America-hater in Qns. hails Hood massacre

[LUVMBDiesels]

America-hater in Qns. hails Hood massacre

New York Post article...

By JOHN DOYLE in Fort Hood, Texas, and JANON FISHER in NY
Last Updated: 6:46 AM, November 9, 2009
Posted: 2:15 AM, November 8, 2009
The soldiers at Fort Hood had it coming, says a radical Muslim in Queens who travels to mosques around the city spreading anti-American hate and has sent a "Get Well Soon" message to the major behind the Texas massacre.
"An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a pre-emptive attack," Yousef al-Khattab wrote on his Web site, called "Revolution Muslim." "Get well soon Major Nidal. We love you."
In the twisted logic of al-Khattab, who was born Jewish in New Jersey and converted to Islam in 2004, the 13 slain and 38 wounded Army victims gunned down by the radical one-man sleeper cell were "terrorists" who deserved to die.
"These people are soldiers in a volunteer army," he told The Post during a sitdown at a Woodside, Queens, cafe. "They expect to see combat. They know the danger."
"Rest assured the slain terrorists at Ft. Hood are in the eternal hellfire," al-Khattab writes on his Web site.
Army shrink Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, reportedly shouted "Allahu akbar" -- Arabic for "God is great" -- before unloading more than 100 rounds at soldiers preparing to ship off to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Amanda Foote, whose husband is in Iraq, went to visit a soldier who survived the onslaught yesterday and said she was stunned that the base had been hit by such horror.
"I told my husband the other day, 'I thought I would never say I was happy you were in Iraq.' I never thought it would be safer for him to be there than to be on post at home," she said.
Like Hasan -- whose pro-homicide bomber rhetoric on the Web had caught the authorities' attention -- the FBI is well aware of al-Khattab's dangerous online lunacy, but they are unable to do much about it as he just skirts the line between protected speech and inciting violence.
"It's terrible. It's reprehensible. For the mosques it's a p.r. nightmare. He's probably putting members of the mosque in danger from attacks from non-Muslims, but he's not breaking the law," said Barry Covert, a First Amendment lawyer in Buffalo.
He said that unless al-Khattab incites people to immediate acts of violence, the Constitution protects him.
The Woodside extremist spends his free time annoying mainstream Muslims in front of mosques around the city, handing out literature and denouncing the US.
Imams in Manhattan are appalled by his message and have tried to get the police to stop him from spreading his radical message.
"We spoke to law enforcement about them, because we are disgusted with their behavior," said Shamsi Ali, an imam at the Islamic Cultural Center of New York, a mosque at 96th Street and Third Avenue.
He said that at a recent Muslim parade, al-Khattab and his followers were preaching violence, but despite complaints from the congregation, the NYPD could only watch.
"They say that as long as there is not a physical threat, there's nothing that they can do." said Ali. "They say it's a free-speech issue."
john.doyle@nypost.com




Disgusting... All I can say

[MS Fowler]

Why can we not say that Radical Islam is at war with us?

[johnjzjz]

the largest growing Muslim POP in this country is the American Blacks coming out of Jail having converted - and you have not met anyone till you have run into one of this new breed of clowns - they want to make a point about what was done to them and BY who ( as they see it ) READ betweeen the lines, 1/2 way houses are set up to try and help long time prisoners to re establish into the streets as they say - BUT the houses are being run by converts to Muslin - its a real mess in jerzey - been to them and seen first hand what is happening, it is in my opinion they are building an army to fight back at our way of life - jz

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Why can we not say that Radical Islam is at war with us?

Because it is not POLITICALLY CORRECT to do so.

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Because it is not POLITICALLY CORECT to do so.

I certainly understand, but is it therefore not true?
Can we not speak the truth?

Before I get dumped into the "bigot" categort, let me say," some of my best friends" have been Mulims. ( we were close enough that I could offer to take him to lunch during Ramadan --if I spelled that right). Its not the majority of Muslims that are the threat; its the very small ( even 1/2 of 1% of world wide Muslims in well over a million) portion that are Radicals.

[KarTek]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Before I get dumped into the "bigot" categort, let me say," some of my best friends" have been Mulims. ( we were close enough that I could offer to take him to lunch during Ramadan --if I spelled that right). Its not the majority of Muslims that are the threat; its the very small ( even 1/2 of 1% of world wide Muslims in well over a million) portion that are Radicals.

This is true for me as well. I have a good friend in the UK who's Muslim and we talk about this all the time.

It's always the small percent of any particular group who have the biggest mouths, cause the most trouble and give the rest a bad name. Regardless of what group it is: Religious, political, etc...

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by KarTek

It's always the small percent of any particular group who have the biggest mouths, cause the most trouble and give the rest a bad name. Regardless of what group it is: Religious, political, etc...

That is the heart of the problem.

In this country, that abuse of our rights to Free Speech, to peacefull assemble for redress of grievances, are continually pushed to the limits and beyond and abused, by individuals and corporations.


It's why the Courts are continually getting involved.


Tha classic example taught in law school, as I recall, was "Shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre" when there was no fire.


THAT is abusing Free Speech in the USA.

[toomany MBZ]

An American America hater, what are gonna do?
Free speech is just that, regardless of agreement.
I don't follow his logic by any means. But you're free to do, say whatever you'd like UNTIL it becomes action. Sadly there may not be any way to tell when that will happen if at all. You just can't go around jailing people for what they might do. Yet, I think someone dropped the ball on this one.

[Txjake]

I invite this weasel down to Ft Hood or any military base to practice his "free speech"..what he is spewing is more akin to the "fighting words" noted by the Supremes in one of the free speech cases....

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by Txjake

I invite this weasel down to Ft Hood or any military base to practice his "free speech"..what he is spewing is more akin to the "fighting words" noted by the Supremes in one of the free speech cases....

Correct.


"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

[Hatterasguy]

Damn shame a CIA driven bus can't run over that guy or something. People jump in front of subways all the time to...so tragic.


You know back in WW2 if we had a Nazi running around talking about how great Hitler was we would send them to a camp. Free speech only goes so far when you are at war, you need to remove the enemy's among the populace. They should buy that guy a one way ticket to Gitmo.

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

You know back in WW2 if we had a Nazi running around talking about how great Hitler was we would send them to a camp. Free speech only goes so far when you are at war, you need to remove the enemy's among the populace. They should buy that guy a one way ticket to Gitmo.

Prior to WW2, there were a number of pro-nazi groups in the U.S. and a significant number of american agreed with their philosophy of separate races. Many americans were not enthusiastic about being involved with a european war. The majority of the U.S. "patriotism" was related to the attack on pearl harbor, not the fact that germany had just invaded poland and was rounding up jews; that was seen as a european problem.

Interestingly, many Japanese-americans were sent to camps while many German-americans were drafted for combat duty. It's difficult to conclude that there was not a racist element to that decision. You can draw you own conclusions.

[Txjake]

Originally Posted by Craig

Prior to WW2, there were a number of pro-nazi groups in the U.S. and a significant number of american agreed with their philosophy of separate races. Many americans were not enthusiastic about being involved with a european war. The majority of the U.S. "patriotism" was related to the attack on pearl harbor, not the fact that germany had just invaded poland and was rounding up jews; that was seen as a european problem.

Interestingly, many Japanese-americans were sent to camps while many German-americans were drafted for combat duty. It's difficult to conclude that there was not a racist element to that decision. You can draw you own conclusions.

I think it was more cultural, than racist. There was not a great understanding of Asian culture then, and there had been lots of press about the Japanese invasions all over the pacific rim.

Regarding the populace, it also most likely had to do with the percieved degree on integration into the US society as a whole for each group. There is certainly some racial decisions here. Germans were an ethnic group, not a race, so the comaprison is somewhat flawed. Japanese Americans did serve, mostly in Europe though.

[MTI]

Luckily the US has a much better understanding of middle eastern culture . . .

[Skippy]

There probably was a racist element to that, but there was also a practical element. Americans of German descent did then and still do make up a sizeable percentage of the U.S. military. Examples include General Eisenhower and my Uncle Bud. More recently, my class in "A" school had ten people and five of us were of German descent.

If they'd taken all the German-Americans out of the military, they wouldn't have had much of a military left.