Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Muslim Terrorist Getting Military Salary?

Fort Hood's Muslim Terrorist has been paid $278,000 Salary since 2009 Terrorist Attack

So what's wrong with this picture?the Muslim terrorist who was an

The military can't take away the salary of Nidal Hasan, the Army Major turned Muslim Terrorist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood attack, until he has been convicted

Because of that rule, Army Major Nidal Hasan, a soldier who renounced his oath to this nation and instead waged Islamic Jihad against unarmed people, and in the process killed 13 people and wounded 32 others during his terrorist attack at Fort Hood, has reportedly been paid more than $278,000 in salary since the 2009 attack.

Believe it or not, Department of Defense officials confirmed to that imprisoned Army Maj. Nidal Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty in the Nov. 5, 2009, terrorist attack in Texas, citing the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Jury selection in his trial is scheduled to begin May 30.

If Hasan, 42, had been a civilian Defense Department employee, Army officials could have suspended his pay after just seven days - but since he was in the Army that's not the case.

If though he yelled out "Allauh Akbar" and conducted himself as a Muslim Terrorist and subsequently an enemy combatant when he killed the unarmed and the innocent, why has the Army kept paying him?

And yes, this has been going on since 2009!

Now, a military judge has refused to another delay in Hasan’s trial. His attorneys keep seeking to postpone the court-martial, but now it will be held on September 1st.

Hasan’s attorneys claimed military jurors may be influenced by national media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings that compared the two Muslim terrorists - Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev - to Hasan.

Of course Hasan's attorneys don't want military jurors to be influenced by Muslim attacks around the globe which Hasan used as an example when he planned his attack.

His pattern of behavior is that of a Muslim terrorist, a Jihadis, a enemy combatant, not just some criminal violating the UCMJ.

Nidal Hasan is no different than Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

So why hasn't he been tried years during the almost 4 years ago since he conducted his attack? That's a great question, why indeed? Could it be politics?

Nidal Hasan faces the death penalty or life in prison without parole if convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

But honestly, that doesn't make sense.

Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being, also known as murder, after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

While Nidal Hasan did rationally consider killing people, it was a lot than than that.

Nidal Hasan rationally put together a terrorist plot to knowingly kill as many unarmed people as he could, through surprise and involving deliberate use of extreme violence, in the hope of attaining his religious aim of adhering to the murderous doctrine of Islam.

On April 15, 2013, two Muslim terrorists detonated two pressure cooker bombs in the City of Boston during the Boston Marathon.

The Fort Hood Terrorist Attack took place on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas. In the course of the attack, a single terrorist killed 13 people and wounded another 32 people.

It is the worst terrorist attack to take place on American soil since 9/11/2001.

Several individuals, including Senator Joe Lieberman, Army General McCaffrey, and others have called the event a terrorist attack.

Senator Joe Lieberman called the shooting "the most destructive terrorist attack on America since September 11, 2001."

Michael Scheuer, the retired former head of the Bin Laden Issue Station, and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey also described it as a terrorist attack.

The White House and Pentagon have refused to characterize Hasan's attack as terrorism, instead terming it mere "workplace violence."

It seems they were more worried about offending our enemies than looking the problem squarely in the eye and seeing it for what it is.

An example of this was the statement that came out of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who stated "we object to - and do not believe - that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this ... This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith."

Yes, there's nothing like a head of a government agency who is completely out of touch. Well, maybe there is? How about the President being out of touch?

As the U.S. military and law enforcement were scrambling to save lives after the Nidal Hasan terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, Texas, President Obama, fully aware of what had taken place opened his remarks at the Tribal Nations Conference for America’s 564 federally recognized Native American tribes with a three-minute "shout out" to an audience member while stressing desire to pass ObamaCare.

"I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It’s good to see you," he said.

Then after a few laughs and pitching his ObamaCare package, the President finally acknowledged the tragedy by saying, "I planned to make some broader remarks. But as some of you might have heard there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas."

The next day, Obama opened his remarks at a brief press conference in the White House Rose Garden in which he warned the American public against "jumping to conclusions" over the motives of the shooter.

Obama said. "This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow servicemen and women. We don't know all of the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts."

Obama was criticized by some for being "insensitive", as he addressed the shooting only three minutes into his prepared speech, and then for not giving it enough importance even the next day.

Many have criticized Obama for refusing to acknowledge the attack for what it was - Islamic Terrorism and not merely workplace violence akin to domestic violence.

The phrase "Allahu Akbar" is commonly used as a "war cry" by Jihadis. Jihad entails the act of killing the innocent and non-Muslims. It is used by Jihadis.

So imagine the scene, Nidal Hasan, acting as a Muslim terrorist screams, "Allahu Akbar!" Then starts shooting anyone he sees!

Does that sound like mere workplace violence to you? Does Hasan sound like some disgruntled employee? Was the whole attack as merely workplace violence because Hasan had a beef with his supervisor or co-workers?

No it doesn't. He is a Muslim Jihadis!

Days after the shooting, reports in the media revealed that a Joint Terrorism Task Force had been aware of e-mail communications between Hasan and the Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been monitored by the NSA as a security threat, and that Hasan's colleagues had been aware of his increasing radicalization for several years.

When President Obama went before cameras at the White House oafter the deadly bombings in Boston, he was smart enough to call the attack an “act of terrorism.”

Obama’s decision to use that designation - which he scrupulously avoided in his first public response on a few days before - attests to his extreme sensitivity of calling an Islamic attack terrorism.

Deploring what he called a "heinous and cowardly act," Obama said that “the American people refuse to be terrorized."

Moving quickly to put Obama on the record, the White House appeared intent not to repeat the messy chain of events after the assault on the diplomatic mission last year in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

In that case, critics accused the White House of initially playing down the terrorism links for political reasons during a hard-fought presidential campaign.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, echoed a sentiment voiced by many of her colleagues when she said, “I was puzzled yesterday that the president did not describe it as a terrorist attack right off the bat since it was so evidently a terror attack.”

The White House appeared to have learned from episodes like the failed plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner on Dec. 25, 2009, when the president was heavily criticized for saying nothing publicly for three days about the event.

A month before that plot, Obama was faulted for his initially subdued response to the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Tex., in which Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 active and retired soldiers - all unarmed and innocent.

Let's understand something here, Hasan expressed admiration for the teachings of Anwar al-Awlaki, the imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia between 2000 and 2002.

Awlaki had been the subject of several FBI investigations, and had helped hijackers al-Hazmi and Hanjour settle, and provided spiritual guidance to them when they met him at the San Diego mosque, and after they drove to the east coast.

Hasan wrote nearly 20 emails to him between December 2008 and June 2009. In one, Hasan wrote: "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife.

Hasan asked al-Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.

So since when is the silly concept of Jihad a part of workplace violence? It is a part of Islamic Terrorism. Muslim such as the two Muslim terrorist who killed and maimed all of those people in Boston followed the teachings of Anwar al-Awlaki - the same jerkweed that Nidal Hisan followed.

So where's the difference between Hasan and those two who set of bombs in their Muslim terrorist attack in Boston? All three were schooled by the same radical Muslim nutcase. All three did this in an attempt to kill as many innocent as possible all in the name of Jihad.

The victims of the Fort Hood Terrorist Attack have been denied Purple Hearts and are suing the military because they claim the "workplace violence" designation gives them diminished access to medical care and financial benefits normally available to those whose wounds are designated as "combat related."

A group of soldiers and families have sought to have the defense secretary designate the shooting a "terrorist attack;" this would provide them with benefits equal to injuries in combat.

Nidal Hasan shed his uniform and oath to this nation when he took up the mantle of Muslim Jihadis. At that moment, he was not an Army Officer, a Major, he became an enemy combatant.

And yes, as an enemy combatant, the Army should not be paying him a salary of any sort.

But than again, don't ask the Army or the White House why Hasan is getting paid his full military salary while those he tried to kill don't get anything in the way of assistance - political correctness and pressure forbids the military from doing anything wise or noble these days.

Story by Tom Correa

1 comment:

  1. I like women and I like tea but I don't like hatred no siree.


Thank you for your comment.