America's dysfunctional relationship with radical Wahhabism
Linking my earlier post about the Fort Hood shooting, M. Simon quoted what I said about the shooter's imam:
Hasan's imam Faizul Khan is no ordinary imam. He is on the Board of Directors of the ISNA, a radical Wahhabi outfit which "enforces extremist Wahhabi theological writ in America's mosques.
Such people and their murderous ideology are a huge problem in this country -- and the biggest reason is our friendship with -- and dependence on -- Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest sponsor of radical Wahhabism. I am sick to death of Saudi influence and creeping Wahhabism paid for with our petrodollars, and have been for years. Sometimes when I fill my tank I wonder whether it would be better to patronize only the companies that don't buy Saudi oil, but then I'd be giving the money to Hugo Chavez. Seriously, our dysfunctional relationship with the Saudis is so odious that after a massacre like yesterday's, I'm tempted to scream "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!"
Anyway, I am sure that Simon's reaction to what I said would be shared by a lot of people:
The Whabists need to be expelled from America. Whether they are native born or foreign born.
Radical Islam is not a religion. It is a traitorous political party masquerading as a religion and should be treated as such.
Under our Constitution, though, citizens cannot be expelled from America for their opinions. Not even citizens who agree with radical Wahhabism. I say this as someone who livedforyearsaround the corner from a Saudi-funded madrassa. Much as I disliked having people who subscribed to this poison in my neighborhood, had any native born Americans among them been rounded up and deported I would have been right there on the front lines with the ACLU, because if one administration can round up Americans for being Wahhabists, what's to stop another from rounding them up for being "radical rightists"? Or infidels? However, if Americans belong to enemy organizations, they can be made to register as foreign agents and put under surveillance, just as Communist Party members once were.
At the very least, it seems like a no-brainer they should not be given positions as officers in the military for God's sake.
But that latter is up to the Commander in Chief, isn't it?
Hmmm....
Perhaps someone should ask the president why the military he commands says no to gays and yes to radical Wahhabists.
MORE: Ralph Peters excoriates the total inability of the president, the media, or military to call Hasan's act what it is -- terrorism -- and offers a grim prediction:
I guarantee you that the Obama administration's non-response to the Ft. Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.
Read it all.
And Ann Althouse wants to know how this man was allowed to become an Army psychiatrist:
I want to know why what was wrong with Hasan was not detected? Was he given a pass because he was Muslim? Is there a fear of suspecting or offending Muslims in the military that keeps people who should see signs of dysfunction from acknowledging what they see or doing anything about it? On the other hand, if it really is the case that people in the military are harassing Muslims, that too should not be ignored. There should be rigorous equality for Muslims. It shouldn't even be necessary to point out what is obvious: Muslims in the military shouldn't experience special treatment either of a positive or a negative kind.
He talked about how if you're a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire.
The fact that a nutcase like that was made a Major in the United States Army and entrusted to to deal with soldiers' mental problems ought to outrage people even if he hadn't committed mass murder. I'm with Ralph Peters on this one:
Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.
MORE: ShrinkWrapped (who is a psychoanalyst) takes a critical look at the Islamic terrorist from from a psychiatric point of view, and warns that reacting in a P.C. manner only aggravates the situation:
When the immediate reaction of Islamic spokesmen is to warn everyone of Islamophobia, they too are supporting the projection and externalization that is the hallmark of radical Islam and the "lone, psychiatrically deranged" paranoid.
Every effort should be made to resolutely maintain a posture that specifically and emphatically denies the use of projection and externalization to the radical Islamists. Groups like CAIR should be confronted by our MSM and government on a regular basis to expose their use of such psychological processes for all to see. Whenever a "lone, psychiatrically deranged" individual commits an atrocity, we must be alert to attempts to shift the psychological impetus for the attack from the attacker to the surround. It is an unhappy reality that confronting a paranoid's projection and externalization does not work in a therapeutic context. It either convinces the paranoid that you are part of the persecutory conspiracy or, if accepted and internalized, leads to significant depression. However, we cannot treat terror as a therapeutic situation. When Muslims support, in their speech and writing, convictions that reflect the use of projection and externalization, they must be considered potential dangers to the community. This requires a form of "racial profiling" but the alternative is to wait for an atrocity of such significant proportions that "lone, psychiatrically deranged" non-Muslims begin to take things into their own hands.
I'd also like to know whether Hasan fits the profile common to many young Muslims in Europe whose parents came to the West seeking better lives only to see their children indoctrinated by religious viewsmore radical than what they'd left behind.
Psychologist Dr. Helen asks a number of good questions:
This man was being entrusted with the mental health of soldiers, and no one could be bothered to take the time to find out if he was mentally stable himself? After a poor review, remarks that make you wonder which side this guy was on, and possible writings on a web posting that are troubling, he was not investigated?
Was it political correctness and concern for his Muslim heritage that kept officials from looking further into his mental health? Was the army so desperate for a psychiatrist (there is always a shortage) they didn't dare do anything?
The public deserves an explanation.
I agree.
posted by Eric on 11.06.09 at 09:24 AM
Comments
I agree with you. And I knew the Constitution is/was an impediment.
OTOH we may find ourselves in a situation - not now and hopefully not ever - where these attacks get more frequent and the government does nothing. (say the Whabists have tied our legal system in knots)
Blood will then run in the streets. Vigilante justice will obtain. I'm not sure I like that option better than preventive deportation.
How to square that circle?
At the very least we can deport non-citizens as a preventive measure.
For whatever reason, Hasan snapped. Simple explanation. He went crazy and religion was his justification for murder and revenge. From all the posts on numerous websites, his decline started months ago and no one paid any attention to his growing insanity. Maybe all shrinks act violent in their off time?
I'm not trying to either justify the murders or excuse Islamic terrorism. I think it's just a case that he went nuts and found an object to focus on.
The scary part though, is how many soft targets may now be exploited by more die hard terrorists? We all know it's only a matter of time before Beslans' start occurring here.
hoss · November 6, 2009 9:46 AM
We are fighting a war against an ideology we are funding.
If it weren't for oil, the Saudis would be an odd bunch of goat-herders, whose quaint religion we might read about in the National Geographic.
I think it's monstrous that this man was basically indoctrinated by means of money derived from petrodollars.
Problem is, cutting off that source of funding would expensive...
American energy policies has transfered vast weath to repressive and odious Middle Eatern Regimes, why should one be surprised that they use their wealth to placate internal threats by redirecting their activities outward?
Brad · November 6, 2009 10:03 AM
Simon --
Europe is dead. I read sometime ago that France will be over 50% Muslim by 2011. UK is going nuts between immigrants and citizens. When the 'youths' are not burning and torching in the suburbs, the left is apologizing for and to them regardless.
Melanie Phillips posted a week a two ago about the Labour plan to turn UK into a multi-cult society's massive failure.
Germany is in constant daily battles with Turks, Arabs and the police.
Holland gives more rights to Muslims than it's citizens over fears of cartoons.
The list is long and almost endless. The plot by an evil, muslim cleric in the 70's to infiltrate and re-populate Europe and the world worked. Leftist supporting asskissers like Dulles and his ilk, have killed western society.
hoss · November 6, 2009 10:06 AM
Eric,
It wouldn't be THAT expensive. What could be done is an AGRESSIVE program to develop American oil resources to drive down the price of oil such that the Saudis and oil tics couldn't meet their payrolls.
There are down sides to that: we would use up our remaining reserves faster than is good for us in the long run.
Or an all out R&D program to develop oil substitutes that are cheaper than oil. That would take a little longer.
Coal throughout the MidWest plains. Natural Gas in the ArkLaMiss. Huge oil fields in the AWR.
Can't upset environmentalists though. They need gas, shoes, etc., to go to oil exploitation rallies but don't want to see any refineries on the way there. Oil fields are just so icky......
Regarding not supporting Saudi Arabia with petrodollars, if you're in the Northeast Sunoco (I believe) does not import oil from the Persian Gulf, neither does BP (theirs comes from the North Sea; as for Chavez, it is my understanding that only Citgo is Venezuelan owned.
Some time ago, I saw online a list of oil companies that do not use the Persian gulf as their source, I don't have a link, bu t you may want to do a search.
On a larger scale, there are many people who feel that they don't want to support radical Islam with U.S. dollars. The solution is simple;begin drilling and using the oil and natural gas reserves in our own country even while we move toward renewable sources.
They don't want to do that either. They're like a wealthy person sitting on their cash and wearing shoes with holes, all the time complaining that their feet are getting wet.
T · November 6, 2009 10:58 AM
BP exploits out of the Caribbean, Kazakistan, and the Sudan. They support, albeit indirectly, the slaughter in Southern Sudan.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I agree with you. And I knew the Constitution is/was an impediment.
OTOH we may find ourselves in a situation - not now and hopefully not ever - where these attacks get more frequent and the government does nothing. (say the Whabists have tied our legal system in knots)
Blood will then run in the streets. Vigilante justice will obtain. I'm not sure I like that option better than preventive deportation.
How to square that circle?
At the very least we can deport non-citizens as a preventive measure.