(1) The Fort Hood Massacre was a terrorist attack.
(2) Abdullah supports attacks like the Fort Hood Massacre.
(3) Therefore, Abdullah supports terrorist attacks.
Of course, if anyone objects to (1) or (2), my conclusion will not follow. Most of us, however, hold that the Fort Hood Massacre was a terrorist attack. Indeed, even the ultra-dhimmi Obama Administration now admits this. The only question, then, is whether Abdullah supports attacks like the Fort Hood Massacre. Here we can read his own words, written shortly after the shooting. (Read his words carefully, for he has riddled the comments section with claims such as "I did not justify the Fort Hood Incident in the first place" and "I have clearly stated my opinions about the matter, that I DO NOT SUPPORT the actions of the Foot Hood massacre.")
Firstly, no one says that Muslims should 'rise up to kills all americans' - READ THE FULLY QUOTE "Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place."
Which I believe in too - which means military targets are viable during war, but NO CIVILIAN TARGETS (and before you mention civilians on the Army base - they are just a sad accident of war- much like the 1000's of dead Iraqi and afghan civilians right?).
I'm sorry guys, but it is time for you to admit when you are wrong to condemn - soldiers go to fight in wars, and in that incident, soldiers got killed - big deal!
Yeah so it happened on american soil, so what, american pilots and drone controllers will track down the enemies of the USA to their very homes and shoot a missle through its living room, despite their family being there or not. I guess the motto of the story is, do unto others, as you would have done unto you". Perhaps your christians should look at this incident, as a 'judgement of God' upon the wicked american army.
p.s. One thing I have noticed, for people who profess to love everyone, most of you are full of hate (your emotions are hateful, whether or not your tongue issues peaceful platitudes - repent now to the only God 'the Father').
Notice what Abdullah believes: (i) Muslims should fight the American aggressors; (ii) military targets are viable during war; (iii) the civilians killed during the Fort Hood Massacre were "just a sad accident of war." His response to American soldiers being killed by a Muslim was, to quote him, "big deal."
This is obviously a defense of the Fort Hood Massacre. And since we regard the Fort Hood Massacre as a terrorist attack, we can only conclude that Abdullah supports what we regard as terrorism.
Nevertheless, Muslims in the West generally don't like being associated with terrorism, so Abdullah has tried to escape the obvious meaning of his words. He sent me the following paragraph to clarify his views for readers:
"The reason I am upset that you personally condemn the attack at Fort Hood, is for no other reason except that I am dismayed at the double standards I believe, have been displayed in the comments and mentallity of the individuals who write on this blog. If an individal, who attests to be Muslim, criminally kills civilians; you all condemn it (which we all would agree), but when a U.S. soldier kills civilians you do not highlight it here, or explain it as accidental. Furthermore, when a U.S marine kills an Iraqi or Afghan fighter, EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES, you reply that this is all fair in war, or that they deserved it because they are enemies of the U.S. BUT when a Muslim soldier kills U.S. soldiers for the same reasons, irrespective of the location, you cry foul and call such attacks 'Terrorist attacks' (to which you include insurgent attacks on military assets in Iraq and Afganistan too). It would seem that the Muslim cannot fight except that it is called Terrorism, and the American/Christian cannot fight except that it is called a just war. In regards the Fort Hood incident, I do not condone it, since although in principle soldiers were the target, the individual who perpetrated the attacks did so from a position of trust (i.e. he gave his oath to help the U.S. army initially with sincerity), which is not allowed in Islam (I can explain why separately), furthermore, it is deeply regrettible that civilians got caught in the fire, and I condemn all deliberate killing of civilians. Therefore, according to my adopted Islamic opinions, I do not condone the attack from the Islamic perspective, but I do feel that yourselves are acting hypocritically according to your own criteria, for condemning it."
Here Abdullah tries to pretend that he was only pointing out an inconsistency on our part. But this simply will not do. Abdullah specifically said he believes that military targets are viable during war. Since he agrees with attacks on American military bases, he obviously wasn't merely discussing our inconsistency.
Both passages from Abdullah attempt to show that, since America is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, attacks against U.S. military targets (such as Fort Hood) are viable. But this exposes Abdullah's true views. Major Nidal Malik Hasan is neither an Afghani nor an Iraqi. American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq because there are wars there. But Hasan is an American soldier. Thus, if Abdullah views Hasan's attack as justified by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he must believe that the United States is at war with Islam (for this is the only connection between Hasan and Afghanistan/Iraq). But if the United States is at war with Islam, then any Muslim is justified in attacking U.S. military bases right here in the United States.
Abdullah tries to get around this by saying that Hasan was wrong for pledging his allegiance to the U.S. and then fighting against the U.S. Thus, according to Abdullah's defense, it is wrong, immoral, and contrary to the teachings of Islam for a person to feign allegiance to a group in order to attack them. But here Abdullah can only defend himself by condemning Muhammad! Let's consider a few passages from the Hadith and Sira literature.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4037--Allah's Messenger said, "Who will kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Messenger?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b)." The Prophet said, "You may say it."
Ibn Ishaq, p. 367--The apostle said . . . "Who will rid me of Ibnu'l-Ashraf?" Muhammad b. Maslama, brother of the B. Abdu'l-Ashahal, said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him." He said, "Do so if you can." So Muhammad b. Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given him an undertaking and he did not know whether he could fulfill it. The apostle said, "All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try." He said, "O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."
As the story continues, we find Muslims (with the approval of Muhammad) pretending to be friends with Ka'b, until he trusts them. Once he trusts them, they brutally stab him to death. (They also chop off his head and bring it to Muhammad.)
What does this mean? It means that Muhammad allowed his followers to pretend to be friendly towards an enemy in an effort to win the enemy's trust, so that Muslims could successfully kill that enemy.
A similar event occurred during the Battle of the Trench. Nu'aym b. Mas'ud was from the tribes allied against Muhammad, but he converted to Islam. When he came to Muhammad, he was told: "You are only one man among us, so go and awake distrust among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is deceit." Nu'aym then pretended to be loyal to the tribes allied against Muhammad, and he used their trust to turn them against one another.
None of this is surprising, of course. In the Hadith, we read:
Sahih al-Bukhari 3029--Allah's Messenger named: "War: Deceit."
Sahih al-Bukhari 3030--The Prophet said: "War is deceit."
In Sahih Muslim 6303, we read that Muslims are permitted to lie for several reasons: "in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."
Here Abdullah may object by pointing out that Hasan took an oath to protect America. But oaths are easily broken in Islam:
Sahih al-Bukhari 5518--Muhammad said: "By Allah, and if Allah will, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."
What does all of this mean? The only way for Abdullah to pretend that Islam condemns the Fort Hood Massacre was to claim that Islam would not allow a Muslim to lie in order to infiltrate an enemy camp. But in making this claim, Abdullah has condemned Muhammad and the early Muslim community!
Abdullah's comments are simply indefensible. He obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre and specifically said that he supports attacks against military targets. Now he claims that he said no such thing, and this is clearly an attempt to deceive us. Perhaps this is why he's employing new tactics in his effort to avoid accountability. His latest tactic is to threaten "Legal Jihad," for he states, "David Wood accused me of supporting Terrorism (something my Legal counsel has advised of his culpability on)."
So he's talking to his lawyer about my culpability! He's also threatened to blacklist me from future events with MDI (as if I'd ever give in to threats like this) if I don't back off. Well, Abdullah obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre, which means that I'm only guilty of telling the truth. And I suppose this blog post gives a good indication of my thoughts on his demand that I back off or risk blacklisting.
I'll conclude with some advice to Abdullah.
(1) Be careful of what you say, for you might regret it later.
(2) If you say something embarrassing, admit it, apologize, and move on.
(3) Don't try to reinterpret your own words in order to deceive people about your obvious meaning.
(4) When someone points out something you've said, don't threaten them.
(5) Don't attack people that you're supposedly trying to reconcile with.
(6) Don't use your own misunderstandings of Christian scripture to attack Christians to whom you should be apologizing.