NY Times -- FORT HOOD, Tex. -- Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, with a blanket draped over his shoulders and a watch cap pulled low over his dark eyes, listened impassively in recent days as several survivors of his murderous rampage a year ago rose and pointed to him as the gunman who had shot them.
No emotion or hint of the defendant's thoughts flickered across his pale features, as more than two dozen other soldiers and civilians spoke under oath about their struggle to survive in the terrifying minutes after he yelled "Allahu akbar!" -- "God is great" in Arabic -- and started shooting. He sank low in his wheelchair -- he is paralyzed from the waist down after the police shot him to end his shooting attack on Nov. 5 -- and stared intensely at the witnesses. At times he made small, precise notes on a legal pad, but he said nothing to his lawyers....
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, US Army Medical Corps
I find it curious that educated men and women reporting for The Gray Lady (NY Times) can't figure out why Nidal Hasan murdered 14 fellow service members at Ft. Hood Texas. I know it's impolite to claim that it's because he's a Muslim to spite his screams of, "Allah u akbar!" as he gunned down innocent men and women, who, moments before would have considered him a brother-in-arms. One might resort to the Holy Book of Islam, the Qur'an for an answer.
Verse 9:11 means what it means. A Muslim who is killed or who kills fulfilling teachings 9:5, 9:29 and all the other teachings of murder, rape, terror, torture in the Quran ARE GUARANTEED ACCESSION TO AN EVIL PARADISE FILLED WITH FULL BREASTED, LUSTROUS EYED VIRGINS WHO REGENERATE AS VIRGINS AFTER EACH SEX ACT AND WHOM THESE KILLERS AND MURDERERS OF ISLAM CAN SEXUALLY MOLEST FOR ALL ETERNITY.... But I don't think that would be politically correct to quote in the NY Times, would it?
How will the NY Times cope with Major Nidal Hasan, US Army, if he follows the the example of the Times Square bomber and truthfully proclaim his motives? He should lecture the court about how it lacks jurisdiction in the matter, since it is not based on Shariah and God's law. He can carefully explain that since the dead soldiers were infidel dogs there should be no penalty for his killing them. If he is thorough he will make use of legal precedents from Islam, complete with citations from the Qur'an and Hadith. That's what a good Muslim should do in order to anchor his martyrdom.
The NY Times Article goes on:
Staff Sgt. Patrick Zeigler said he thought at first the attack was a training exercise. He froze in disbelief as the laser guide crossed his eyes. Then he was hit.
“It felt like someone hit me in the head with a metal baseball bat,” Sergeant Zeigler said, touching the right side of his head where doctors later had to remove part of his brain. He recalled hitting the floor and crawling desperately across the ground toward the door before passing out. “There was a pool of my own blood on the ground in front of me,” he said.
Major Hasan can become a model to Muslims worldwide by telling the court that as a Jihadi, he merely did what he had been commanded to do by the Qur'an!
7 comments:
If the NY Times admitted that Islam had something to do with a Muslim yelling "Allah is great" before killing and maiming dozens of Americans in cold blood, they might have to take a break from pinning the "bigot" label on people opposed to the building of a mosque on Ground Zero.
Hassan the assassin fulfilled the precepts of Islam perfectly with his attack. He yelled the correct Islamic epithet. He gunned down helpless, unarmed infidels. If this attack is once odd, isolated event, there sure have been a lot of them lately. I wonder why there have been so many attacks on Americans since B. Hussein ascended to the pResidency.
Why is Hasan still alive? Why can't our security personnel shoot straight?
WoFat, they hit him in the back and severed his spine. Why they couldn't have emptied the magazine and saved the government the expense of a trial is beyond me. Somebody screwed up in their training methods.
Opus, we encourage our enemies when we're soft.
Quite Rightly, The Ground Zero Victory Mosque is a pet project of the NYT and the liberal establishment. More particularly many Jews seem to love it. Why is a question that no sane person can answer.
The Publisher, editors, journalists and readership of the New York Times are all pretty much of one cultural mind. They are for the most part quite literally insular "intellectual" elitists who seem to have a perverse emotional need to accept, understand and rationalize even the most heinous conduct by people who would just as soon slit their throats as look at them. Hence their pathological inability to accept the otherwise inescapable conclusion that one who yells Allahu Ul-Akbar and then opens fire killing and maiming as many people as possible is in fact a Muslim and that his Islamic faith factored heavily in his decision to attack.
Who can forget the news clip of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg gleefully speculating in coded terms that some Obamacare opponent (read: white racist tea-bagger) was the probable Times Square bomber before Faisal Shahzad was later arrested in the plot.
Manhattan liberals really are lemmings.
Islam...the religion of hate and intolerance. :(
Post a Comment