3
3
0
Good thing his co-workers reported him at various times. Too many people dismiss those types of statements.
hawaii-soldier-pledge-isis-allegiance
Posted from time.com
Counterintelligence
Terrorism
ISIS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
True. This was a good example of a joint FBI/Army CI investigation as well.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Agreed. Although I can't find reference of Army CI in the articles, I know we had involvement.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - LOL, do we ever get credit? In any case I assure you that was a major Army CI investigation despite the FBI taking full credit. :)
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Poor investigation. It reads he was becoming radicalized. According to Islam, following Muhammad's commands are not radical. Hence, the loyalty to the Caliphate and the one true god of the Kaaba.
M. Morris RVT
M. Morris RVT
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
CW3 (Join to see) - I am sorry CW2. It is obovious you have not studied Islam and Muhammad. 94% of Muslims are not following Muhammad. The 3-6% that are, are hiding within the Ummah.
My issue is not with the hard chargers that conducted the investigation. I am confident they are Honoable. My issue is the lie the world system is telling folks about Islamic terror. Shia, or Sunni. Or, any subgroup of Shia, and Sunni.
Was Muhammad radical? If yes, then all of Islam is radical. What did Muhammad do? Did he murder, rape, steal, lie and take slaves?
Churchill understood Islam. He understood Nazis too.
M. Morris RVT
My issue is not with the hard chargers that conducted the investigation. I am confident they are Honoable. My issue is the lie the world system is telling folks about Islamic terror. Shia, or Sunni. Or, any subgroup of Shia, and Sunni.
Was Muhammad radical? If yes, then all of Islam is radical. What did Muhammad do? Did he murder, rape, steal, lie and take slaves?
Churchill understood Islam. He understood Nazis too.
M. Morris RVT
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Cpl Mark A. Morris - Excuse me, but I have studied Islam. However that is not the point.
What does this have to do with my comments regarding radicalization, or your comment stating the investigation was poor? I am simply trying to inquire why you thought that knowing nothing about CI investigations or this investigation in particular beyond this article? Your only comment in response to that inquiry was that it was poor because of the conclusion that he was radicalized. And I am telling you that he was "radicalized" based on his associations with a known group advocating violence in support of their beliefs, and his own statements. Unless you know him personally (religion aside), how would you know that yourself?
If you want to reply to comment by simply making some quick remark such as "poor investigation" then expect someone to question your reasoning behind it. Especially when there are people on here who are privy to that investigation you may not be aware of.
What does this have to do with my comments regarding radicalization, or your comment stating the investigation was poor? I am simply trying to inquire why you thought that knowing nothing about CI investigations or this investigation in particular beyond this article? Your only comment in response to that inquiry was that it was poor because of the conclusion that he was radicalized. And I am telling you that he was "radicalized" based on his associations with a known group advocating violence in support of their beliefs, and his own statements. Unless you know him personally (religion aside), how would you know that yourself?
If you want to reply to comment by simply making some quick remark such as "poor investigation" then expect someone to question your reasoning behind it. Especially when there are people on here who are privy to that investigation you may not be aware of.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google