MSWA: Muslim soldiers with attitude

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31723


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSWA: Muslim soldiers with attitude
Michelle Malkin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


Sgt. Asan Akbar, a Muslim American soldier with the 326th Engineer Battalion, had an "attitude problem."

According to his superiors and acquaintances, Akbar's attitude was bitterly anti-American and staunchly pro-Muslim. So how did this devout follower of the so-called Religion of Peace work out his attitudinal problems last weekend?

By lobbing hand grenades and aiming his M-4 automatic rifle into three tents filled with sleeping commanding officers at the 101st Airborne Division's 1st Brigade operations center in Kuwait.

Akbar is the lone suspect being detained in the despicable attack, which left more than a dozen wounded and one dead. Surviving soldiers say Akbar, found cowering in a bunker with shrapnel injuries, was overheard ranting after the assault: "You guys are coming into our countries, and you're going to rape our women and kill our children."

"Our"? At least there's no doubt about where this Religion of Peace practitioner's true loyalties lie.

Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an "isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith." But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly PC.

Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA – Muslim soldier with attitude – suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:



Ali A. Mohamed. Mohamed, a major in the Egyptian army, immigrated to the U.S. in 1986 and joined the U.S. Army while a resident alien. This despite being on a State Department terrorist watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, N.C., and obtained classified military documents. He was granted U.S. citizenship over the objections of the CIA.
A former classmate, Jason T. Fogg, recalled that Mohamed was openly critical of the American military. "To be in the U.S. military and have so much hate toward the U.S. was odd. He never referred to America as his country."

Soon after he was honorably discharged from the Army in 1989, Mohamed hooked up with Osama bin Laden as an escort, trainer, bagman and messenger. Mohamed used his U.S. passport to conduct surveillance at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi; he later pled guilty to conspiring with bin Laden to "attack any Western target in the Middle East" and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.

Ain't multiculturalism grand?


Semi Osman. An ethnic Lebanese born in Sierra Leone and a Seattle-based Muslim cleric, Osman served in a naval reserve fueling unit based in Tacoma, Wash. He had access to fuel trucks similar to the type used by al-Qaida in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded nearly 400 other Americans.
Osman was arrested last May as part of a federal investigation into the establishment of a terrorist training camp in Bly, Ore. Osman recently pleaded guilty to a weapons violation, and the feds dropped immigration charges against him in exchange for his testimony.

Ain't open borders grand?


John Muhammad. The accused Beltway sniper and Muslim convert was a member of the Army's 84th Engineering Company. In an eerie parallel to the Akbar case, Muhammad is suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. Muhammad's superior, Sgt. Kip Berentson, told both Newsweek and the Seattle Times that he immediately suspected Muhammad, who was "trouble from day one."
Curiously, Muhammad was admitted to the Army despite being earlier court-martialed for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property, and being absent without leave while serving in the Louisiana National Guard.

Although Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and transferred to another company pending charges for the grenade attack, an indictment never materialized. Muhammad was honorably discharged from the Army in 1994. Eight years later, he was arrested in the 21-day Beltway shooting spree that left 10 dead and three wounded.

Ain't tolerance grand?


Jeffrey Leon Battle. A former Army reservist, Battle was indicted in October 2002 for conspiring to levy war against the United States and "enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America." According to the Justice Department, he planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Ain't diversity grand?


"It's bad enough we have to worry about enemy forces, but now we have to worry about our own guys," Spc. Autumn Simmer told the Los Angeles Times this week after the assault on the 101st Airborne. The Islamist infiltration of our troops is scandalous. Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders and tolerance of the murderous "attitude" of Jihad.
 
The author of this piece is an idiot.

She should express a little more "tolerance", seeing how the first USMC KIA in this latest fracas was one of those "diverse", "open borders" types, off getting killed to defend her right to craft this spew.

Speaking of Muslim soldiers, I'm pretty sure that Derek Zeanah was airborne infantry, though I'm not certain how attitudinal he was. Maybe this Michelle chick can write him a thank you note for serving his time guarding her freedom of speech. :fire:
 
The author of this piece is an idiot.

Tsk, tsk- how un-HighRoad like.:what:

Seems to me the article's intent was to disparage PC policies that allow enemies to infiltrate our own military- not to paint all Muslim's as enemies.

But maybe I just can't read.
 
Ain't multiculturalism grand?

Not particularly.

Ain't open borders grand?

Since the author's last name is "Malkin" and not "Running Cloud", you'd think she'd be all for 'em.

Ain't tolerance grand?

Since when did "tolerance" become a dirty word? I tolerate all kinds of idiot behavior from all kinds of people; it's how we share the monkey cage, folks.

Ain't diversity grand?

As opposed to what? A world of lockstep drones?

I'm getting the vibe that she doesn't like "diversity", aren't you? How do you think L/Cpl Gutierrez feels about that? Oh, wait, he can't feel about it. He got killed the other day protecting Ms. Malkin's boneheaded and thinly-disguised bigotry.



Tsk, tsk- how un-HighRoad like. :what:

Don't give me that. Look at the names we have around here for the various stupid liberals we discuss. Are stupid "conservative" pundits off limits? :rolleyes:
 
Malkin, the daughter of Filipino immigrants, was born in Philadelphia in 1970 and raised in southern New Jersey

Yep, you can see where that racist streak comes from alright.:rolleyes:
 
Are stupid "conservative" pundits off limits

Off hand I'd say no.

But most of the names we have for stupid liberal pundits is because they say, well, really stupid things.

I personally didn't find anything in the article to be stupid, and generally have found Malkin's articles to be informative and pretty well on the mark. Of course, being a diverse bunch here, we all have our own preferences, eh.

:)
 
"No Picture? How can I make my judgement on her with out a Picture?"

I believe that there is a picture of her somewhere on her website. Nice looking actually, but I have learned to NEVER judge a book by it's cover or a woman by her looks.

Well.....maybe I haven't learned the last so well. :D
 
She should express a little more "tolerance", seeing how the first USMC KIA in this latest fracas was one of those "diverse", "open borders" types, off getting killed to defend her right to craft this spew.

Yep. But I don't think he killed any of his fellow soldiers. And Sgt. Asan Akbar is a native-born US citizen. Read it here... :scrutiny:

Speaking of Muslim soldiers, I'm pretty sure that Derek Zeanah was airborne infantry, though I'm not certain how attitudinal he was. Maybe this Michelle chick can write him a thank you note for serving his time guarding her freedom of speech.

Should she CC Ackbar too? :scrutiny:

Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders and tolerance of the murderous "attitude" of Jihad.

And just WHY are you against this position? :scrutiny:

Don't give me that. Look at the names we have around here for the various stupid liberals we discuss.

But we've PROVEN that they're idiots...:D

The author of this piece is an idiot.

So now we're waiting for you to prove it too...:scrutiny:
 
No Picture? How can I make my judgement on her with out a Picture

mm2.jpg


Does she appear credible enough for you now?...:rolleyes:
 
Being tolerant of the intolerant, honoring freedom for those who would take away your freedom--that isn't high-minded, it's suicidal.

Malkin is one of the loudest voices against illegal immigration. That makes a lot of people mighty uncomfortable.

Do we have some "loyalty" problems growing in this country? Let's be real. We do. And no HUAC references, please.

Whatever happend to "E Pluribus UNUM?"
 
Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders and tolerance of the murderous "attitude" of Jihad.
I don't see any general condemnation of Muslim-Americans in this article. The last part of her statement is most telling: "the murderous 'attitude' of Jihad".

Tamara, why are so against our troops being on alert for the Jihad mindset in their fellow Muslim soldiers, especially when it may save their lives?
 
The combat mindset is built on trusting your brother-in-arms, totally, implicitly. When doubt is injected there, even a little, you have a problem. Not a small problem, a major problem.
 
Does anyone know of a single instance in which an American Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine murdered his fellows because we invaded "his" (as in Akbar's "our") Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Shinto/etc... country?

An example from WWII:

IIRC, the 442nd Regiment and the 100th Combat Battalion were (with the exception of some of their officers) exclusively Japanese.

They won something on the order of 18,000 medals for valor. More by far than any other unit(s).

I don't recall a single act of treachery being attributed to them. A quick 'net search produced none either.

I confess that I don't know a lot of Muslims. I might have made the aquaintance of a dozen or so. A couple of them I trust implicitly. They would be a comfort if I needed somebody to watch my back if things started to go south.

A couple of others, I wish I hadn't lost touch with, because I would like to be able to turn them in right now. I say that, because they NEVER had anything good to say about this country. NEVER!

But, that was in a University town, so at the time it seemed perfectly logical that they might be willing to suffer the indignity (on their part, certainly not mine) of living within the boundaries of the "Great Satan" :rolleyes: long enough to recieve their degrees, and then go back to whatever kitty-litter tray they called home ( and yes, I am aware that not all foreign Muslims live in the desert :rolleyes: if it makes you feel better, substitute hell-hole for kitty-litter tray). Good riddance.

The rest I never knew well enough to completely trust, or suspect of anything.

I guess the bottom line is this. We have lost our common sense in this country. People show signs of being very seriously disturbed, i.e. Akbar referring to foreign countries/people as "our", and for the sake of the modern meanings of tolerance, diversity, multi-culturalism, etc., and we do NOTHING! Then some of us are actually shocked that people start dying like flies around us! ***?!? OVER!!!!

It's the same with our schools! In virtually every mass-shooting at school, what is the first thing the surviving kids say? That's right! "He/they said that he/they were going to come to school and shoot us all.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but I know this. I don't take any bull:cuss: from anybody! So go ahead, tell me how much you hate this country to my face! Enough :cuss:ing around! :fire: :fire:
 
I've never asked anybody what their religion was. I don't care. People that wear that type of stuff on their sleeve are the ones I keep my eye on. :scrutiny:
 
Michelle Malkin is not stupid. She cleverly implies and suggest rather than specifically states. Examples:
Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an "isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith." But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly PC.
So far it IS an isolated, individual act. We have not seen other such fratricide in this campaign. Furthermore, we do not yet know conclusively that it was an expression of faith. We may find that to be the case IN THE FUTURE. Or not. The investigation is not even nearly close to being done. Yet, Malkin is convinced ALREADY that anyone who thinks such a judgment is premature is an "apologist for Islam-gone-awry."
Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA – Muslim soldier with attitude – suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:
Note she says "suspected." Meaning she cannot prove it. Could there be such infiltrators? It could be. It's very possible. But the implication that somehow Islam as a religion is at fault - the sly suggestion of a term for it "MSWA" - is a premature exaggeration at a minimum.
Ain't multiculturalism grand?
The word "multiculturalism" has become a bogeyman for the hard Right in this country. Are there leftists who take the term too far? Yes, there are. But the original idea of multiculturalism - that people of different cultural backgrounds can coexist peacefully and with mutual tolerance (not necessarily mutual liking, merely tolerance) in a single nation - is a good one for our country. The idea is to reject the notion that ONLY Anglo-Saxon Protestants CAN be the acceptable norm of an American. I remember that not too long ago (a few decades ago), the fact that a man was Catholic was an issue in his bid for presidential campaign enough that he had to declare publicly that he will not place his religious allegiance to the Church above his allegiance to the country.

We've come a long way with multiculturalism since then. Are there excesses? Mostly certainly. But to deny the worhty goal of the original intent of multiculturalism is to endorse bigotry.
Ain't open borders grand?
We don't really have the kind of "open borders" that many libertarians wish for, so this is kind of a false accusation. We have an irrational immigration system right now, one way or another.
Ain't tolerance grand?
Tolerance for what? If by "tolerance," she means being able to live with people of different religious and cultural backgrounds without stereotyping them as a group, I'm all for it. Frankly, this a smug rhetorical question. What is she proposing instead? That we should only tolerate Christians like her as "real" citizens? What is her point?
Ain't diversity grand?
Diversity IS great. It allows a "darkie" like her to have the same opportunities and platforms as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant. There were days, before tolerance of "diversity" came about, when "dark" people trying to vote were lynched in this country. Thank goodness diversity is tolerated today. Again, are there excesses? Yes. Am I against those leftist excesses? Yes, I do. Yet, Malkin dismisses the entire idea rhetorically.
Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders and tolerance of the murderous "attitude" of Jihad.
I see that "tolerance" has transformed into "tolerance of... Jihad." It is an interesting way to frame one's intellectual opponent - "Hmmm, you disagree with me, so you must like our evil radical Muslims."
Malkin, the daughter of Filipino immigrants, was born in Philadelphia in 1970 and raised in southern New Jersey
No one has accused that she is a racist. However, the fact that she is Filipino (a "dark" person) does not mean that she cannot have racial or religious bigotry. She can (I don't know if she does or not for sure, but a lot of what she writes sure is suggestive of anti-Islam rhetoric).
 
Does anyone know of a single instance in which an American Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine murdered his fellows because we invaded "his" (as in Akbar's "our") Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Shinto/etc... country?
I don't know about physical violence, but there have been Christians and Jews who have treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations. Of course, there was only a very small number - certainly not nearly enough to represent the vast majority of such groups who remained and remain loyal to the US.
An example from WWII:

IIRC, the 442nd Regiment and the 100th Combat Battalion were (with the exception of some of their officers) exclusively Japanese.

They won something on the order of 18,000 medals for valor. More by far than any other unit(s).

I don't recall a single act of treachery being attributed to them. A quick 'net search produced none either.
A few Japanese-Americans (not with the 442nd or 110th) did get angry at the racist baitings against them in the US and gave up their citizenships and left for Japan to serve in the Japanese military (presumably to kill Americans).

Of course, the vast, vast majority of the Japanese-Americans remained loyal (even if more than a bit resentful at the way they were treated) to the US - which is also the case with the several thousand Muslim Americans serving in our Armed Forces.

A handful of crazies do not speak for the whole.
 
we should only tolerate Christians like her

Gee, I'd better look at that picture again- I missed that the first time (hey, it's a good excuse to look again:) )



So far it IS an isolated, individual act

Um, yeah, except for the other four examples she gives (not in this conflict).
 
I think we should deport her. Now!

Don't you people realize that there are Muslim and communist insurgents all over the Phillipines?!?

She could be a sleeper! Get her out!

Ain't open borders grand?

:rolleyes:
 
Fight!
Fight!
Fight!


One quetion I have is, regardless of religious background, if these folks are all deemed troublemakers before the incident, why are they allowed to be around guns and grenades. Why aren't they detained? I mean, two muslim sympathizers in two muslim-related actions, both judged to be 'no good'... why weren't they locked up?
 
I don't see any general condemnation of Muslim-Americans in this article. The last part of her statement is most telling: "the murderous 'attitude' of Jihad".

No, she doesn't condemn Muslim-Americans, she condemns Islam. Repeated comments like "so-called religion of peace" totally sour the article and distract from whatever point she is trying to make.

This guy is a jerk, a criminal, and a religious fruitcake. To pretend that those only come in a Muslim flavor is pretty bigoted. If a liberal "diversity lover" columnist were to drag out every incident where a fundamentalist Christian has shot a doctor, bombed a clinic, blown up a building, or kneecapped a snitch, everybody would be hasty to explain that those fruitcakes don't speak for Christianity nor represent the typical mainstream Christian.

Weirdos are attracted to religion, because it gives them moral justification for their hatred of the world, and a way to channel that hatred. Most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Wiccans and Buddhists are non-violent and content with living their faith on their own terms. All religions, without exception, have their lunatic nutcake fringe, people who kill because they think they have their god's approval. To focus on one and snidely labeling it as "so-called religion of peace" is selective and bigoted. Plenty of people have been killed in the name of the "Prince of Peace", remember?

Also, the re are some major non sequiturs in that column. What does the extremist religionism of some US-born citizens have to do with "open borders", for example? (Besides, it's already been pointed out that our borders are anything but open. Those who bemoan the illegal immigration problem at the southern border invariably fail to address just how they'd go about fixing that issue, short of the old "military at the borders" thing.)

Diversity has indeed tourned into a dirty word for some conservatives. When they say "diversity", they say it with disgust, because what they really mean to say is "spicks, fags and *******". Truth is, diversity is the motto of this country, and the source of its greatest strength. "E Pluribus Unum": From many, One. It means that anybody can make their way as an American and pursue happiness in their own way, by leaving everybody else alone to do the same. It means that you can worship, dress, speak, and act any way you want, as long as you don't harm anyone or take their stuff. This nation is a giant quilt of colors, religions, and backgrounds, the only nation in the world where five hundred religions and skin colors can live next to each other without constantly waging war against each other.

Some Muslims place their faith before their country, and that's not acceptable when your faith tenets contradict the Bill of Rights. If the Bill of Rights says you can't force your neighbor to go to church, and your Holy Book does, then you had best consider relocating to a theocracy that's in line with your Holy Book, because that's not the American Way.

That said, I know plenty of Christians who put their faith before their country, and then claim that we were really meant to be a Christian nation. In actuality, we are, and always have been, a "believe whatever you want, as long as you don't try to make it law for everyone" nation. That goes for adherents of all religions, not just Islam and Christianity. The very fact that no faith group in this country can legally seize the reigns is the only thing that keeps us from perpetual religious warfare.

If you don't believe that your neighbor has a right to

a.) worship as he pleases,

b.) not believe in the same god as you, and

c.) be left alone without getting bombed or gassed or shot for have planes crashed into his office building for any reason,

you are *not* an American, no matter what your religion or the inscription on your passport.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top