Kilmeade: Muslims "have to understand" being profiled because of "the war that was declared on us"
November 10, 2009 9:04 am ET
From the November 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Why is Rupert Murdoch so clueless about Fox News?
Media Matters: Dobbs, dropped
Just because the shooter's name happens to be Muslim sounding... somehow that equates to a terrorist attack? Maj. Hasan was a shooter who worked alone! This was not a terrorist attack, it was a horrible shooting!
To all you Cluster Fox watchers who actually believe dumb asses like Brian Kilmeade know what he is talking about...
This war started about 1000 years ago or so... 9/11 was just one more battle in the ongoing war between American capitalism and an entire people who just happen to live under a lot of oil!
Read Peter Lance's "1000 Years for Revenge" it will give ya plenty to think about on how religious differences started this war and how American capitalism took the reins once oil was discovered and profit became the motive.
"I was depressed and psychologically conflicted about going to Iraq/Afghanistan to support the fight, as it's true that, as many who worked with me have already said, I consider myself a Muslim Palestinian first, American second. Therefore, I believed it was better to get myself martyred in the name of Allah than deploy."
You can parse witnesses all day long in an effort to assign some handpicked motive to his actions, just remember:
a) it's unconstitutional, because he has a right to a fair and impartial trial,
b) it's unconstitutional, because he's innocent until proven guilty,
c) you are certainly not defending the constitution by assigning your own motives to something you don't really have all the facts to,
and d) did I mention it was unconstitutional?
And Snoop, one can form a reasonable opinion about cause without having to wait for a jury to tell him what to think. It's not unconstitutional for you or me to draw conclusions based on what we observe. Stop being so ridiculous, you're just justifying my assertion that you're being argumentative for the sake of it.
Snoopy: The ground was bare when I went to bed.
Sensible Person: There's snow on the ground now.
Snoopy: That doesn't mean it snowed overnight!
how does the fact that one guy who went nuts and is of arabic descent and is muslim mean that all muslims hate america and wish to do us harm. that is the problem.
profiling is never right applied to anyone.
hispanics could be profiled as dirty illegals, even if they are here legally and were born here.
black people could be always profiled as criminals
and white people could even be profiled as bigots and racists.
tell me where any of these situations should be applied.
the answer is none of them.....ever
What does stereotyping Muslins - or any group - have to do with the fact that the military and the U.S. Government should have seen this guy as a threat?
fact is....the authorities were aware of him to a certain extent but didn't have enough to move against him cause they were following the law, like they are supposed to.
the point i was making, that you wandered off of, was that kilmeade says its ok to profile muslims in the army and that they should be expecting it and be ok with it now because of 9-11.
ya know just like the japanese had to deal with it after pearl harbor.
except that its not ok to profile anyone...ever. that is the point that you seem to be missing in all of this.
I've learned, in the legal profession, that eye-witness testimony is rarely exact. You can have 5 eye-witnesses and each one will tell you a different story of how an even occurred.
Seemes to me this was an act of cowardice and sedition, intended primarily to avoid deployment. As much as it was an act against the Government and Military of the USA, it was an act of TREASON.
Without a larger network, there is no greater threat. Without a greater threat, there is simply no FEAR to INSTILL.
TILLER'S murder (for example) was meant to send a message: We're out there, fear us. We're coming for you. THIS IDIOT'S spree was just that: a spree. Who am I supposed to fear now? The idiot in CUSTODY?! The Six Million+ American Musliums with whom I'm currently coexsisting peacefully and who have condemned this act? The BILLION+ Muslims in the world who only take up arms against us after we invade their country?
I'm not seeing the bigger agenda here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious or not, this was only an act of terrorism after you bedwetters have stripped the word of any meaning.
Your logic is one sided. Again, by your twisting of logic we can assume most crimes are of a terrorist nature. Agreed?
If the shooter was not previously removed from the ranks by the Army I suspect it had more to do with maintaining troop levels than anything else.
'Not every muslim is a jihadist, but every jihadist is a muslim'? Well, in that same vein: Not every Christian is a crusader, but every crusader (Blackwater ringing any bells?) is a Christian. Gimme a break, Kilmeade.
If you want to move the story forward, there are two things you should be aware of:
1) The story of Major Hasan appears to be an excellent chance to talk about the mental illness known as depression, and the mental effects on our military when we have soldiers serving multiple tours because of the pointless fiasco in Iraq.
2) If you are going to try to oppress a religion, then you are no student of history. Early Christianity in Rome, Christianity and Judaism under Soviet Russia, any religion at all in communist China? They all flourished under persecution, and you should know that.
Calling one group out for extra scrutiny is not equality any more than giving one group extra privileges is equality. You live in America. Try to keep in mind that you do not live here alone.
It says so in the Constitution.
And...and...and that's what our Founding Fathers said.
And...and that's what Sean Hannity says.
And...and... ;>)
1. Medieval knights, princes and kings using religion as a means of gaining/regaining lands to control
2. Medieval zealots
Either way, since much of the rest of the world is in the 21st century, you'll agree with me that fighting medieval zealot warriors in Afghanistan is a good thing for the modern world?
2. If you dumb down the argument to "terrorists and crusaders" then it other reasoned approaches don't matter.
Zealots are not confined to any particular time period, but can be found through all times and all cultures. Fighting in Afghanistan is helping no one at the moment, not the Afghanis and certainly not us. And, you cannot defeat zealots with military power, as they are already beyond the call of reason. You don't fight zealots, you can only kill them. The real battle, the useful battle, is for those who remain undecided, whose opinion may yet be swayed by a kind word or a good deed. You may bomb a country into submission, but they will never love you for it.
And the rest of us have to understand that our constitutional rights are meaningless too.
You can't accept paragraph one as true and say that paragraph two is false. Either they're both true or neither is true.
He shot them in the name of Allah. Thus religion.
Hasan is an Islamic terrorist. Pretty simple, huh?
And these people will saw your head off just as fast as they would saw mine off. Do you think they will stop to ask, "are you a libbie or conservative" before they execute you with the most severe degree of pain and humility they can dream up?
You leftists are really a naive group. Jeez.
Hasan was / is a terrorist who shot 50. Period.
he did not shot 50 people. it was close but not 50
He shot them in the name of Allah. Thus religion.
would you mind providing some proof that he kill in the name of god?
Hasan is an Islamic terrorist. Pretty simple, huh?
not so simple, he is crazy and an A&&h0le for shooting people but i don't see any proof he was a part of a terrorist group. any more than the schmuck that shot dr. tiller was.
epic fail dude
You don't have to be part of a group to be a terrorist. Look up the definition. Terror is a tactic and a terrorist is simply one who engages in that tactic.
as far as yelling god is great, you have no idea why he yelled it. he could have been giving himeself some kind of final prayer for all you know.
guess we will just have to wait for a trial to find out what he meant and what his motive was.
•S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
And motive at a trial is whatever the winning side says it is. You and snoop are being argumentative not because of what's probably true but because you're so afraid that if it's admitted that this guy was an act-alone terrorist motivated (among other personal issues) by a fundamental, radical belief of Islam, that the teabaggers will all take over and Beck will be elected president. That's not going to happen.
And what the hell do you call what you say here?? You are condemning an entire religion (Islam) because of a fringe of said religion...?
Do not dare come back simply claiming the racist Christian stance that Islam is not a peaceful religion... the same can absolutely be said about Christianity! And you know it! You must prove that Islam is a religion of destruction, you cannot just say it, especially if the facts do not fit!
Kind a makes you begin to rethink the Bush/Cheney created War on Terror... that they started a fight with a concept, not a people... only it is people who are dying and the concept which lives on.
Of course, with that said, Maj. Hasan shooting at Ft. Hood was a criminal act, not a terrorist attack! Was the Columbine shooting a terror attack?
You begin the slippery slope of making any shooting be considered a terrorist attack... or is it only potential terror if a guy with a Muslim name does the shooting??
maybe we should just go ahead and profile african american people and hispanic people for drug dealing, prostitution and all crimes that are committed in this country.
You made it because he's a minority, thus racism.
You are a racist. Pretty simple, huh?
Well, now, dex -- that presumes you have ACCESS to "15 pages worth of evidence" . . . I'm wondering how that's possible, unless you're part of the investigation team.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110903618.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/nidal-hasan-tried-to-cont_n_350468.html
So now we have Hasan, who upset his peers with outlandish assertions and recommendations, and who was attempting to contact Al Qaeda.
There is also witness reports that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" while shooting, that he met with and worshipped at a mosque of a radical imam who is worked with the 9/11 hijackers and is now in Yemen, and that he told some peers that he considered himself a Palestinian and Muslim before he considered himself an American (even though he was born in the US and went to VaTech).
I'd say reasonable people can lean toward this guy being or becoming a radical fundamentalist islamist. If you're not going to be reasonable because of FEAR, fear of the truth and the IRRATIONAL fear that if you give an INCH, Glenn Beck will be elected president, then we can quit talking about it.
So the FBI hasn't decided, but you already have. Alrighty then...
You must have a higher source than an elected official - is it Rupert Murdoch?
Hmmm, officials still think it's a lone act, but you've got that terrorist proof thing from a higher calling saying otherwise...
Well then, that proves terrorism, right?
Military officials were made aware of communications between Hasan and al-Awlaki, but because the messages did not advocate or threaten violence, civilian law enforcement authorities could not take the matter further, the officials said. The terrorism task force concluded Hasan was not involved in terrorist planning.
Well what was I thinking? I should have jumped on board the racial and religious stereotyping bandwagon and shook my pitchfork in anger calling for his hanging! Now that's what I call acting reasonably and responsibly!
"The FBI hasn't decided, but you have."
WRONG, the FBI decided that he was definitely trying to contact islamic terror groups and that they may have mishandled the info they collected (presumably they could've investigated Hasan more closely prior to this incident).
The rest of your post is spew, was headlined by an erroneous assertion that I know you're smarter than, so I'm not going to waste my fingers typing responses to nonsensical drivel that you write just to be argumentative.
Well, snoop, you heard dex -- quoting an FBI official, a law enforcement official, a Washington official, and a Republican lawmaker is "spew."
That only means one thing: dex is THE authority on this subject.
/end sarcasm/
Silly dex -- we have a press {and I use that term loosely} that REPORTS . . .
Any "investigation" done by the press is incidental and ancillary to their main purpose: selling papers/programs.
Investigation done by the press, unlike that done by law enforcement/gov't agencies, does not result in conviction or acquittal . . .
You have 15 pages of evidence that Hassan was a radical Islamic fundamentalist?
Do you know someone in Military Intelligence who leaked that information to you?
As far as I know, the military has been pretty tight lipped about any kind of religious cause this murderer may have had.
You are aware of how many Muslim Americans have died for this country, aren't you?
If we're sending Americans half way around the world, to fight two wars in Muslim nations and we hold each and every Muslim under suspicion, then WTF are we doing risking American lives to help people who we as a nation will never trust or understand? What is it we're doing over there?
We're either there to help the Afghan people or to kill terrorists. If it's the latter, then we should be in Pakistan. That's where they are today.
And if you think we should be going in there to root them out, will we follow them to another country when they leave Pakistan?
Certainty is the problem with radical Islamic fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, and the right wing in general. They use their "certainty" to argue and as proof and expect everyone else to accept their version of truth.
There's very little in life that I'm certain of.
I'm not calling you a racist or a hater. I'm only pointing out that one man's certainty is another man's doubt.
Exactly.
The Ft. Hood attacker was three things:
- A Muslim
- A US Army Major
- A psychiatrist
How come we aren't suddenly profiling majors or psychiatrists?
how about the fact that he is trying to sell drawings he did in prison. or that he is trying to have people sell for him manuals on how to bomb abortion clinics and kill people.
he does have a target list. any doctor who performs abortions and anyone who tries to get one. its plain for anyone to see that.
It never ceases to amaze me how the same people who wet their beds about universal healthcare being some sort of abridgement of the constitution can wish so desparately that others be deprived those same rights. It's fairly obvious what the modern conservative movement is; it's a tribalistic one. Right-wingers want advancement for themselves and people they identify with, and fear the "other".
When I taught government, I used to end my class with this quote. I get called un-American all the time for being a liberal. But I firmly believe this to be true. Profiling Muslims or Arabs or dark-skinned people because they look like a Muslim or an Arab is wrong. And you can't arrest people for what they might do, unless you believe in thought crime, which was a big thing in the novel "1984" by Orwell and wasn't that "Orwellian Fate" a thing to be avoided at all costs?
Kind of like the previous misadministration?
Those two, simple words have been used over the ages to denigrate blacks, Jews, gays, Italians, Irish, and on and on. They're as hateful now as they've always been.
i would have to disagree. hasan is an islamic man who also happens to be a terrorist. not all islamic people are terrorists and not all terrorists are islamic. we have terrorists in this country who profess to be christians. does this fact make all christians terrorists?
a guy goes nuts and kills people and because of his being of arabic descent that justifies profiling?
Maybe those in government jobs should have an extra security check... you know, those who work for the Police, Fire Dept, National Guard, etc.
After all, those people hate African-Americans and want them all to die. I've read the KKK literature. They want a free, white christian nation.
There's a guy in the military. A white dude from South Carolina, whom several have heard say " I consider myself a white Southerner first, American second."
He has been investigated by the FBI for, among other things, trying to contact terrorist KKK groups over the internet.
He has spoken with and attended meetings of David Duke.
He goes crazy and plans and executes a mass shooting on the military base he's stationed on....right before he's about to be deployed to South Carolina to put down an insurrection of crazy radical white KKK members. While shooting, he shouts "Long live the South!" and "White Power!"
..........
And then Snoopy, peace4all and others come to his defense: "Well, we don't REALLY know his motives!" "You're just calling him a white racist terrorist because he's white and from South Carolina!" Shouting "White Power" doesn't necessarily MEAN anything!"
See why this is so stupid to talk about? Hasan executing a terror attack IN LARGE PART due to his radical islamic faith is not going to destroy the US or get Glenn Beck elected president, so you don't have to be argumentative because you're afraid.
But i think the most important point in this entire thread was posted by peace4all, "how can you have a war on terrorism when it's not an entity but a tactic?"
That's it in a nutshell. We cannot defeat an idea with violence, no matter how many countries we invade or how many troops we send. This is analagous to the "war on drugs" and honestly how are we doing in that war against a nebulous, faceless enemy?
but the point your avoiding does not justify PROFILING.....ever. because at some point you just may get profiled yourself.
No, that statement you made suggesting an outcome shows you don't advocate profiling at all! Really, does it get any easier than this?
Police pull over a guy who was swerving. After the guy was pulled over, they find a ton of empty liquor bottles in the car, and the driver is slurring his speech. The guy also happens to be of Japanese decent.
Snoop: PROFILING!!! HE DIDN'T ADMIT TO BEING DRUNK!!
heck even the japanese americans were allowed to fight for their country in world war ii and they distinguished themselves more than any other soldiers in the history of warfare.
That's one reason I love Manhattan. You will be hard pressed to find that crap there. Wait a second...i forgot about FOX News. Oh well...
Terrorism has been around for thousands of years... and we can't ever win a war against it just protect ourselves from it.
It's like fightin a war on land mines (I know there are organizations trying to get a world wide land mine treaty), but it's nonsense.
We couldn't declare war on the nation that attacked us (because technically if we had to it would have been Saudia Arabia), so we declared it on Terrorism and blamed Afghanistan.
It's such a mess... we need to get out of Afghanistan now... it's a cursed land and the long history of failed occupation just shows that we don't read our history.
We don't do that anymore, we go in and try to impose a western culture and society on medieval cultures. We could've absolutely destroyed the Iraqi military and all suspected weapons sites. We could've flown drones, planes and helicopters over Afghanistan for months after 9/11 and completely fried Al Qaeda and Taliban infrastructure. If we're attacked or believe an imminent threat, why do we owe a nation-build? It doesn't make any sense.
Take off our shoes at the airport?
Muslims want to kill Americans?
We have the right to invade any country we feel threatened by and overturn their government and hunt down terrorists?
Crazy Christians were right all along?
To me, the lesson of 9/11 is that fear is the most powerful weapon in acheiving your goals. Terrorists have known that for centuries (hence their name), but our government has definitely learned that lesson and its polarizing and tearing this country apart.
We created the blueprint for victory in Afghanistan against the Soviets... we funded the insurgents. We made it so painful for the Soviets that it was no longer worth the occupation.
What was the last US War Victory? I'm not talking Panama or Grenada... I'm talking a true occupation and turn over?
Historically with Germany and Japan we had put military bases there and helped reconstruct their government. btw... we still have military bases in Japan and Germany today.
Korea, we put a military base there too and helped construct their government.
Is that our plan in Iraq? Afghanistan? Is that what we want to do for the next 50 years? Has the world become less safe because we left Vietnam?
Those who have a stomach for war are those who will never experience it.
EXAMPLE: Grandpa complained to the family at Thanksgiving, "We Americans just don't have sufficient wood for war any more."
Because that is what these war lovin' neanderthals are actually talking about.
Always makes me wonder about 'Veterans' who support going to war, as Tancredo says he talked to. Ever hear the term REMF?
And poor DeLay. He wanted to go in the worst way but.. I'll let him explain.
"So many minority youths had volunteered…that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself."
He was dealing with soldiers suffering from PTSD, who either unable or unwilling to separate their opponents from other Moslems. He probably faced hostility from some (most?) simply because of his name. Facing this day after day, week after week, month after month would have repercussions.
In addition, the military tend to be "black and white" thinkers. Any questioning of policy is Un-American and would get the "Why do you hate America?" question from some. Most would simply spread the un-American calumny behind his back. His attempt to show how a suicide bomber might justify his action is turned into a "promotion" of the act.
He probably tried to get help. Sometimes, however, what someone else considers to be "help" is not actually helpful. He probably felt trapped - wanted to have a break from the sessions, but couldn't get one because of the shortage of psychiatrists (Catch 22), which would also limit his chances to get help from his peers.
He was in a bad situation, and he chose a wrong way to attempt to resolve it.
Kill-me's right.
Just like African Americans who drive nice cars "have to understand" that they're gonna be pulled over more often, because so many drug dealers drive nice cars.
Just like Mexican Americans "have to understand" they're gonna be viewed as illegal immigrants -- whether they are or not -- simply because so many illegals come from Mexico.
Don't hold back, Fox -- wear your bigotry on your sleeve!!
Genuine stereotyping and fearmongering. Kilmeade is a kook!
What about the confession of Dr. Tiller's killer recently? Hmmm? He said he did it because he beileved as a christian it was wrong! Does that mean attrack every christian? Hmm? He acted alone so just blame him and not the Islam.