The significance of "allahu Akbar"

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Did you read my post? I actually mentioned the fact that he had a political agenda (anti-American, call himself a Palestinian) and made contact with several agents of organized Muslim terrorism (communicated with the same Imam who also helped inspired 9/11). He also was found to have attempted to contact others (Al-Qaeda). There's a difference between jumping to a conclusion and simply accepting the only reasonable conclusion that explains all of the facts. Or do you think that PSD is contagious?

She probably read it but knows nothing about the background of MAJ Hasan nor cares to. To Cleo, the stuff you mentioned isn't relevant. She still trying to prove he was insane at the time and not having much luck on that theory. Still waiting for more "proof".

It's not PTSD as Hasan had no experience in a combat zone (pretty easy to find on a service record by now) unlike 1.5 million American troops from the Iraq War or the Afghan War who haven't gone a killing spree against anyone. Nobody mentions that but if does happens, all vets ffrom the present war will be regarded with suspicion as drug addicts, losers and baby killers as they were after the Vietnam War.

Yeah, that's the funny part. It's not PTSD. They claim that PTSD is contagious. That is, he was never in combat but got it from talking to people who were in combat.

Its BS

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, if you see a Muslim guy with an explosive belt screaming "Allah Akhbar" and reaching

for the detonator, you should probably take him out if you can.

Otherwise, YMMV.

[Peikko 1,575]

And again with wanting to know all the facts is defending terrorism because Obama is president. Hilarious.

It's a very common phrase that is not a jihadist battle cry so much as a general call to prayer and praise of god. Should it transpire that indeed the Fort Hood murderer shouted this out before he opened fire, should this add fuel to the terrorist theory or not?

Not being a muslim, I don't know what the average muslim feels about this. Any takers?

I actually also thought of Admiral Ackbar, too, when I first heard it. Who can spot the geeks here?

Anyways, to the original question. I'm not a Muslim so I can't speak to how Muslims feel about it. Everything I have heard is that indeed it is a phrase that is used in many parts of Muslim life, including a daily call to prayer. However, I don't think that is really relevant here. If a person says, "Allahu Akbar," it doesn't make him a terrorist. However, if a person yells, "Allahu Akbar," and then starts shooting American soldiers, it lends some significant insight into why he did it.

I sort of liken it to a phrase such as, "In the name of God," or "Glory to God." If a person walks into a mosque and starts shooting, you might say that he is a random crazy person or that he had any other number of reasons to target someone in the mosque. If someone says, "In the name of God," you may think little of it. But if someone walks into a mosque, says "In the name of God," and starts shooting, you can sort of guess why he did it.

This whole issue is somewhat baffling to me. A man, who has in the past expressed his anti-American views, declared his real nationality to be Palestinian, glorified suicide bombing, attempted to contact Al-Qaeda, and communicated with a radical Muslim Imam who worked with the 9/11 hijackers, walks into an army base, states as explicitly as possible in two words that he is acting in the name of his religion (I won't disrespect peaceful Muslims by saying he was acting in the name of Islam), and kills 13 soldiers before he is stopped by return fire. And then instead of connecting the obvious dots, some in the government and media decide that post-traumatic stress disorder is probably contagious. I'm not trying to say that all Muslims are bad or that we shouldn't allow them in the military. But let's dig our heads out of the sand and call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist.

I think the question is, is a muslim a terrorist because he goes on a killing spree, or is a muslim a terrorist because he is affiliated with a terrorist organization and has a plan to kill in order to further a political agenda. Clearly for you the answer is if it's a muslim and it's a killing spree, it's terrorism.

The point about all this is not to fudge the issues or pretend that something isn't terrorism when it is, but to be able to make sensible decisions in order to prevent a repetition of this event. Jumping to conclusions is not sensible, ever.

Did you read my post? I actually mentioned the fact that he had a political agenda (anti-American, call himself a Palestinian) and made contact with several agents of organized Muslim terrorism (communicated with the same Imam who also helped inspired 9/11). He also was found to have attempted to contact others (Al-Qaeda). There's a difference between jumping to a conclusion and simply accepting the only reasonable conclusion that explains all of the facts. Or do you think that PSD is contagious?

I read your post. Long in conjecture, short on facts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did you read my post? I actually mentioned the fact that he had a political agenda (anti-American, call himself a Palestinian) and made contact with several agents of organized Muslim terrorism (communicated with the same Imam who also helped inspired 9/11). He also was found to have attempted to contact others (Al-Qaeda). There's a difference between jumping to a conclusion and simply accepting the only reasonable conclusion that explains all of the facts. Or do you think that PSD is contagious?

She probably read it but knows nothing about the background of MAJ Hasan nor cares to. To Cleo, the stuff you mentioned isn't relevant. She still trying to prove he was insane at the time and not having much luck on that theory. Still waiting for more "proof".

It's not PTSD as Hasan had no experience in a combat zone (pretty easy to find on a service record by now) unlike 1.5 million American troops from the Iraq War or the Afghan War who haven't gone a killing spree against anyone. Nobody mentions that but if does happens, all vets ffrom the present war will be regarded with suspicion as drug addicts, losers and baby killers as they were after the Vietnam War.

Yeah, that's the funny part. It's not PTSD. They claim that PTSD is contagious. That is, he was never in combat but got it from talking to people who were in combat.

I heard a piece on NPR a few months ago about an army staff colonel in Iraq who apparently developed PTSD from the sight of IAD victims being brought back into camp.

[Peikko 1,575]

Did you read my post? I actually mentioned the fact that he had a political agenda (anti-American, call himself a Palestinian) and made contact with several agents of organized Muslim terrorism (communicated with the same Imam who also helped inspired 9/11). He also was found to have attempted to contact others (Al-Qaeda). There's a difference between jumping to a conclusion and simply accepting the only reasonable conclusion that explains all of the facts. Or do you think that PSD is contagious?

She probably read it but knows nothing about the background of MAJ Hasan nor cares to. To Cleo, the stuff you mentioned isn't relevant. She still trying to prove he was insane at the time and not having much luck on that theory. Still waiting for more "proof".

It's not PTSD as Hasan had no experience in a combat zone (pretty easy to find on a service record by now) unlike 1.5 million American troops from the Iraq War or the Afghan War who haven't gone a killing spree against anyone. Nobody mentions that but if does happens, all vets ffrom the present war will be regarded with suspicion as drug addicts, losers and baby killers as they were after the Vietnam War.

Yeah, that's the funny part. It's not PTSD. They claim that PTSD is contagious. That is, he was never in combat but got it from talking to people who were in combat.

I heard a piece on NPR a few months ago about an army staff colonel in Iraq who apparently developed PTSD from the sight of IAD victims being brought back into camp.

Liberal brainwashing. Can't happen, can't be true, this was the actions of a jihadist, a jihadist who lived to kill because the American people are too pc to kick the dirty scumbags out of the army. Even the FBI is tainted with liberal scum because they failed to find any incriminating evidence. Shame on America!

[alienlovechild 75]

And again with wanting to know all the facts is defending terrorism because Obama is president. Hilarious.

Who said that on this thread?

You're the last one to care about the facts and you fail to acknowledge anything they found on Hasan. Still waiting your PTSD angle. This should be good.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a very common phrase that is not a jihadist battle cry so much as a general call to prayer and praise of god. Should it transpire that indeed the Fort Hood murderer shouted this out before he opened fire, should this add fuel to the terrorist theory or not?

Not being a muslim, I don't know what the average muslim feels about this. Any takers?

I actually also thought of Admiral Ackbar, too, when I first heard it. Who can spot the geeks here?

Anyways, to the original question. I'm not a Muslim so I can't speak to how Muslims feel about it. Everything I have heard is that indeed it is a phrase that is used in many parts of Muslim life, including a daily call to prayer. However, I don't think that is really relevant here. If a person says, "Allahu Akbar," it doesn't make him a terrorist. However, if a person yells, "Allahu Akbar," and then starts shooting American soldiers, it lends some significant insight into why he did it.

I sort of liken it to a phrase such as, "In the name of God," or "Glory to God." If a person walks into a mosque and starts shooting, you might say that he is a random crazy person or that he had any other number of reasons to target someone in the mosque. If someone says, "In the name of God," you may think little of it. But if someone walks into a mosque, says "In the name of God," and starts shooting, you can sort of guess why he did it.

This whole issue is somewhat baffling to me. A man, who has in the past expressed his anti-American views, declared his real nationality to be Palestinian, glorified suicide bombing, attempted to contact Al-Qaeda, and communicated with a radical Muslim Imam who worked with the 9/11 hijackers, walks into an army base, states as explicitly as possible in two words that he is acting in the name of his religion (I won't disrespect peaceful Muslims by saying he was acting in the name of Islam), and kills 13 soldiers before he is stopped by return fire. And then instead of connecting the obvious dots, some in the government and media decide that post-traumatic stress disorder is probably contagious. I'm not trying to say that all Muslims are bad or that we shouldn't allow them in the military. But let's dig our heads out of the sand and call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist.

I think the question is, is a muslim a terrorist because he goes on a killing spree, or is a muslim a terrorist because he is affiliated with a terrorist organization and has a plan to kill in order to further a political agenda. Clearly for you the answer is if it's a muslim and it's a killing spree, it's terrorism.

The point about all this is not to fudge the issues or pretend that something isn't terrorism when it is, but to be able to make sensible decisions in order to prevent a repetition of this event. Jumping to conclusions is not sensible, ever.

Did you read my post? I actually mentioned the fact that he had a political agenda (anti-American, call himself a Palestinian) and made contact with several agents of organized Muslim terrorism (communicated with the same Imam who also helped inspired 9/11). He also was found to have attempted to contact others (Al-Qaeda). There's a difference between jumping to a conclusion and simply accepting the only reasonable conclusion that explains all of the facts. Or do you think that PSD is contagious?

Don't bother trying to enlighten libs with facts. They've heard the facts over and over and over, and still defend this guy tooth and nail but would just as soon crucify any Christian who did anything wrong. If it were a republican president, it would be ok to call it terrorism. However, since it is a democrat and more importantly, Obama, who set out to inspire and unite muslims and non-muslims - this incident cannot be called terrorism because it happened on Obama's watch.

And again with wanting to know all the facts is defending terrorism because Obama is president. Hilarious.

Who said that on this thread?

You're the last one to care about the facts and you fail to acknowledge anything they found on Hasan. Still waiting your PTSD angle. This should be good.

[alienlovechild 75]

I heard a piece on NPR a few months ago about an army staff colonel in Iraq who apparently developed PTSD from the sight of IAD victims being brought back into camp.

Warzones are pretty messy compared to shrink's offices. Millions were traumatized by watching 9/11 on TV but of course a lot of them went on a killing spree as a backlash.

Wait til some freaked out vet from Iraq or Afghanistan mows down worshippers in a mosque. BTW, why hasn't that happened yet? Think he'll get a pass even if he had PTSD? Of course his military experience had nothing to do with his crimes until it's proven in court.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well, Im a Muslim, a Palestinian and I say "Allahu Akbar" several times a day, so I must be a terrorist in training.

Allahu Akbar" means "God is great" and it part of the call to prayer broadcast 5 times a day all over the world. The bar for a Muslim being terrorist is pretty low, since a lot of non-Muslims are redefining our terms and practices to fit their fears and prejudices.

[alienlovechild 75]

However, since it is a democrat and more importantly, Obama, who set out to inspire and unite muslims and non-muslims - this incident cannot be called terrorism because it happened on Obama's watch.

Which part isn't true:

Obama set out to inspire Muslims and non-Muslims.

The shooting incident didn't happen.

Obama isn't the current president.

Obama doesn't refer the shooting as a terrorist act.

[Peikko 1,575]

Just out of interest, how does one declare one's real nationality to be that of a completely different country? Why pick Palestine? Any takers

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Btw, any practicing Muslim practices jihad, but that doesn't require violence, just self-discipline.

[Peikko 1,575]

However, since it is a democrat and more importantly, Obama, who set out to inspire and unite muslims and non-muslims - this incident cannot be called terrorism because it happened on Obama's watch.

Which part isn't true:

Obama set out to inspire Muslims and non-Muslims.

The shooting incident didn't happen.

Obama isn't the current president.

Obama doesn't refer the shooting as a terrorist act.

What part of any of this is relevant to any point I have raised in this thread? Oh, that would be zip, nada, rien, nothing, niet. Go eat popcorn, it's all you are fit for.

[morocco4ever 63]

It is only natural to assume that anyone that says "God is great" is a terrorist isn't it?

[alienlovechild 75]

Well, Im a Muslim, a Palestinian and I say "Allahu Akbar" several times a day, so I must be a terrorist in training.

Allahu Akbar" means "God is great" and it part of the call to prayer broadcast 5 times a day all over the world. The bar for a Muslim being terrorist is pretty low, since a lot of non-Muslims are redefining our terms and practices to fit their fears and prejudices.

I've the phrase numerous times from diffferent mosques so it's commonly not a battle cry. Ever see the French movie, OSS 117 ? The French agent beats up the muzzein thinking the man is just a loudmouth who won't shut up.

"This phrase is recited by Muslims in numerous different situations. For example, when they are happy or wish to express approval, when they want to praise a speaker, during battles, and even times of extreme stress or euphoria.

The phrase is said during each stage of both obligatory prayers, which are supposed to be performed five times a day, and supererogatory prayers, which are performed at will. The Muslim call to prayer, or adhan, and to commence the prayer, or iqama, also contains the phrase, which is heard in cities all over the Muslim world. Utterances in the Prayer.

Note that takbīr (تَكْبِير) is only the name of the expression, while the phrase itself is "Allahu Akbar". In the Islamic world, instead of applause, often someone will shout "takbir" and the crowd will respond "Allahu Akbar" in chorus.

During the Iranian revolution of 1979, the call was shouted from rooftops during the evenings as a form of protest. This practice returned in the aftermath of the 2009 Iranian presidential election.[2][3] The phrase has also been used after the election to show the protest of the people against the election results. Many people shouted this phrase from 22:00–23:00 for nine days after the 2009 Iranian election to show their protest to the result.

It is also shouted before jihadi strikes, as in the Fort Hood shootings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir