"Take Heed" Ministries

Cecil Andrews, PO BOX 13, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AL, Northern Ireland.

Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com

WEBSITE - http://www.takeheed.net

The Fort Hood Massacre: Don’t let the

media or politicians ‘hoodwink’ you!

 

The murderous events that took place at Fort Hood on Thursday 5th November 2009 were truly shocking but what have been equally as shocking have been the concerted attempts by both the media and politicians to rule out the possibility that the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan were directly linked to his being a Muslim.

 

This attempted ‘removal of any blame from Islam’ has been taking place on both sides of the Atlantic. The BBC Newsnight programme of Friday 6th November was a prime example of this and it prompted me to send a complaint to the BBC. Currently this programme can be viwed on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ntf7m/N... and if you scroll forward to about 21-22minutes into the programme you will see their coverage of the Fort Hood massacre

 

This was the wording of my complaint –

 

Coverage of the Fort Hood massacre involved interviews with 2 Imams - one UK and the other American - they were allowed to disavow any blame being ascribed to the fact that the murderer was a Muslim despite eyewitness accounts of him shouting 'God is great' as he murdered American soldiers in the name of allah. Why was there no challenge mounted to their views. Once more the BBC has whitewashed the murderous ideology that is Islam and that is causing the world to run red with the blood of multitudes.

 

This was the BBC reply to me

 

Dear Mr Andrews

 
Thanks for your e-mail regarding the 6 November edition of 'Newsnight'. We understand that you felt the report on the Fort Hood shootings failed to challenge the view that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was not motivated by religious reasons.


At the time of the programme, Major Hasan's motives had not been established - indeed President Obama had cautioned that we 'should not jump to conclusions' about the circumstances behind the shootings. However, the report did ask: "Was there a deeper motivation behind his actions? Was he connected to an extremist ideology which drove him to attack those on their way to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan?" It also highlighted an Internet post that may have been liked to the Major regarding suicide bombing and mentioned that the FBI would be sifting through the Major's computer to question if wider agendas were at work.

When addressing Imam Mahdi Bray via video link, Gavin Esler asked 'Do you believe that this man's Muslim background is relevant to this case?' He went on to probe: 'I just wondered, we heard the President say people shouldn't rush to judge - you've just said more or less the same, obviously we've got to find out the facts - but you must be worried that there might be a backlash against some Muslim communities as there was around 9/11/?'


Whilst we can assure you, Mr Andrews, that all of our journalists and presenters are well aware of the our commitment to impartiality, we do acknowledge that you felt the views of the Imams should have been challenged in more detail and we'd like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.


The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content. Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

This was my brief reply to their reply

 

When will the BBC wake up to the fact that ISLAM itself is an extremist ideology and the call to violent action is clearly set out in the Koran and also by the life and example of Mohammed that Muslim's are expected to copy. It would serve the cause of truth much better for the BBC on occasions like the Fort Hood massacre to interview men like Walid Shoebat [ex Muslim terrorist] or Robert Spencer [author of many honest books on Islam] rather than turn to sympathetic Imams who will employ the principle of 'Takeyya' to deceive gullible interviewers and viewers and to protect and promote Islam. As for quoting me the views of Barack Hussein Obama, many are now wakening up to the reality of where this man's religious loyalties truly lie.

 

Cecil Andrews

 

In recent days I have received 2 articles written by commentators in America and I believe they really get to the heart of the problem that the Western media and politicians are blindly ‘in denial’ about and as a result they are allowing the freedom loving peoples of their countries to be evermore ensared by a truly diabolical ideology that is eventually one day going to require ‘radical surgery’ to root out.

 

In recent days particularly poignant remembrance services and events have been taking place and the sacrifice of multitudes of soldiers has been rightly commemorated. These men and women died to preserve democratic freedoms – the current actions of media and politicians are serving to allow the destruction of the very freedoms these brave men and women gave their lives to defend. Not only will the right to live ‘free’ be destroyed by encroaching Islam but the right to proclaim the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ will also be brutally curtailed. In the words I think of an old Bob Dylan song recorded possibly also by Peter, Paul and Mary [a 20th century trio and not the 1st century characters] – ‘When will they ever learn; When will they ever learn?’

 

This is the first article by former Muslim, Abdulla Al Araby

 

American Muslims and the Question of Loyalty

 

By Abdullah Al Araby

 

Today is the fifth of November 2009, and the hot news that is circulating the American and international media comes from Texas. An American officer of Palestinian Islamic heritage opened fire on his American officers’ colleagues in Ft. Hood, killing at least thirteen and injuring thirty while he was crying “Allaho Akbar” (God is great). A guard at the camp shot him four times to stop him; otherwise the casualties could have been greater.

 

The details are still coming out but from what we know so far, the name of the attacker is Major Nidal Malik Hasan; he works as a psychiatrist in the armed forces. He volunteered to join the military and was educated at the expense of the American military until finishing medical school and specializing in psychiatry. As for the motive behind the crime, it is believed to be his being upset after receiving orders to get prepared to go to Afghanistan to join the American forces already there fighting Al Qaeda and Taliban.

 

This is not the first time when an American Muslim soldier turned his gun towards his mates. There is a long list of similar incidents. As an example, on March 23, 2003, Hassan Akbar killed two of his colleagues: Captain Christopher Seifert and Major Gregory Stone, and 14 other soldiers while they were fighting in Iraq. 

 

This is not a justification to make a blanket statement condemning all American Muslims as being disloyal to America. The United States is home to an estimated three to six million Muslims. Many of them immigrated to the United States fleeing persecution in their Muslim mother countries. The United States accepted them and offered them a safe haven. There is no doubt that the majority of American Muslims is peaceful, productive and law abiding citizens.  They pay their taxes and do their fair share in contributing to the prosperity of this country.

 

But these repeated incidents of betrayal within the military, in addition to other terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, and the attacks that were foiled by our home security forces, as well as the possibility of more acts being committed by sleeping cells; all these force Americans to explore the roots behind it.  Certainly, there must be a religious ideology that pushes these Muslim fundamentalists zealous to act against the very country that hosted them and extended to them a helping hand.

 

For sure, those who adopt this line of thinking believe that they owe a loyalty only to Islam. Being loyal to the country that they hold its citizenship carries no weight at all to them.  America to them is an infidel country with a majority of non-Muslims population, mostly Christians and Jews.  Also, America to them is the country that is currently engaged in fighting Muslim countries in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Muslim principals oblige Muslims not to kill another Muslim under any circumstances.  In addition, Islam orders Muslims to support their Muslim brothers whether justly or otherwise.  Nidal, himself, was quoted as saying that he is a Muslim first and an American second.  From the testimony of Imams in the mosques that he frequented, all of them say that he was a good Muslim. Perhaps he was too good of a Muslim to be a good American soldier, as his religion dictates.

 

Islam has rules regarding all issues of life. One of these issues pertains to immigrating to live among infidels in non-Muslim countries.

 

Islam divides the world into two camps: the House of Islam and the House of War.   The House of Islam is where Muslims live, and the House of War is where non-Muslims live.  The Muslims living in the House of Islam are in a constant state of war with non-Muslims living in the House of War until they are defeated and are subjugated to Islam. The general rule is that Muslims are not allowed to live in any place other than the House of Islam.  If a Muslim happened to live in a country where the majority is non-Muslim, he/she must leave it to live in an Islamic country. This, unless he is either unable or has a good reason for staying.

 

These principles are based on what has been mentioned in the Quran, (Sura An Nisa: 97-99)

 

97. When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: "In what (plight) Were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed Were we in the earth." They say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?" Such men will find their abode in Hell,- What an evil refuge! –

98. Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed - men, women, and children - who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.

 

99. For these, there is hope that Allah will forgive: For Allah doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again.

 

In The Haddith attributed to Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam says,” I am innocent of any Muslim who resides among the polyesters.”

 

It is clear that the Muslim is only allowed to live in a non-Muslim country only when there is a good reason to justify it. This is what Muslim scholar Al Kortobgy says, “A Muslim can abandon the necessity to immigrate away from non-Muslim countries only if he lacks the means (money) or the way (transportation) to do so.”

 

The opinion accepted by most Muslim theologians, it is unacceptable for Muslims to continue residing among the infidels unless there is a benefit to Muslims from it. They cite an evidence for it when Al Abbas decided to stay in Mecca among the polyesters even after Mohammed and his companions decided to immigrate to Medina. The reason was that Al Abbas wanted to stay in Mecca to inform Mohammed of what was taking place there. In other words, he was acting as a spy for Mohammed.  Other than that, it is not preferred that a Muslim continues living among infidels for fear he may be influenced by their way of life and may imitate them.

 

Muslim scholars also warn Muslims of obtaining the citizenship of an infidel country lest they may be forced to join their military and participate in wars against Muslim countries as it is going on now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

These Islamic rules cast doubts on the intentions of fundamentalist Muslims when they insist on residing in a non-Muslim country like America.  It should make us question their motive, and whether they have an agenda for staying in America.

 

America must understand that Islam forbids Muslims from participating in its wars especially against Islamic countries. The strange thing is, while these Muslims are fully aware of that, yet they are the ones who volunteer to join the American army. They probably do so to take advantage of all the benefits that they will gain, such as free education.  It has been reported that the cost of educating Nidal amounts to about half a million dollars. Nidal actually volunteered to join the military, and to improve his chances to be accepted, he lied in the application maintaining that he doesn’t have any religious affiliation. Statistics says that there are between ten to twenty thousands Muslims in the United States armed forces.  Perhaps they wanted to have the cake and eat it too.  They wanted to take advantage of the benefits, while they hope to be lucky enough not to be called on for duty. Catastrophes take place when things don’t go exactly as hoped for.

 

Walid Shoebat, a Christian converted from Islam, who was once a member of Al Fateh Palestinian terrorist group summed it all up when he said, “America needs to be awakened from its sleep and its unwillingness to face the issues of fundamentalist Islam in our midst which is the cause of the tragedy at Ft. Hood.” He added, “Some very serious decisions need to be made when it comes to having Muslims protecting our country, as it is impossible to know whether they maybe honorable or foxes in the hen house.”

 

The bottom line, since you cannot differentiate between who is a fundamentalist Muslim and who is not, America has no choice but; ban all Muslims from its military.    

 


This is the second article and it is by David Kupelian who is vice president

and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and Whistleblower magazine

 

What's behind America's politically correct 'love' of Islam?

Posted: November 09, 2009: 9:25 pm Eastern

 

The second they heard about the Fort Hood massacre, millions of thinking Americans wondered in their gut: "Oh God, is this another crazy Muslim terrorist carrying out a one-man jihad, as has happened so many times before?"

 

Then, when the alleged perpetrator's name and religion were made public (Nidal Malik Hasan, a lifelong Muslim) along with eyewitness reports he had shouted the obligatory pre-terror-attack proclamation, "Allahu akhbar"  ("Allah is greatest") before commencing his orgy of slaughter, their suspicions were confirmed: This was surely a major attack on the American homeland by a Muslim terrorist.

 

Further evidence quickly rolled in: Hasan had reportedly refused to fight fellow Muslims, called the war on terror a "war on Islam," told a co-worker Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans, and reportedly had posted online his astoundingly twisted belief that an Islamic suicide bomber was morally equivalent to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

 

In other words, although the Army had many warnings Hasan was a certifiable, America-hating, jihadist "ticking time bomb" waiting to go off, it did nothing to avert last week's terror attack. Why? And why, after the truth about Hasan became undeniable following his mass slaughter, does the government, as well as its mouthpiece the establishment press, agonize in their usual pathetic manner over what could possibly have motivated the Army psychiatrist to coldly, methodically murder 13 and wound 38 others?

 

 

Why, after a Muslim commits a terrorist act, do authorities always announce almost instantaneously – before they could possibly know – that the attack was not terror-related? Why do the news media always torture themselves and their readers with the most wildly improbable explanations in their attempts to avoid the obvious truth?

 

Before we answer these questions, lest you think I overstate the case, take a quick trip with me down jihad memory lane

 

 

Like alcoholics uncomfortable with facing the painful truth, the media retreated into comfortable denial. Their standard analysis of what made Muhammad tick included anything and everything except jihad. Thus, the Los Angeles Times offered up no less than six possible motives for Muhammad's killing spree, according to Daniel Pipes, an expert on militant Islam. They included "his 'stormy relationship' with his family, his 'stark realization' of loss and regret, his perceived sense of abuse as an American Muslim post-9/11, his desire to 'exert control' over others, his relationship with Malvo, and his trying to make a quick buck," said Pipes – "but did not mention jihad." "Likewise," he adds, "a Boston Globe article found 'there must have been something in his social interaction – in his marriage or his military career – that pulled the trigger.'"

 

This see-no-jihad, hear-no-jihad, speak-no-jihad mindset has become standard operating procedure for the establishment press.

 

 

"Investigators … believe that Hadayet was simply an overstressed man who snapped," reported the Los Angeles Times. "He was known as a quiet, observant Muslim," added the Times, which explained away the killer's virulent anti-Semitism by saying, "While Hadayet occasionally mentioned a hatred for Israel, [one former employee] saw it more as a cultural perspective on Mideast politics than an emotion that would fuel violence."

 

 

Two-and-a-half years later, the National Transportation Safety Board finally reached the same conclusion that virtually everyone else had immediately after the crash – that the plane's Egyptian copilot, Gameel El-Batouty, had cut power to the engines and intentionally sent the plane plummeting into the ocean, killing all aboard.

 

But the government panel declined to suggest a motive, except to speculate that El-Batouty might have "committed suicide." Suicide? Pardon my French, but I think "mass murder" or "terrorism" would much better describe the wanton annihilation of hundreds of innocent people. Yet, despite the fact the copilot had calmly repeated over and over the Arabic phrase "Tawkalt" ("I rely on Allah") for almost a minute and a half during his deed – and that such behavior, according to the report, "is not consistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition" – federal investigators steered clear of suggesting jihad as a motive.

 

 

So, why do we have this stubborn inability to come to grips with Islam? Everyone attributes it to "political correctness," but I think it's time to move beyond that shallow, passé, near-meaningless phrase. Do we dare admit what is really at play here? The truth is actually very simple. We are afraid of Islam. We are intimidated by Islam. And because we are afraid of and intimidated by Islam, Islam is changing us – in two distinct and profound ways.

 

First, as is appallingly obvious, we're afraid to criticize Islam openly, for fear of having our head cut off or having a fatwa put out on us like the director of the new "2012" film, or we're afraid of being sued by some of the very litigious Islamic organizations like CAIR, or we're afraid of being called a racist, extremist, hater or "Islamophobe" thanks to the tyranny of political correctness, or we're afraid of offending those in power and thereby risking our position, stature or other advantage. This reaction, while perhaps selfish and cowardly, is more-or-less conscious and strategic.

 

However, for some it goes much deeper: Being intimidated by Islam (or by anything, for that matter) actually causes some of us to mysteriously grow sympathetic toward it, to defend it, to side with it, even to convert to it. This unconscious shift in attitude, in response to fear of being hurt, is called the Stockholm syndrome, named after the 1973 Swedish bank robbery during which the four terrorized hostages sided with their criminal captors while disparaging the police risking their lives trying to save them.

 

We need to understand that a certain percentage of us, when we're intimidated and upset, start to emotionally gravitate toward and agree with whatever is intimidating us. Not just superficially, as a temporary tactic of placating a bully so he won't hurt us, but more profoundly, deep down in the inner sanctum of our being where our thoughts and feelings germinate and our loyalties bloom. Intimidation – that is, causing others to react with upset and fear – is a fundamental principle of mind control, fully capable of causing the victim's loyalties to shift toward the intimidator, whether a schoolyard bully, gang leader, child molester, hostage-taking bank robber or Islamic radical. "Political correctness" – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled "Thought Police") conceded this truth when it reported: "PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy."

 

Bottom line: We're intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought. Get it? Most of the time, of course, this occurs below the radar of our own consciousness. We don't understand what's really happening. So we interpret our growing sympathy and affinity for whatever intimidated us as evidence of our loving, open-minded, enlightened nature. In reality, it's the result of craven weakness on our part.

 

The problem with Islam

 

Now imagine there's a religion, which we'll call "Religion X." Many adherents to "Religion X" live peaceful lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Whatever their religious doctrine is, they don't bother anybody. But other adherents to Religion X believe – indeed, are taught by prominent clerics, including within the U.S. – that they must rule the world, and that the lord of their religion condones, even encourages, their killing those who refuse to convert to Religion X, or who leave Religion X. So, one contingent of this religion we are inclined to allow freely to exist within our borders – indeed our laws and culture demand it. But virtually all Americans would rightly categorize the other contingent of the same religion as a murderous, mind-control cult that should be driven from our shores. The problem with Religion X, then, is that it's really hard to distinguish one type of adherent from the other. That's the problem we're having with Islam. Every time a jihadist like Hasan goes on a terrorist killing spree, invariably all who knew him say they were totally stunned, as he was always so "calm, cool and soft-spoken." And yet there were warning signs, such that were we not blinded by our fears and cowardice, we would not merely have seen them, we would have acted on them – and prevented last week's terrorist attack.

 

According to the London Telegraph, in an article headlined, "Fort Hood gunman had told U.S. military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut":

 

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. Hasan made these incendiary jihadist comments "in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington D.C." during a talk on the Quran, according to the report. And how did his fellow doctors respond? Although they were horrified, "One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints," reported the Telegraph.

 

Are you with me? "A fear of appearing discriminatory" caused 51 brave American soldiers to be shot by an Islamist monster, 13 fatally.

 

This inordinate fear, implanted in us by the lords of politically correct attitude, the subtle brainwashers of modern, secular society, is to blame.

 

It gets worse, much worse. As ABC now reports, "U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al-Qaida."

 

The evil of "political correctness" – the totalitarian manipulation of thought, foisted on us by twisted elitist sociopaths who hate America and everything our soldiers have fought and died for over the last two centuries, and continue to fight and die for – has to end. Now. It's over. This nation must rise up and defy the insane thought control that is destroying our country right before our eyes.

 

In America, a land of precious and unique freedoms, there exists a natural and healthy tension between our cherished First Amendment religious freedom for all Americans – including Muslims – and our paramount need to protect our country from infiltration, subversion and terror attacks by "true-believing" Islamic jihadists. This tension must be resolved by our striking exactly the right balance, but that balance can be achieved only when we first rise above fear and cowardice, and defy the treacherous PC mind-control culture that is poisoning our minds and crippling our national security.

 

One last point: If you really want to do something besides complain about the spread of Islamic radicalism in the United States – a level of infiltration already far more advanced than you can imagine – then make a donation to WND's legal defense fund. We are defending, at great expense, two people who most definitely are not intimidated by Islamic radicalism: "Muslim Mafia" co-author and former federal agent Paul David Gaubatz and his son Chris Gaubatz, who daringly penetrated the belly of the Islamist beast in the U.S. for six months, retrieved 12,000 pages of smoking-gun documentary evidence, reported their findings in the blockbuster book (already the basis for new congressional investigations) – and are now being sued by a terror-front group that wants the evidence of its plots and misdeeds returned! We have hired the best First Amendment lawyer in the country, and we can and must win this all-important fight, but it's expensive – so please help. OK?

 

Join WND in defending "Muslim Mafia"  investigators.

 

 

I think the best way for me to finish this particular article is to quote something I wrote back in 2005 in an article entitled ‘Presidential Perspectives: Could Bush learn from Lincoln?’ The whole article can be viewed on

http://www.takeheed.net/PRESIDENTIALPERSPECTIVES.htm

 

I wrote –

 

Shaun Willcock, in his book “Holy War” Against South Africa, which charts the history of that once great Evangelical/Christian country that was eventually brought to its knees by a concerted coalition comprising Rome, Apostate Protestant churches in the World Council of Churches and the Marxist terrorists of the ANC, writes the following on pages 25-26 –

 

‘While religious liberty is the best course a government can pursue, it being the work of the Holy Spirit to convict men of sin and of false religion and draw them to Christ, and not any government’s duty to make one denomination the “State Church”; yet it is the government’s duty to protect its citizens from those who are dangerous to the well-being of society. [Observation by Cecil - This government duty is clearly outlined in Romans 13:1&3] The Roman Catholic institution in general and the Jesuits in particular are dangerous to the well-being of any society, as history has proved…Let anyone who doubts this ponder carefully the words of the American President, Abraham Lincoln who was assassinated by a man under orders from the Jesuits. Lincoln said:

 

“Till lately I was in favour of the unlimited liberty of conscience as our constitution gives it to the Roman Catholics. But now, it seems to me that sooner or later, the people will be forced to put a restriction to that clause towards the Papists. Is it not an act of folly to give absolute liberty of conscience to a set of men who are publicly sworn to cut our throats the very day they have their opportunity for doing it? Is it right to give the privilege of citizenship to men who are the sworn and public enemies of our constitution, our laws, our liberties and our lives?…Is it not an absurdity to give to a man a thing which he has sworn to hate, curse and destroy? And does not the Church of Rome hate, curse and destroy liberty of conscience whenever she can do it safely? I am for liberty of conscience in its noblest, broadest, highest sense. But I cannot give liberty of conscience to the Pope and to his followers, the Papists, so long as they tell me, through all their councils, theologians and canon laws, that their conscience orders them to burn my wife, strangle my children and cut my throat when they find their opportunity” [Source of quote: ’50 years in the Church of Rome’ by ex-priest Charles Chiniquy – page 503 of the Protestant Literature Depository; London 1886 Edition or pages 300-301 of the Chick Publications 1985 Abridged Edition].

 

As I drew my article to a close I then wrote this –

 

President Abraham Lincoln recognised the totalitarian nature and the true intent of Roman Catholicism and so he issued that soundly based caveat against ‘giving the privilege of citizenship to men who are the sworn and public enemies of our constitution, our laws, our liberties and our lives’. If he were alive today to witness the dynamic growth and influence of Islam in the Western ‘free world’ then I believe he would issue a similar caveat about granting ‘the privilege of citizenship’ to Muslims because he would see in Islam a totalitarian nature and a true intent identical to those he had discerned in Roman Catholicism.

 

Today, more than ever, the very presence of the practice of Islam in any democratic country needs to be seriously reviewed for the sake of liberty and for the right to proclaim the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is time for the media and politicians to awake from their slumber!

 

Cecil Andrews – ‘Take Heed’ Ministries – 13th November 2009

 

APPENDIX

 

I was sent details of a report on this link http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hDlRkRffovJlX8OT05h89h3zfgWwD9BS4ETO3

where the Muslim who perpetrated the Fort Hood Massacre is described by a Muslim Imam as a ‘hero’. This is that report –

 

WASHINGTON — A radical American imam on Yemen's most wanted militant list who had contact with two 9/11 hijackers praised alleged Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a hero on his personal Web site Monday. The posting on the Web site for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the attacks on the Texas military base last week are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion. Awlaki said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is accused of killing 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree Thursday. Hasan's family attended the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., where Awlaki was preaching in 2001. Hasan's mother's funeral was held at the Falls Church mosque on May 31, 2001, according to her obituary in the Roanoke Times newspaper, around the same time two 9/11 hijackers worshipped at the mosque and while Awlaki was preaching.

Awlaki is a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, eventually traveling to Yemen. He was released from a Yemeni jail last year and has since gone missing. He is on Yemen's most wanted militant list, according to three Yemeni security officials. The officials say Awlaki was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San'a. They say he was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. A former senior U.S. intelligence official said Awlaki is well known in the intelligence community.

The Homeland Security Department's intelligence division became concerned about Awlaki late last year when he published a new group of violent lectures targeting U.S. audiences, according to a Jan. 22, 2009 intelligence note. On Dec. 23, 2008, Awlaki, on his Web site, encouraged Muslims across the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. Awlaki also used these postings to declare his support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab, according to the Homeland Security intelligence note, obtained by The Associated Press. In December of last year, Customs officials intercepted a flash drive of Awlaki's lectures that his wife sent from Yemen to an Islamic publishing house in Denver, the intelligence note said.

Awlaki told the FBI in 2001 that, before he moved to Virginia in early 2001, he met with 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi several times in San Diego. Al-Hazmi was at the time living with Khalid al-Mihdhar, another hijacker. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001. In his FBI interview, Awlaki denied ever meeting with al-Hazmi and Hanjour while in Virginia.

He was investigated by the FBI in 1999 and 2000 after it was learned that he may have been contacted by a possible procurement agent for Osama bin Laden. During this investigation, the FBI learned that Awlaki knew people involved in raising money for Hamas, a Palestinian group on the U.S. State Department's terrorist list.

Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, outreach director at Dar al Hijrah, said he did not know whether Hasan ever attended the mosque but confirmed that the Hasan family participated in services there. Abdul-Malik said the Hasans were not leaders at the mosque and their attendance was normal.

The Falls Church mosque is one of the largest on the East Coast, and thousands of worshippers attend prayers and services there every week. Abdul-Malik said it's a mistake for people to conflate regular attendance at a mosque with extremism. Many Muslims pray at the mosque multiple times a day, he said. "It's part of family life. It's like going out for ice cream after dinner."

Faizul Khan, former imam of the Muslim Community Center in nearby Silver Spring, Md., where Hasan also worshipped, said he was not aware that Hasan had attended services at Dar al Hijrah but said it would not be unusual for Hasan to attend more than one mosque concurrently. Khan said he did not recall Hasan mentioning having been taught or preached to by Awlaki. The London Telegraph first reported the potential link between Hasan and the mosque.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Sunday it's important for the country not to get caught up in speculation about Hasan's Muslim faith, and he has instructed his commanders to be on the lookout for anti-Muslim reaction to the killings at the Texas post. Casey said evidence to this point shows that Hasan acted alone. He toured Fort Hood on Friday with Army Secretary John McHugh. Casey appeared on ABC's "This Week" and CNN's "State of the Union."

Separately, the CIA denied an ABC News report saying that the agency has refused to brief Congress on the case. "This is a law enforcement investigation, in which other agencies, not the CIA, have the lead. Any suggestion that the CIA refused to brief Congress is flat wrong," said George Little, CIA spokesman.

Associated Press Writers Ben Nuckols, Devlin Barrett and Matthew Barakat contributed to this story. AP reporter Ahmed al-Haj contributed from San-a, Yamen.

On the Net:

From a UK perspective there is a chilling report that establishes a link between admiration for this Imam, Anwar al Awlaki, and a prospectove candidate for one of the major political parties in Scotland, as the report on this link shows – http://europenews.dk/en/node/27495 - this is that report –

Times Online 13 November 2009
By Sean O’Neill and Richard Kerbaj

 

A radical Muslim cleric alleged to have inspired the Fort Hood gunman has been praised in the past as "a preacher of peace” by a prominent SNP candidate with close links to Alex Salmond. The FBI is investigating communications between Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people at the US Army base in Texas, and Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born Muslim cleric now based in Yemen. Mr Awlaki has a large following in Britain and counts prominent mainstream Muslims among his supporters.

 

In 2006 Osama Saeed, who has been selected as the SNP candidate for Glasgow Central for the next general election, wrote that Mr Awlaki "preached nothing but peace”.

 

Last night Mr Saeed, who was researcher to Mr Salmond before he became the Scottish First Minister, distanced himself from Mr Awlaki, saying that he now felt "cheated” by the cleric.

 

Mr Saeed said: "I completely disagree with what he has said about Fort Hood, and a host of other matters which he has more recently written and spoken about.”

 

Mr Awlaki, 38, who on his blog described Major Hasan as "a hero”, has been a regular visitor to Britain and delivers frequent lectures to audiences here by video or via the internet (...)

Finally in this appendix I want to direct you to comments made by someone I mentioned in my response email to the reply that I had received from the BBC on my complaint about their Newsnight coverage of the Fort Hood massacre. I wrote in my email ‘It would serve the cause of truth much better for the BBC on occasions like the Fort Hood massacre to interview men like Walid Shoebat [ex Muslim terrorist] or Robert Spencer [author of many honest books on Islam]’

On this link http://europenews.dk/en/node/27350 you can listen to a radio interview Mr Spencer gave the day after the massacre took place. On this link you will read the following under the screen where you can listen to Mr Spencer - The mainstream media has been shamefully misreporting this story as usual. Ideology orthodoxy prevents them from stating the obvious truth: this was a jihadist attack. Robert Spencer lays down the truth on the Savage Nation.

 

Cecil Andrews – ‘Take Heed’ Ministries – 14th November 2009

 

 

APPENDIX 2

 

The following report in TIME magazine reaffirms what has been set forth already in this article.

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954960,00.html

The Fort Hood Report: Why No Mention of Islam?

By Mark Thompson / Washington Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2010

Click here to find out more!

Accused Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal Malik Hasan

 

The U.S. military's just-released report into the Fort Hood shootings spends 86 pages detailing various slipups by Army officers but not once mentions Major Nidal Hasan by name or even discusses whether the killings may have had anything to do with the suspect's view of his Muslim faith. And as Congress opens two days of hearings on Wednesday into the Pentagon probe of the Nov. 5 attack that left 13 dead, lawmakers want explanations for that omission. (See TIME's photo-essay "The Troubled Journey of Major Hasan.")

 

John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan's view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military's activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report's silence on Islamic extremism "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become," he told TIME on Tuesday. "It's definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens." (See pictures of Major Nidal Malik Hasan's apartment.)

 

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn't in keeping with the military's ethos; it's a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren't afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.

Yet the leaders of the two-month Pentagon review, former Army Secretary Togo West and the Navy's onetime top admiral, Vernon Clark, told reporters last week that they didn't drill down into Hasan's motives. "Our concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations," West said. Added Clark: "We certainly do not cite a particular group." Part of their reticence, they said, was to avoid running afoul of the criminal probe of Hasan that is now under way. Both are declining interview requests before their congressional testimony, a Pentagon spokesman said. (Read TIME's cover story on the Fort Hood massacre.)

 

But without a motive, there would have been no murder. Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. "The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam," says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. "Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for."

The Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is limited in scope. Despite the title of its report — Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood — there is only a single page dedicated to the chapter called "Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator." Much more space is given to military personnel policies (11 pages), force protection (six pages) and the emergency response to the shootings (12 pages).

 

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said he was "disappointed" because the inquiry "does not adequately recognize the specific threat posed by violent Islamist extremism to our military," and added that the homeland-security panel he chairs will investigate. The Congressman whose district includes Fort Hood agrees. "The report ignores the elephant in the room — radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy," says Republican Representative John Carter. "We should be able to speak honestly about good and bad without feeling like you've done something offensive to society."

 

The report lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, saying that "religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor" and that "religious-based violence is not confined to members of fundamentalist groups." But to some, that sounds as if the lessons of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, where jihadist extremism has driven deadly violence against Americans, are being not merely overlooked but studiously ignored.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954960,00.html#ixzz0dQndGslU