiming to be different, but enabling the same end result, just at a different pace.

How many Muslims serve on Casey's staff? He's based somewhere. How many Muslims are there in his office area?

Entire cultures and civilizations have been erased because they tried to appease the muslims spreading Islam. Why fret over a few more corpses?

It sickens me that people are hiding behind the corpses of these soldiers, shamelessly performing acts of self-immolation, self-denigration, and self-sacrifice at the altar of Allah all in an effort to avoid offending muslims. Sad and degenerate.

Muslims spread Islam through Jihad. Each and every one of them. They have been doing it for 1,400 years. It is simple. Destroy Islam and free the suffering muslims from their nightmare or continue to throw our children at them to save our own cowardly asses.

I read the symposium contributions, and was a little piqued by two of the contributions. I wrote to the editor of the symposium:

Mr. Robbins says, 'The issue is not Islam, it is a militant, violent ideology seeking to destroy our way of life'. Better said, Islam is the issue. It is a militant, violent ideology. Some extreme adherents, who follow the book and the ahadith and the sunnah fully, will do anything to destroy our way of life.

How any learned person, like Mr. Robbins, could read the Qur'an and come away with any other opinion I do not know.

Ms. Shea says that "Salafi materials" instruct not to take unbelievers as friends. She must be refering to the Qur'an itself, and it would have been nice if she had honestly said so, as it states exactly that.
How about this verse: "Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" (22:39)
Or how about this one?: "Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan" (4:76)

But what she's really referring to is: "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily ALLAH guides not the unjust people." (5:51) and "Let not the believers take disbelievers for friends in preference to believers - and whoever does that has no connection with ALLAH - except that you guard yourselves fully against them. And ALLAH cautions you against HIS punishment; and to ALLAH is the returning." (3:28)

These verses are in any garden-variety Qur'an, read and accepted by all Muslims as perfect and applicable to all times. Those who think it's poppycock and not real valid Muslim belief in this day and age would do well to try to convince imams of such, so the rest of us can get on about the business of modern living. I never really see that happen, though.

Political correctness did cause the attack at Fort Hood but no one in the government, the FBI, the CIA, or the military is willing to admit that.
I saw a video of an interview with Gen. Casey and based on what I heard him say about this attack and its aftermath, it appears that he couldn't be helping the Muslims any more than he is if he was on CAIR's payroll.
As the interview continued, I almost expected him to say at some point in regard to the imaginary backlash against the Muslim comunity, "Persecution is worse than slaughter."

Diversity is another word for our national paralysis; political correctness. The questions out there is how do we deal with this paralysis? do we have to wait for more Ft. Hoods, for another 9-11? Do we have to take the actions that FDR took against Japanese Americans? Clearly there is a dramatic difference between the allegiance of Japanese Americans of the era of WWII and the deeply entrenched religious and political ideology that so inculcates the umma.

Political correctness may work with almost any other religious ideology but not Islam,for the true believer there is no middle ground,there is no compromise in their aggressive and steadfast Islamic world. Islam is here to dominate,to subjugate and to triumph over the infidel,the kaffir(dog),and all non Muslims.

We have read those 164 jihadist versus among 114 surahs in the Qu'ran numerous times not to mention the numerous hadiths and yet watching the media talking heads, military brass, is like watching a "B" horror movie in the theatre where everyone knows who the bad guy is in the audience but those in the movie.

Maybe I missed it, but why have I not seen the real experts on the cable news shows instead of those who have no working knowledge of Islam over the past several days?

Hats off though to Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters who understands it and gets it.

Robert Spencer,Andrew Boston,Bridget Gabriel,Pamela Geller,Nonie Darwish,Geert Wilders,Andrew McCarthy,Caroline Glick,Daniel Pipes,Phylis Chesler,Walid Shoebat,and an endless list of so many more who get it, who have lived it. They have been on before and this is the most important time of all to hear from them and many more who understand what Islamic Ideology is truly about.

PC is a cancer that will finally kill this nation unless it is stopped. Solutions to problems such as the leftward drift of most politicians and jihadism will never be found if merely mentioning those problems is taboo.

Keep the heat on them!

Free Speech Rights Prevented Probe Into Hasan E-Mails, Investigator Says

The claim comes as officials in different branches of law enforcement and the military squabble over who knew what when about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's leanings toward faith-inspired violence, and as charges fly that 'political correctness' prevented officials from taking action and is still being used as a crutch in explaining the rampage after the fact.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/10/coverage-fort-hood-shooting-press-dodges-religious-component/

In Washington, lawmakers and counterterrorism experts debated (squabbled?) whether officials bungled the intelligence analysis or played down the threat that Hasan may have posed.....

"Why didn't they interview him (Hasan) and run this to ground?" asked one former U.S. counterterrorism official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the investigation. The official asked the Obama administration this week whether the FBI's operations guidelines prevented agents from doing more before the shootings. If the bureau's hands were tied, "where was the Department of Defense?" the official said.

Said Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism researcher with the NEFA Foundation, a terrorism research group based in Charleston, S.C.: "I find it unbelievable the FBI was not worried -- regardless of the content of the communications -- that an author in the U.S. military outside his job responsibilities was trying to contact somebody who is one of the world's most famous [English-speaking] advocates of jihad. That alone, to me, is a red flag." ......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111020051.html?hpid=topnews

link to article
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/10/coverage-fort-hood-shooting-press-dodges-religious-component/

Free Speech Rights Prevented Probe Into Hasan E-Mails, Investigator Says

excerpt:
"Investigators would have been "crucified" over First Amendment rights if they had launched a full-scale probe into e-mails Fort Hood massacre suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly sent to a radical imam, a government investigator told Fox News."

Note, everyone in the government and the military gets yearly training coordinated by the EEO. Issues such as sexual harassment and diversity are trained on a continuing basis.

Here is a story that was conveyed by a US Govt EEO officer and trainer about his role in a US military EEO investigation and the heavy handed tactics that were employed in that investigation. The EEO officer indicated that he used the example in all his classes/training sessions.

When troops were coming home from Viet Nam, a black tank mechanic was being reassigned to duty at a US base. He reported to the base commander's office and gave the orderly his reporting orders to be assigned to the base's motor pool. The base CO was a general, and was not pleased with the orders. According to the EEO officer the door to the general's office was open, but it is under dispute whether the general saw the mechanic. The general shouted, No, not another one of those. I am not going to have another one of those (swear word) people in my motorpool!
The soldier hears that and files an EEO racial discrimination compliant. EEO starts an investigation, the EEO officer indicated that they were ordered to come down and make an example of the general due to what was conveyed in the complaint.
When interviewed the general stated that the soldier was a tank mechanic, and his motor pool didn't have any tanks. So the new mechanic would need to be re-trained. The general was upset since all of the new mechanics he was getting in that time frame were trained in almost anything and everything that was not rolling stock in his motor pool. Generally, the tank mechanics would be re-trained just in time for them to leave the service when their hitch was up. Having unqualified mechanics in the motor pool was causing the repair work to get backed up. The general stated his reaction to getting the tank mechanic's orders had absolutely nothing to do with race.

The general was informed that the investigation had gone against him. The soldier was justified in his conclusion based on the fact that the general's words had created a perception of discrimination. The general was directed that he would need to apologize. The general agreed to meet with the mechanic and apologize privately.
However, this was not what the EEO wanted. The EEO told the general that he would need assemble the personnel from the entire base and read a letter of apology that had been prepared by the EEO, essentially admitting to an act of discrimination. Otherwise they would expect the general's letter of resignation immediately. Needless to say the general resigned.
The EEO officer related that he uses this example to drive home the point that the mere perception of discrimination (in the eyes of the person filing the grievance) may establish grounds for investigation and result in discipline or removal.

So what does this mean re: Hasan? Did he get a pass on all of his behavior, since all around him were frightened of the EEO process due to the emphasis in communications and annual training? Would Hasan's co workers, patients, and superiors fear that Hasan might well turn the tables on any report alleging that, in his perception, the reports were racially motivated. That seems to be consistent with the conclusion of the un-named investigator in the FOX report.

Think how hard we work to be armed with information and rebuttal. These folks, PC though they are, have no ammo to argue the points with their superiors. They have no source to get it. When is the last time the feds called you, Robert, to help them learn what the jihadists are really all about.

So even if they sense something isn't right, the first thing that pops instinctively out thanks to public schools and college is "well, all faiths have their extremists", "religion doesn't matter", "He hijacked Islam" and other silly, "lethal nonsense".

CNN headline yesterday: "Fort Hood killings 'incomprehensible,' Obama says".
Stupidity? PC spin? What? Anyway, this idea is toxic and must not be allowed to stand. We must insist that the attack be comprehended. Unfortunately, Americans are quite used to this sort of drivel and I'm afraid that "incomprehensible" will win the day; it may have done so already even if there is more investigation. Just the fact that CNN latched on to it is ominous. Email a senator to demand that a full investigation take place. Try to keep the U.S. from going into a mindless stupor on this issue; take the opportunity for a wakeup call.

"Fort Hood killings 'incomprehensible,' Obama says.

I take his word for it. It is beyond his capacity to comprehend this, not to mention the rationale behind it, the implications, and what he should do to confront it and prevent repeats.

This is depressing to watch. It is a level of incompetence I recognize from the vaning days of the Soviet Union. The US administration seems dominated by the CMA (Cover My A**) syndrome. Spin, blame-shifting, denial of the obvious, inability or unwillingness to face the truth.

That goes for financials, too.

Could anyone out in cyberspace imagine General Casey
saying what he did if Ronald Reagan was president?

From one of our Institutions of Higher Learning:

http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/nietzsche-is-dead-don-t-let-fear-turn-america-against-islamic-faith-1.2060604

So far as I can see, the army has always *been* pretty diverse. Black, hispanic, WASP and Native Americans have all produced their heroes, in the two great world wars and in the other, lesser conflicts since. And as for religious groups: Catholics, Protestants, Jews, atheists and agnostics and probably some Buddhists from among the loyal Japanese-American contingent, have all fought with distinction. And *in the absence of Mohammedans* in any discernible number at all, it has worked fine.

Indeed, among the young soldiers who were mown down by this Muslim traitor at Ft Hood is...the son of a Laotian immigrant/ refugee who had fought alongside the Americans against the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War. The father, most likely a Buddhist, fought Communism; now the son lies dead, a victim of the Muslim Fifth Column...right inside the American military, on American soil, and the poor father is absolutely devastated. (Meanwhile, the dead boy's brother, who is also an American soldier, fights on, in Afghanistan; I wonder whether he knows of the Bamiyan Buddhas, and whether anyone has told him of what the Muslims did to hundreds of thousands of peaceful Buddhists who once inhabited that region?).

The U S army, and any other army in the non-Muslim lands, can go on being as much of a mixed bag as it has always been...so long as Mohammedans are left strictly out of the mix. You can have a great stew or a fantastic salad... so long as you leave out the arsenic.

Robert:
terriabley sorry to be pendantic but the death toll is 14. Francska Velez was 3 month pregenant when she and her baby were murdered.

This is a very important point to consider how the islamists will kill everyone to vindicate their evil. They live by the sword so they should die by the sword and violently so.

xavier

Possibly the general should be subject to review and a search of his locker. He abused his position by the denigration of those under his command by dismissing the possibility of it happening again by those peace loving muslims.

Could Fort Hood have been an "inside job"? It would make sense. Our nation's governmental front-man has a mooselimb middle name. BTW, I could of been one of the first causalities of American jihad, back in 1978. I was riding south in NYC's upper-east side, on a 10-speed bike, and had a knife thrown at me by some bearded lunatic screaming "Allah". The knife missed me and skidded for a while in back of me, in the middle of the street. This incident had occured right after the Shah of Iran was exiled and the eye-a-roll-a became a god. I was a rather young woman at that time, so I'm sure the sight of a free, young, female happily speeding along could really have pushed the buttons of the up-and-coming U.S.-as-sharia-state misogynists.
Something that is really sad, though, is the plight of those of us who have female friends who are married to mooselimbs, here in the U. S. These men are what we would consider "moderates" ---- those who are too cowardly to take a stand ----- but it puts those of us who are friends with the non-mooselimb wife in a very awkward position, especially when something like Fort Hood jihad happens. Friendships, and I would image even families, could be broken-up because of this dynamic.

According to an email alert from the National Association for Gun Rights, A Clinton edict (Exec order? - 1990s) went out to all Armed Force bases declaring them a "gun-free zone", thus prohibiting ARMED services personnel from being armed on base!

Those who were killed and wounded, even though highly trained for infantry combat could not carry loaded weapons on base. They could have easily whacked the Muslim terrorist if it were not for Clinton's effeminate edict, in which he basically kowtowed to womens' groups such as NOW.

The Clinton rule denied them the fire-arms ability to defend themselves against this terrorist.

Apparently the rule still stands today (why didn't Bush overturn it? Why doesn't Obama overturn it?), meaning that every armed forces base in the country is wide open for terrorist attack. Clinton disarmed the very people who are supposed to be able to defend the country.

And Bush allowed a variant of this obtuse reasoning when National Guard troops were sent to the border - they were not allowed to carry armed weapons.

This event should be a wake up call that Muslims cannot function in the armed services and all should be discharged, for the good of the service, and no more allowed in. Their allegiance is to Islam and not America, regardless of any oath they take. A kuffir oath can be taken by Muslims without "sinning" because they can lie for the sake of Islam. In Western civilization we call this perfidy; the Muslims glorify it as Taqiyya.

There is no way anyone can ever tell whether a Muslim you serve with will go bananas or not. They all hear fiery Imams imported from SA damning the kuffirs every Friday. Add to that the incitement to terror found on thousands of Jihadi websites that many of them visit, and you have pathological psychos ready to do Allah's calling, kill the kuffirs.

God help America if West Point is now only turning out diversity freaks like Casey. West Point and Annapolis need to get rid of the NOW influence. I do not mean get rid of women in uniform, I mean get the effeminate political correctness out of the academy classrooms. We need Pattons, Jeb Stuarts, Grants, MacArthurs, and Eisenhowers. On the hopeful side there are men like Generals Petraeus and McCrystal.

"They could have easily whacked the Muslim terrorist if it were not for Clinton's effeminate edict, in which he basically kowtowed to womens' groups such as NOW."
I get your point sir, but this sounds like a highly masculinist slant, mostly due to your wording. I certainly think that disarming soldiers who are on their military bases is totally ridiculous and ludicrous, but lets not glorify an obsession with death and destruction. I think war is horrible and that the men who like war, like the soldiers that you mentioned, are useful only in certain situations. Their mentality, though, is certainly not in keeping with what I would consider an evolved, civilized society. I actually think that these guys are the American counterparts of the foreign warmonger mentality, only it is directed towards defending democratic values. There is a lot to be said about about how historically it has almost always been the "y" chromosome factor that is involved with killing for its own sake, be it people or animals. Women generally don't get off on the destruction of living creatures for sport, with some exceptions. Why is it when a man, regardless of his personal or political agenda, thinks twice before having a blind allegiance to a macho standard, it is insinuated that he is lacking the requirements to be a male (i.e. he is "effeminate")? Isn't this way of thinking the very same as the islamic fascists who love blood, war, aggression, rape and brutality?

test