News services such as Fox are reporting a mass shooting at Ford Hood in Texas, the largest military base in the country. Not all details are clear, but according to the brief statement by the base commander, 12 people were killed and 31 wounded. The fatalities include the primary shooter himself, and a civilian police officer. Other civilian police officers shot and killed the primary shooter. The civilian police officers are under contract by the military to help police the base.
What is known about the primary shooter is that he was a soldier, an army major, who was due to be shipped out to Iraq or Afghanistan. Some reports are that he was upset about this.
Two other soliders have been taken into custody. Their connection, if any, to the primary shooting has not been made clear.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
My friend's ex-girlfriend is stationed there.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
For those that it may concern, Army officials advise using text messaging instead of voice communication to contact friends and loved ones stationed at Ft. Hood. The lines are bogged down at the moment.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Reports are that at the moment, the authorities at Fort Hood are not allowing any cell phones, TV signals, or other communication out of Fort Hood--even for media personnel who are there. Someone said that text messaging was getting out.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I just got word my friend's ex is OK, so lines are probably open.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The primary shooter's name has been released. He was Major Malik Nadal Hasan.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You have got to be kidding me.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
That's a terrorist attack on our soil.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How do you know that? How are you defining terrorist attack?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is not known if Hasan was his birth name, or if he converted to Islam. He was believed to be in his late 30's.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Before this thread appeared, my friend Alyssa texted me about it. Her uncle and two of her friends are there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Geez, the guys social security number is on documentation scanned and available on certain news outlets.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
He won't be needing it.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
how can people be such idiots?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: He was Major Malik Nadal Hasan.
Ah crap.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: It is not known if Hasan was his birth name, or if he converted to Islam. He was believed to be in his late 30's.
Do we know for certain he was Muslim? Or is it just because of the name? I haven't seen anything anywhere about his religious persuasion besides that one line you quote from the article you linked from. Just curious.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement officials say the suspected Fort Hood, Texas, shooter had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.
The officials say the postings appeared to have been made by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was killed during the shooting incident that left least 11 others dead and 31 wounded. The officials say they are still trying to confirm that he was the author. They say an official investigation was not opened.
--j_k
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote: It is not known if Hasan was his birth name, or if he converted to Islam. He was believed to be in his late 30's.
Do we know for certain he was Muslim? Or is it just because of the name? I haven't seen anything anywhere about his religious persuasion besides that one line you quote from the article you linked from. Just curious.
I think what the quote means is that either Hasan is his birth name, in which case he may or may not be a practicing Muslim, or he converted to Islam, taking the name for himself. It's not claiming that he definitely was Muslim.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: He won't be needing it.
Scratch that, CNN is now reporting that the shooter is alive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi:
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: He won't be needing it.
Scratch that, CNN is now reporting that the shooter is alive.
And apparently he is a graduate of Virginia Tech.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote: It is not known if Hasan was his birth name, or if he converted to Islam. He was believed to be in his late 30's.
Do we know for certain he was Muslim? Or is it just because of the name? I haven't seen anything anywhere about his religious persuasion besides that one line you quote from the article you linked from. Just curious.
I think what the quote means is that either Hasan is his birth name, in which case he may or may not be a practicing Muslim, or he converted to Islam, taking the name for himself. It's not claiming that he definitely was Muslim.
One source stated that he gave "no religious preference" in his military paperwork, whereas another said he was devout.
So Muslim American born, raised, and educated. This doesn't bode well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Haha, this is terrible. All my muslim friends are just feeling utterly terrible right now because they know this is exactly what was needed to kickstart some newfound paranoia and distrust of them again.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My heart and prayers go out to the men and women there, and their families.
[ November 06, 2009, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Haha, this is terrible. All my muslim friends are just feeling utterly terrible right now because they know this is exactly what was needed to kickstart some newfound paranoia and distrust of them again.
Oh, come on. I'm sure it's a total coincidence.
<snort>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Haha, this is terrible. All my muslim friends are just feeling utterly terrible right now because they know this is exactly what was needed to kickstart some newfound paranoia and distrust of them again.
Oh, come on. I'm sure it's a total coincidence.
<snort>
Yes, it is coincidental, since they themselves are not killers, but they will be feared and distrusted by islamophobes anyway.
Snort away, brave zealot!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: We don't really know the guys story. There are also incidents of white guys in the military open firing on other soldiers.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I have several freinds there, a bunch of the LDS guys come down to my Ward for Church. I hope they're OK, I guess I wont know until Sunday but it's a slim chance that one of them was involved since it is such a large base. Still...
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So far as I understand it he was slowly going psychotic and probably at the point of the shooting was in full-on religious crusader ALLALAUAUAUAAULAU AKBAR styled personal jihad considering that he'd started becoming a nutty religious freak near the end.
What I want to know is if he was a born-and-bred american muslim, or if he was one of those self-styling converts.
Also probably bound to get some attention is that he was a major.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And of course a practicing psychiatrist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, psychiatrists themselves going off the deep end isn't something you often encounter.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Apparently the shooter, Major Nadal Malik Hasan (news services are indicating Nadal was actually the name he was called by) is still alive. (As Fusiachi also noted earlier.) He is on a ventilator and thus cannot talk right now, but is listed in stable condition. One of the injured has since died, raising the number of people Hasan killed to 13.
Last evening, a cousin of Maj. Nadal Hasan talked to Fox News and said that Nadal was not a recent convert, that he had been Islamic all his life, and was definitely Islamic when he enlisted in the military. So being Islamic did not prevent him from desiring to serve his country in the military, the same as it does not for many others.
In recent months, co-workers and associates say Nadal had been becoming increasingly outspoken and extreme in his statements about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He himself had never been deployed in either of those places, though as a psychiatrist he had counseled many soldiers returning from there who had stress-related problems. Also, for some reason he was dismissed from Walter Reed Army Medical Center as a result of what is being termed "a poor performance review," and was transferred to the psychiatric clinic at Fort Hood.
Too bad he was not referred there as a patient!
Perhaps the military should recognize that some soldiers may be so vehemently opposed to deployment in a combat zone that it is dangerous to force them to go anyway. Whatever it may necessitate in terms of reduction in rank or dismissal from the military, the authorities should modify their policies to allow them to take this into consideration.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Seems like surely there were other avenues he could have chosen, though, if he didn't want to deploy: I mean, go AWOL, file for C.O., or even personal suicide -- but none of that calls for killing others first. Something in his mind must have made the jump from "I would rather die than go there" to "I'm going to take out as many people as I can first". Those are very different ways of thinking.
I'm sorry they didn't recognize it in time to get him some help before this happened. And I am very sad for all the families affected.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: We don't really know the guys story. There are also incidents of white guys in the military open firing on other soldiers.
Oh, please. He's a fanatical Muslim Palestinian who just happened to post his view that suicide bombers are no different than soldiers who jump on a grenade to save a buddy. I don't know what the hell this terrorist was doing in the US Army.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Seems like surely there were other avenues he could have chosen, though, if he didn't want to deploy: I mean, go AWOL, file for C.O., or even personal suicide -- but none of that calls for killing others first. Something in his mind must have made the jump from "I would rather die than go there" to "I'm going to take out as many people as I can first". Those are very different ways of thinking.
And his way is very characteristic of his culture and religion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Oh, please. He's a fanatical Muslim Palestinian who just happened to post his view that suicide bombers are no different than soldiers who jump on a grenade to save a buddy. I don't know what the hell this terrorist was doing in the US Army.
Where was this documented? For that matter, I hadn't heard he was Palestinian either, though with the way some pretty crucial elements of this story have been reported wrong (him being dead for a big example), that could have been missed.
ETA: So far the only thing I've found towards him being Palestinian is viewer commentary on news stories.
[ November 06, 2009, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The Pentagon lists 3,386 Muslims in active service, compared with 1.22 million Christians of a wide array of denominations, including little-known groups such as the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel or the Pentecostal Holiness Church International.
The statistics are drawn from personnel records that include a "religious faith code," a rubric soldiers are asked, but not obliged, to complete. Some Muslims in the military say their real number is higher, and estimates go up to 10,000.
That's the order of magnitude that I would expect.
And Rakeesh, it's still an extremest religious based view. Arguably, it is only an extremest view.
I'm just trying to get some perspective. There is most likely going to be very little perspective in the media. There are thousands of Muslims in our military. They are not killing Americans.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And Rakeesh, it's still an extremest religious based view. Arguably, it is only an extremest view.
Well, yes. I never said or suggested otherwise. All I said was that it was a religiously motivated attack, which it was. 'Religiously motivated' being such a subjective term that fanaticism easily falls within its boundaries.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, it's certainly shaping up that this is a religiously motivated attack. *sigh* Damnit.
Why "damnit"? Honest to God, I don't understand you people. Atrocity after atrocity gets committed by people who "just happen" to have Arabic names and "just happen" to be Muslims and "just happen" to be Palestinian, but it's "racial profiling" to say that there's a cultural illness among these people that needs to be dealt with.
Instead of "*sigh* Damnit", maybe we should be saying, "How long until people get it?"
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Lisa, the vast majority of murders in this country are committed by people who self identify as "christian". I don't see you making similar statements in threads that pop up dealing with other acts of violence.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Rakeesh, yes, I wasn't disagreeing. I just wanted to emphasize that point.
And Lisa, it's *damnit* because the vast, vast majority of Muslims do not condone these actions. These are extremists. It's *damnit* because of people like you who take the action of a single extremist and use it to label the entire people.
No one here is trying to defend or protect the extremists. But there are people here who understand the definition of extremism, and understand something about the Muslim faith (I, for instance, know a little, but don't claim to be an authority), and are able to separate the two. You, clearly, choose not to. I know that you can, but you choose not to.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
According to the article Rakeesh linked to (and I've seen other articles containing the same info), this man wasn't Palestinian at all, but for some reason put that down on a matchmaking application. He was born and raised in Virginia.
A better question, to me, right now, is why there had not been an investigation opened yet over the 6-month-old internet posting that cast suspicions on him (post comparing suicide bombers to soldiers throwing themselves on grenades to save comrades). One news source I read earlier today said there are several individuals with the same name and it's unknown which of them is responsible for the post.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: According to the article Rakeesh linked to (and I've seen other articles containing the same info), this man wasn't Palestinian at all, but for some reason put that down on a matchmaking application.
His parents were, and clearly that was how he self-identified.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: A better question, to me, right now, is why there had not been an investigation opened yet over the 6-month-old internet posting that cast suspicions on him (post comparing suicide bombers to soldiers throwing themselves on grenades to save comrades).
The First Amendment?
Sorry, I don't mean that to be flippant, but I'd hate to think an investigation could be opened on me by a post I make on the internet. Well, maybe if it was at a known terrorist training forum (do such things exist?)... but otherwise, no.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: And Lisa, it's *damnit* because the vast, vast majority of Muslims do not condone these actions. These are extremists. It's *damnit* because of people like you who take the action of a single extremist and use it to label the entire people.
Adding on to this point, it is also "damnit" because this incident highlights disturbing change in the nature of who's participating.
While the 9/11 hijackers were foreign, this is an American citizen, who *if* (and thats a big if) these news reports are accurate, turned radical as an unintended result of the war on terror. This is an important step where an American citizen who somehow felt strongly enough about America to go against his parents wishes and join the military in order to serve, turns due to (one or more of) counselling returning veterans, finding common cause with other Muslims online, or harassment from fellow soldiers. (Again, assuming the reports are true)
In other words, the "terrorists win" and whether intentionally or unintentionally, people like the 9/11 hijackers have through a chain of consequences have radicalized some unknown fraction of Muslim Americans who previously were not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Errrr...it's one thing to investigate a civilian for that sort of thing, but when a soldier does so, Godric? That's a horse of a different color. Especially an active-duty soldier whose job is supposed to be the mental well being of other soldiers.
quote: quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ahh, here's something.
Well, it's certainly shaping up that this is a religiously motivated attack. *sigh* Damnit.
Why "damnit"? Honest to God, I don't understand you people. Atrocity after atrocity gets committed by people who "just happen" to have Arabic names and "just happen" to be Muslims and "just happen" to be Palestinian, but it's "racial profiling" to say that there's a cultural illness among these people that needs to be dealt with.
Instead of "*sigh* Damnit", maybe we should be saying, "How long until people get it?"
You know, I'd be irritated at being so thoroughly misunderstood if it were nearly anyone but you, Lisa, on any subject but this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Errrr...it's one thing to investigate a civilian for that sort of thing, but when a soldier does so, Godric? That's a horse of a different color. Especially an active-duty soldier whose job is supposed to be the mental well being of other soldiers.
quote: quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ahh, here's something.
Well, it's certainly shaping up that this is a religiously motivated attack. *sigh* Damnit.
Why "damnit"? Honest to God, I don't understand you people. Atrocity after atrocity gets committed by people who "just happen" to have Arabic names and "just happen" to be Muslims and "just happen" to be Palestinian, but it's "racial profiling" to say that there's a cultural illness among these people that needs to be dealt with.
Instead of "*sigh* Damnit", maybe we should be saying, "How long until people get it?"
You know, I'd be irritated at being so thoroughly misunderstood if it were nearly anyone but you, Lisa, on any subject but this.
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have written that in reply to you. I know you aren't really the one I'm irked with.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Lisa, the vast majority of murders in this country are committed by people who self identify as "christian". I don't see you making similar statements in threads that pop up dealing with other acts of violence.
Not by Christians who've posted publically in praise of terrorists. Come on, you're seriously going to pretend you don't see the difference?
Here's the thing. I heard his name was Arabic, so I jumped to the conclusion that (a) he was a Muslim and (b) he was an Islamicist nut. How about that: turned out I was right.
My synagogue was vandalized (as were a number of other Jewish locations in Chicago), and I would have been willing to bet serious money that they'd find out it was Arab/Muslims who carried out the attacks. Even knowing that there was a possibility of it being neo-nazi white power anti-semites I thought it was far more likely that it was an Islamic thing.
And it was.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: No one here is trying to defend or protect the extremists. But there are people here who understand the definition of extremism, and understand something about the Muslim faith (I, for instance, know a little, but don't claim to be an authority), and are able to separate the two. You, clearly, choose not to. I know that you can, but you choose not to.
I can, but I choose not to because doing so is political correctness run amok. How many times do these things happen and it "coincidentally" turn out to be an Islamic thing before you'll accept that it's legitimate to us the normal techniques of risk management.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: According to the article Rakeesh linked to (and I've seen other articles containing the same info), this man wasn't Palestinian at all, but for some reason put that down on a matchmaking application. He was born and raised in Virginia.
He's first generation American, and his parents are Palestinians. He put Palestinian down as his nationality on his papers. So you're going to ignore all that and ignore the fact that this was yet another in an endless string of Palestinian terrorist attacks, this time on US soil?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
But Lisa, you're ignoring a lot of facts yourself. This man was not simply some crazed Palestinian suicide bomber. He was born and raised in America. He joined the armed forces against his parents wishes because he believed it was his duty as an American citizen. He served for how many years? Eight? It seems there were many factors that led him to commit this astrocity, and many of the articles hint at some of those reasons(i.e.- his treatment by his peers for being a muslim, possibly his view of the progression of the war, i'm sure he was also dealing with many many soldiers coming back and speaking horribly about people of his religion, etc...).
I'm not excusing what this man did. But it's important to evaluate the nuances that led to this happening if we want to understand it. We do no one any good by making blanket statements about a whole religion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... terrorist attacks, this time on US soil?
Technically, the word terrorist doesn't seem to really apply. He's attacking a specific military target (as opposed to non-combatants) and there does not appear to be a political motive (let alone an intention to cause terror), rather a simple intention to kill American soldiers before they go overseas. There doesn't even appear to be any links to specific terrorist groups and even the Bush definitions for Gitmo seem odd since he actually was wearing a military uniform when attacking.
I can see traitor, treason, or murderer. He may even be insane or psychotic. But to label him as a terrorist seems to dilute the word even further.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well his last name is Rodriguez, so clearly he's not part of Lisa's vast Palestinian conspiracy. Really though, wicked timing. Back to back multiple shootings like this? That's really messed up.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Errrr...it's one thing to investigate a civilian for that sort of thing, but when a soldier does so, Godric? That's a horse of a different color. Especially an active-duty soldier whose job is supposed to be the mental well being of other soldiers.
I assume he posted on his free time. An active duty soldier is not allowed to express their opinions (through speech, mind you - what he wound up doing yesterday I absolutely condemn) even, or especially, if they don't fall in line with the establishment?
I do things every day at my job that I don't agree with, but I do them because they're part of my job and people in higher management positions than me are making the final decisions. But I'd be pretty pissed if I didn't have the right to question it during my personal time.
Granted, the situation here involves the taking of fellow human lives, so it's a magnitude or ten more than my example.
Increasing government ability to investigate it's citizens will probably curtail some violent acts. But it will never prevent them all, tragic as they may be. We need a better course of action, one that doesn't infringe on the rights of the rest of us - and we need to realize that events like this will always take place as long as there are extremists who feel violent action is necessary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:An active duty soldier is not allowed to express their opinions (through speech, mind you - what he wound up doing yesterday I absolutely condemn) even, or especially, if they don't fall in line with the establishment?
In all seriousness: no, they aren't allowed to. Really.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Well his last name is Rodriguez, so clearly he's not part of Lisa's vast Palestinian conspiracy. Really though, wicked timing. Back to back multiple shootings like this? That's really messed up.
Don't be too quick to make assumptions just based on names.
quote:An active duty soldier is not allowed to express their opinions (through speech, mind you - what he wound up doing yesterday I absolutely condemn) even, or especially, if they don't fall in line with the establishment?
In all seriousness: no, they aren't allowed to. Really.
Glad I never joined the military...
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Here's the thing. I heard his name was Arabic, so I jumped to the conclusion that (a) he was a Muslim and (b) he was an Islamicist nut. How about that: turned out I was right.
Yes. Well-behaved Muslims rarely make the news. Duh.
If I hear news about a Christian Camp, I'm going to assume it's something extremist.
If I hear news about a politician's personal life, I'm going to assume it's something fairly extreme.
I am not going to classify all Muslims, Christian Camps, and politicians by their respective extremists.
Meanwhile, you are still CHOOSING to use EXTREME events to classify an ENTIRE PEOPLE which you've decided to hate.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ya, its not a terrorist attack if it was a deliberate military target.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I will say this, Strider: while it doesn't appear he started out (his military career, that is) as a crazed suicide bomber, if the facts turn out to be as they appear to be shaping into now, I'm not sure there will be much difference between him and a suicide bomber.
I do think it's a mistake to label him or them crazy, though. They're not. Crazy by our standards doesn't equal crazy.
quote:He's attacking a specific military target (as opposed to non-combatants) and there does not appear to be a political motive (let alone an intention to cause terror), rather a simple intention to kill American soldiers before they go overseas.
First off, terrorism isn't solely limited to political motives. It can have religious motivations as well. Or, hell, even economic ones. Second, it appears to me that it's likely there was very much a political motive: stopping American soldiers from killing Islamic people*. Surely that can be called political, or a political-religious crossover. Because they weren't going to Berlin, after all.
quote:I assume he posted on his free time. An active duty soldier is not allowed to express their opinions (through speech, mind you - what he wound up doing yesterday I absolutely condemn) even, or especially, if they don't fall in line with the establishment?
Well, OK, so the next time you hear about a police officer posting on the Internet about how it's there's really not much difference between 'salary' and 'gifts from grateful citizens', you wouldn't find that problematic? Just as an example. The right to freedom of speech is absolutely not completely universal. There are conditions.
One of `em being a soldier involved in the mental health of soldiers being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan saying, "Y'know, those suicide bombers, they're not so bad."
-------
quote:Ya, its not a terrorist attack if it was a deliberate military target.
I'm not sure about this. What if he attacked, for example, a bunch of soldiers at a card game or something? I mean, targeting civilians as a primary goal? Terrorism, undeniably. Targeting armed soldiers as the primary goal, well, that's war. Targeting unarmed soldiers doing paperwork? I dunno...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It would be good to focus on the hero who stopped the gunman and undoubtedly saved many lives--the female civilian police officer who exchanged shots with the gunman and brought him down.
quote:A female civilian police officer is being hailed as a hero in the aftermath of a gunman's rampage at Fort Hood....
The attack killed 13 people and wounded 30 others at the Texas military post, but the carnage ended there, thanks to the quick response of Fort Hood Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley.
Munley and her partner responded within three minutes of reports of gunfire on Thursday, Lt. Gen. Bob Cone said Friday. Authorities say Munley, 34, exchanged fire with the gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who remains comatose in a Texas hospital. Munley is in stable condition, officials said.
Officer Munley shot Hasan four or five times, even though she was shot herself in the legs and I believe arm. Make no mistake, women can be heroes too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Thats a really lax threshold though, pretty much any soldier fighting in a war would still be covered. (i.e. "I was killing those Allied/German soldiers because they were about to attack London/Berlin)
But war is an instrument of politics. Any person attacking soldiers to stop them from attacking specific folks, especially folks one considers themselves allied with, is making a political (as well as moral and military, of course) decision. I don't see why you're saying it's a lax threshold.
quote:That sounds like pretty standard stuff though again. Paratroopers for example often had to use the element of surprise. And surely aircraft attacking military bases can't pass around a memo making sure everyone on the ground is armed and done their paperwork.
That's why it's a gray area to me. On the one hand...soldiers on a military base and all. On the other hand, they were doing paperwork and were unarmed. I'd say this grazes the border between terrorism and a complete sneak attack.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I assume he posted on his free time. An active duty soldier is not allowed to express their opinions (through speech, mind you - what he wound up doing yesterday I absolutely condemn) even, or especially, if they don't fall in line with the establishment?
Well, OK, so the next time you hear about a police officer posting on the Internet about how it's there's really not much difference between 'salary' and 'gifts from grateful citizens', you wouldn't find that problematic? Just as an example. The right to freedom of speech is absolutely not completely universal. There are conditions.
I'm not sure I understand your example. Are the "gifts from private citizens" bribes?
Would I expect such a public comment to be held against that individual in court? Yes. Would I expect an internal affairs officer from his department or news media to investigate? Yes. Would I expect the government to institute a policy to begin an investigation into any police officer or former officer or suspected officer who makes a similar statement on a message board? No.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Make no mistake, women can be heroes too.
Whose making that mistake?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That sounds like pretty standard stuff though again. Paratroopers for example often had to use the element of surprise. And surely aircraft attacking military bases can't pass around a memo making sure everyone on the ground is armed and done their paperwork.
That's why it's a gray area to me. On the one hand...soldiers on a military base and all. On the other hand, they were doing paperwork and were unarmed. I'd say this grazes the border between terrorism and a complete sneak attack. [/QB]
How do you distinguish between this and when our side shoots missiles at camps of enemy combatants in Pakistan or Afghanistan (which I don't regard as terrorism)?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
She doesn't exactly look big and tough, does she?
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That sounds like pretty standard stuff though again. Paratroopers for example often had to use the element of surprise. And surely aircraft attacking military bases can't pass around a memo making sure everyone on the ground is armed and done their paperwork.
That's why it's a gray area to me. On the one hand...soldiers on a military base and all. On the other hand, they were doing paperwork and were unarmed. I'd say this grazes the border between terrorism and a complete sneak attack.
I'd say it's more grazing the border between a terrorist attack and a lunatic just going postal. Unless he had specific endorsement by a foreign nation, I don't think this can be classified in any way as a sneak attack battle in war.
Was his intent to actually save Muslim lives somehow by killing American soldiers, or champion Muslim culture? Or was he just in so much personal pain he wanted to take down as many people around him who he felt were hurting him?
It's either a terrorist attack or he just snapped and went postal. That he was in the military and was killing fellow military personnel, I think makes it treasonous in either case.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Targeting armed soldiers as the primary goal, well, that's war. Targeting unarmed soldiers doing paperwork? I dunno... [/QB]
I don't know anything about military or military bases -- but I was kind of wondering this myself -- why IS it that no one was armed? I mean, besides the civilian officers they had there as a police force.
I realize a base that size is a city into itself, and has to run kinda like a small city. But I thought regular officers were allowed to carry guns anywhere on base...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
My experience with being on multiple bases is that no one is generally armed except for the MPs and the guards at the gates and other sensitive areas.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Farmgirl, that question was asked of a spokesman for Ft. Hood by Fox News' Shepherd Smith, and the answer he got was that soldiers may carry guns--going off hunting, or to firing ranges, whatever--but NOT with magazines in the guns, something that can be readily seen (talking about rifles). Regular soldiers do not normally carry sidearms, and it would stand out. Only MP's and civilian police contracted to work on the base wear sidearms.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Islamic terrorists are perfectly willing to throw Western Muslims under the bus in order to achieve their goals.
These fanatics aren't just terrorizing the West but also their fellow Muslims who will inevitably be targets of suspicion and hatred.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
It can be argued that all these terrorists are Muslims. Lisa does so. She argues that the weight of all these Muslim terrorists should convince us that all Muslims are extremists.
What she doesn't weigh, what isn't counted, what goes against her arguments are the millions of Muslims who are not terrorists, never want to be terrorists, and have done nothing or said anything extreme.
If I have three black cats, or even 10000 black cats I can logically say all these cats are black. I can't say that all cats are black, especially when someone else has 2000 tabbies.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Dear Lisa,
All muslims are terrorist who want nothing more than to kill Americans, oppress woman, and pray 5 times a day. They also enjoy waging wars to regain holy lands when ordered by religious leaders to do so and molesting innocent children. Sometimes they take the babies of people from other 'savage' cultures and raise them as their own in order to encourage assimilation, and sometimes, when they are just feeling plain lazy, they just spread infectious diseases to these 'savage' cultures instead. Other times their governments pay millions of dollars to dictators who oppress their citizens and strip them of their rights just so they can get oil. They also specialize in colonizing other lands and raping them of their resources, before abandoning them and leaving their people to deal with imaginary ethnic divides and instigated conflicts. Afterwards they go to church and pray for forgiveness...
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Lisa is a lonely person who gets a lot of attention on this board for saying provocative things.
Don't feed her.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If a bunch of soldiers were playing card games at a dinner well known for hosting regular soldiers during a time of war then it is a viable military target.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
what about the bombings of the USS Cole or Khobar Towers?
those were classified as terrorist attacks and they are certainly military targets every bit as much as Ft. Hood soldiers...
and I would like to second Ron, Matt and Tom:
1) Ironically, a large portion of military protocol is devoted to making sure people are only armed when they are anticipating combat.
2) Military do absolutely give up a significant portion of their free speech rights.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Godric,
quote: quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I assume he posted on his free time. An active duty soldier is not allowed to express their opinions (through speech, mind you - what he wound up doing yesterday I absolutely condemn) even, or especially, if they don't fall in line with the establishment?
Well, OK, so the next time you hear about a police officer posting on the Internet about how it's there's really not much difference between 'salary' and 'gifts from grateful citizens', you wouldn't find that problematic? Just as an example. The right to freedom of speech is absolutely not completely universal. There are conditions.
I'm not sure I understand your example. Are the "gifts from private citizens" bribes?
Would I expect such a public comment to be held against that individual in court? Yes. Would I expect an internal affairs officer from his department or news media to investigate? Yes. Would I expect the government to institute a policy to begin an investigation into any police officer or former officer or suspected officer who makes a similar statement on a message board? No.
To some people they could be considered bribes. NOt to the officers accepting them, though. As for whether 'the government' should institute a policy...well, hell yes they should. Even for an ordinary citizen, the right to freedom of speech is not as sacrosanct as you appear to think-much less for someone who swears oaths and has higher responsibilities and trust.
quote:I'd say it's more grazing the border between a terrorist attack and a lunatic just going postal. Unless he had specific endorsement by a foreign nation, I don't think this can be classified in any way as a sneak attack battle in war.
War doesn't work that way anymore. Or are we not 'at war' right now? Specific endorsement of a foreign nation is not necessary. For the legal definition it is, but not for the real-world definition. Foreign nations obviously aren't going to declare war against us.
------
quote:How do you distinguish between this and when our side shoots missiles at camps of enemy combatants in Pakistan or Afghanistan (which I don't regard as terrorism)?
Functionally, there isn't much difference-which is why it's a borderline thing for me. The execution, though, is quite reminescent of terrorism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Basically, Godric, it comes down to this: a soldier during a time of war likened enemy soldiers killing our soldiers (as well as plenty of civilians, with that as the primary strategic goal on many occasions) to heroes.
That would be disconcerting at best if he were a civilian and it wasn't a time of war. If he's a soldier in a time of war, it ought to prompt at least a quiet look.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: what about the bombings of the USS Cole or Khobar Towers?
those were classified as terrorist attacks and they are certainly military targets every bit as much as Ft. Hood soldiers...
and I would like to second Ron, Matt and Tom:
1) Ironically, a large portion of military protocol is devoted to making sure people are only armed when they are anticipating combat.
2) Military do absolutely give up a significant portion of their free speech rights.
National governments have claimed valid military attacks as "terrorism" for centuries just because they say it is now doesn't make them correct in its usage.
Any attack or strike against a viable military target even behind enemy lines is a valid and justifable act of war and all civilian casualties are unfortunate collatoral damage.
A terrorist attack is an attack designed to spread maximum fear and panic amongst the civilian population bordering with war crimes.
As such the allied fire bombings and terror bombings of Japan and Germany during world war two could be argued as terrorism as the target wasn't for viable military targets and did not nessasarily have the excuse of inaccurate munitions but can be handwaved because they partook within the wider context of conflict between two states.
Planting suitcase bombs in a packed restaurant with no military targets within and intending to cause fear is terrorism.
The same situation but a restaurant densely packed with off duty soldiers and officers isn't and is a justified act of war any civilians caugt are just unintended collatoral damage, bonus points if the people claiming responsibility apologize for the unnessasary deaths.
Assassinations of leading industrialists, politicians, and officers who are provingly related to a given conflict is more of a grey area but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt as being a justified military decapitation strike.
A military or paramilitary strike on a viable military target is never terrorism period, any attempts to spin it as terrorism is just that, spin. Efforts designed to cause maximum outrage among the populace by the media to whip up support for imperialist directives and to play down the efforts of the freedom fighters and members of the people's war.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I get the feeling that this shooting was more along the lines of the Virginia Tech massacre in motivation than pure terrorism. Hassan seemed to be lonely, sad and alienated, just like Cho and George Sodini. The shooting was revenge against people whom he felt rejected him.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This whole situation is horrible and sad. I feel just terrible for all the families and friends of the dead and wounded. They were here, at home, at base - they should have been SAFE.
That being said, the fact that this guy is Muslim doesn't make their deaths any worse. It does bring up some questions that our military needs to take under serious consideration. This man had been showing signs of severe discontent for ages now, and some of his activities (if the press is correct) seemed to be growing increasingly violence prone. I'm not going to argue that this guy gave up his freedom of speech. Because he was active duty, the military may or may not have had the power to censure him for just making the comments. I really don't know enough about military law to make that call. However, just because he's free to say something doesn't mean that we should ignore those comments. It may not be against the law for me to SAY "I think all black kids are ignorant monkeys", but that doesn't mean my saying it doesn't have any consequences. If I was a teacher, or a foster parent, or any number of other professions, my saying that particular thing should cause a number of people to open questions in their minds. If a teacher who said such things taught in a minority school district, I would fully expect the district to monitor her classroom very closely, even if they couldn't fire her for the comments. If the person who said that had an African American foster child, I would expect CPS to open up an investigation to make sure that child was being cared for adequately. Just because the freedom of speech protects your legal right to make the statements does NOT mean that people are not allowed to act or react to the statement. (For the record, I was using the above quote to demonstrate a point. I do not personally hold the belief that all black children are ignorant monkeys.)
I too feel sorry for all the other Muslims in this country. I'm sure the Mosque's tonight are full of many families praying for the Ft. Hood injured. I'm sure many of the men and women doing the praying feel an unreasonable sense of guilt because it WAS one of "them" who did the shooting - just the same as when I feel an unreasonable sense of guilt when some stupid skinhead does something awful in the name of the "white race". They are also probably feeling uneasy and a little scared because people are often not rational and inevitably someone, somewhere will decide some other Muslim needs to pay for this act. I hope no one decides to actually go for the "eye for an eye" approach, but many people will try to exact revenge in a thousand small ways. The checker at the grocery store who says something rude, the guy in the car who shoots the finger, the doctor who makes his Muslim patient wait just a little longer than everyone else - all of those things are stupid ways that "normal" people seem to use to exact some sort of "revenge" on another group.
One of my friend/coworkers is Muslim. He is in no way a terrorist (though he does claim he was a bit of a thug as a teenager in New York). Every time something like this happens he spends the day just a little more tense. Today was worse though... his name is Akbar.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't see why you're saying it's a lax threshold.
Ok, I think I should maybe elaborate a bit. My main point is that I don't think that the attack quite reaches the threshold for terrorism. However, this does not necessarily mean that I was advocating that it was a military attack or the act of a lunatic. (Terrorist, lunatic, militant ... calling CS Lewis )
Basically, I like a definition for terrorism that makes for a relatively good division between legitimate military action, guerrilla warfare, and terrorism.
However, if you allow a motive like "killing people before they kill my people" rather than a more traditional motive like "instill terror in the enemy civilian population" then it becomes difficult to separate terrorism from a sneak attack in a time of war or a raid behind enemy lines.
I think thats why Godric added the "endorsement by a foreign nation" clause, for example, to clear up this difficulty. (However, I agree with you that this kind of condition is flawed)
I appreciate your thoughts on whether endorsement of a foreign nation are required today and whether the missile attacks are terrorism though, thus I can start to see how your definition works for you and is consistent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I was talking specifically about the question of whether or not he had political motivations. In my mind, he certainly did - 'killing them before they're killing us' being a political decision when it's 'proactive' like this.
Killing the guy charging at you with an axe is a matter of survival. Deciding to kill the guy before he picks up his axe or starts running, though, that's political. In some cases it may be the right decision, if there is sufficient probability involved (by that I mean effectively certain), but preemptive attacks like these - assuming there's more to it than the guy just went nuts - are always political decisions, at least in my mind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, it's certainly shaping up that this is a religiously motivated attack. *sigh* Damnit.
Why "damnit"? Honest to God, I don't understand you people. Atrocity after atrocity gets committed by people who "just happen" to have Arabic names and "just happen" to be Muslims and "just happen" to be Palestinian, but it's "racial profiling" to say that there's a cultural illness among these people that needs to be dealt with.
Instead of "*sigh* Damnit", maybe we should be saying, "How long until people get it?"
..........
This is so weird. I was reading some guy from Stormfront who was just like a month ago using eerily the same argument against blacks in our country. Even the concept of 'cultural illnesses' was applied.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i mean that's an incendiary comparison (though obviously that is something you are inclined unapologetically towards anyway, so w/e) but honestly it's just straight up bizarre to me
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... terrorist attacks, this time on US soil?
Technically, the word terrorist doesn't seem to really apply. He's attacking a specific military target (as opposed to non-combatants) and there does not appear to be a political motive (let alone an intention to cause terror), rather a simple intention to kill American soldiers before they go overseas.
Fair enough. An Islamicist attack.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And Israel is just a realm of saints.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: And Israel is just a realm of saints.
Seriously, seriously, do NOT compare them. Seriously.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
But agree with me that it is incredibly hypocritical to act as though Islam is the only religion that has committed atrocities when the entire First Testament talks about slaughtering pagans. I am not comparing the two, I am only showing how dumb it is to act as if your hands are entirely clean here. Hate only spawns more hate and ignorance only spawns more ignorance, and I hate to break it to you, but Lisa definitely takes the cake for the most ethnocentric person I have met online in quite sometime (granted I don't spend a whole lot of time online).
Those Muslims in the video are just a radical element who want attention. Everyday at my college there are radical Christians preaching that 'homosexuality will lead you to hell' and that 'kissing before marriage is a mortal sin'. You can take two paths here; you can walk away and accept the fact that those people represent a small minority of a large population and there are equivalents of those people across the religious spectrum, or you can videotape them and send it in to CNN.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
In other words, Muslim extremists are like cancer. If you ignore them they'll go away.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Why don't you confine Lisa's error to Lisa? If you disagree with her, go and demonstrate her logical error.
No need to insult Israelis and to compare them to terrorists.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
And while we're at it - it's incredibly dishonest to pretend like Jews or Christians have the same PR problem that Muslims do.
There's a real reason why Hollywood has replaced Russian Communists with Muslim Terrorists. It's because we fear them now. It's unfortunate that the vast majority of Muslims, are not radical extremist killers - that's why I gave a groan when I found out his nationality, and when I heard more about who he is. However, this is SOMETHING that needs to be talked about. It is not, like someone said above, like the VTech shootings, or some other criminal activity. This seems to be terrorism, perpetrated by a U.S. citizen.
I don't think that it is a "cultural ill" - that's ridiculous to me. But, like cancer (thanks Dobbie)radical Muslim extremists have attached themselves and made themselves indistinguishable from peaceful Muslims. That's a really difficult situation.
You can't IGNORE the tumor and treat it like a disease that is external and isolated (v-tech), but can't kill the person just because he has cancer (Islam). I dunno, this is all just a bunch of rhetoric that is meaningless unless some sort of policy decision needs to be made.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Why don't you confine Lisa's error to Lisa? If you disagree with her, go and demonstrate her logical error.
No need to insult Israelis and to compare them to terrorists.
I didn't.
Terrorism works because it gains attention, its as simple as that.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:And while we're at it - it's incredibly dishonest to pretend like Jews or Christians have the same PR problem that Muslims do.
I understand your point about PR, I think. (In terms of how Muslims have a PR problem in the U.S., at least.)
However, having been attacked by a group of people professing to be "Christians", I don't see this issue from the same perspective you do. Granted, the motive for the attack wasn't religious, in my case, but the effect I perceived from the incident, after 14 years, isn't much different as if it were. Personally, I feel more of a threat from home-grown terrorists, who are overwhelmingly more likely to be Christian, than I do from Muslims.
Not that I'm going to live my life in fear...by any means.
But I'm going to do my darndest to keep perspective about the situation.
Edit: clarification.
[ November 07, 2009, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Tstorm ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ...radical Muslim extremists have attached themselves and made themselves indistinguishable from peaceful Muslims. That's a really difficult situation.
What's hard about it? Muslims know better than to raise their voices, etc. on planes now, particularly planes that have a lot of US citizens. They'd be simultaneously beaten senseless by everybody from 90-year-old grandmothers to nuns. 9-11 was probably the last time Muslims will get away with hijacking a US plane. It's the same with this sort of thing. From now on, anybody who looks even vaguely like one or more of their ancestors comes from the Middle East is going to get reported to 10 different law enforcement agencies and scrutinized heavily, as soon as they buy a gun.
For that matter, God help the Arabic-looking man who looks even vaguely like he's going to pull a gun when I'm around in a public space. He'll need surgery to get my proverbial sandal out of his proverbial rectum, and to be able to walk again after the severe beating I deliver. Me and every other redneck boy I know are all the anti-terrorism effort we need. Maybe.
I mean, really, do you think the next Muslim crazy to pull this is going to get off more than 1 or 2 shots? Maybe if he's really thought it through, and does it in a preschool or something. God help him if he does with healthy adult males around.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't think that it is a "cultural ill" - that's ridiculous to me.
Why exactly? Do you think that cultural ills are ridiculous in general or just in this case? And what would you define as a cultural ill in the first place?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE]An active duty soldier is not allowed to express their opinions (through speech, mind you - what he wound up doing yesterday I absolutely condemn) even, or especially, if they don't fall in line with the establishment?
In all seriousness: no, they aren't allowed to. Really. [/Pretty much, yeah. Not including political views, as long as they aren't directly critical of the CIC or their officers.
You can vote all you want,and compaign all you want, but you relinquish the right to challenge orders or express opinions that would be to teh detriment of the country or the armed forces.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
For that matter, God help the Arabic-looking man who looks even vaguely like he's going to pull a gun when I'm around in a public space. He'll need surgery to get my proverbial sandal out of his proverbial rectum, and to be able to walk again after the severe beating I deliver. Me and every other redneck boy I know are all the anti-terrorism effort we need. Maybe.
I mean, really, do you think the next Muslim crazy to pull this is going to get off more than 1 or 2 shots? Maybe if he's really thought it through, and does it in a preschool or something. God help him if he does with healthy adult males around. [/QB]
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Thank you Kwea
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Does anyone else think as I do that the man is most likely simply insane?
I know it's a stereotype but it holds true for a lot of mental health workers I know that they have mental health problems themselves, and that's what got them interested in the field. There's a thin line, and all that.
It's obviously a stereotype, so it's not true for all of them by a long shot, but it's still something that seems to happen a great deal. The fact that the man is a psychiatrist makes me think there's a good chance he's always been barely sane himself, and so probably he just got worse and nobody noticed until it was too late. That's my stereotypical assumption.
I notice it's often true that different people use the same real-world event to confirm their very different prejudices. I suppose that means that my assumptions are about as valid as Lisa's. Hmmm. Nevermind. =)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I agree, that the man most likely just experienced a psychotic break. Tatiana also said:
quote:"I know it's a stereotype but it holds true for a lot of mental health workers I know that they have mental health problems themselves, and that's what got them interested in the field. There's a thin line, and all that."
I observed the same thing; in fact, when I was in college, some of the psych majors themselves told me they felt they had problems and were pursuing their studies to help figure themselves out.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Clive Candy, in your 6:35 pm post Friday (10/6/09), you implied Lisa is a troll we should not feed. Lisa is strongly opinionated, and I have often disagreed with her. But she is not a troll. Except when she is obviously being sarcastic, she seems to me to mean what she says. Furthermore, she has been an active part of this forum community for a long time, with over 10,000 posts. You barely have a hundred posts. Have some respect for your elders!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't think that it is a "cultural ill" - that's ridiculous to me.
Why exactly? Do you think that cultural ills are ridiculous in general or just in this case? And what would you define as a cultural ill in the first place?
A cultural ill - roughly defined - when a culture promotes a practice that is immoral, and even dangerous to itself, and to society.
I don't think that terrorism is a cultural ill when it comes to Islam. Radical Islam? Sure.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Apparently Officer Kim Munley's partner, Mark Todd, also had a share in bringing down the maniac shooter. Todd was not hit like Munley was. She probably got in the first hits, and he finished him off with his beretta.
A few more notes:
According to Munley's husband Matthew, her nickname is "Mighty Mouse."
One of the people who were killed was a pregnant private. So technically there were 14 human deaths.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
They may already be taking the fetus into consideration. If I'm not mistaken, Texas is one of the states that considers the murder of a pregnant woman to be two murders.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
That is a possibility, PSI, but I think the Texas authorities would have said something to that effect. I guess we'll have to wait and see a list of the dead.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
While it's true that the state of Texas will prosecute the murder of a pregnant woman as two murders, I doubt they had that in the body count.
Besides, since he was active duty military and the murders were done on a military base, I think the crime will be tried in a military court. Thus, the laws of the state of Texas will not necessarily apply.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Report in U.K. Telegraph says Officer Munley has regained consciousness.
quote:Dr Kelly Matlock, who treated Munley in hospital, said: "She opened her eyes and said, 'Did anybody die?' That's what she said." Sgt Munley has now been told that Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 38 but her actions saved the lives of many others.
Hasan still had dozens of bullets left to fire from his two handguns, including a semi-automatic pistol.
Sgt Munley, a mother of two daughters, is just 5ft 3ins tall, but colleagues described her as a "fireball" and a "tough cookie." She is a member of Fort Hood's SWAT team.
When she saw Hasan firing she ran toward him and started shooting.
Witnesses said she fired twice and Hasan then turned and charged. Sgt Munley fired more rounds as she fell back, continuing to fire after being shot.
"Mighty Mouse" Munley is a lady I count as a true hero.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Does anyone else think as I do that the man is most likely simply insane?
I think he had a mental breakdown once he found out he was going to Afghanistan.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
For that matter, God help the Arabic-looking man who looks even vaguely like he's going to pull a gun when I'm around in a public space. He'll need surgery to get my proverbial sandal out of his proverbial rectum, and to be able to walk again after the severe beating I deliver. Me and every other redneck boy I know are all the anti-terrorism effort we need. Maybe.
I mean, really, do you think the next Muslim crazy to pull this is going to get off more than 1 or 2 shots? Maybe if he's really thought it through, and does it in a preschool or something. God help him if he does with healthy adult males around.
[/QB]
I took that as sarcasm.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I say, send Hasan to Gitmo.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No send him to a psychiatric ward.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I say, send Hasan to Gitmo.
Why on earth would we send an America citizen to Gitmo? We have a system of justice for our own citizenry, complete with trial by jury, court appointed attorney if need be, innocent until proven guilty, and an appeals process.
We also have facilities designated for convicted criminals, why would Gitmo be an option in this case?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Does anyone else think as I do that the man is most likely simply insane?
I think he's as crazy as every suicide bomber is. So, yes, but...for mainly religious reasons.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Radical Islam? Sure.
Ok, I think I can agree with your definition for a cultural ill. How are we defining radical Islam though?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Radical Islam? Sure.
Ok, I think I can agree with your definition for a cultural ill. How are we defining radical Islam though?
I feel like that's the crux of the problem. It is really hard to distinguish that culture from the rest of Islam, or from the rest of religious Islam, or whatever...
I mean, I'm an Orthodox Jew. Am I a RADICAL Orthodox Jew? I dunno, maybe. How do you define it? Is religion my highest goal in life? Yes. Do I see the world very differently than most non-Jews? Yes. Do I see the world differently than most Jews? Yes.
Look at me and Lisa. We're both Orthodox Jews. Say you had an interest in distinguishing the two of us. Our beliefs will probably be a lot more similar than most non-Orthodox (and even Orthodox Jews) - but our politics, our perspectives are often entirely different. Anyone who knows the two of us on this forum (I guess I'm saying, anyone who knows me, since she's pretty much a celeb...), knows that we are different. But what sort of category can you place us in to distinguish us?
I can't even begin to know enough about Islam to answer that. All I know is that the dangerous radical Islam is embedded in the peaceful one.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: since she's pretty much a celeb...
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I would define radical Islam as the one that one that decides religion is a good reason to kill people.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade, Dr. Maniac Hasan is not a civilian, he is a major in the military, thus is subject to military tribunal. Not to the federal court system. Since he took up arms in common cause with terrorists and enemies of our country, I think he should be classed as an enemy combatant. He belongs in Gitmo.
C. Edmund Wright penned a delightfully sarcastic skewering of Diane Sawyer of ABC for saying it was dreadfully upsetting "that the mass murderer from Fort Hood was not named Smith. One can only imagine how thrilled she'd have been had he been named something like, oh I don't know, Palin." Link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/memo_to_abc_theres_a_reason_he.html Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, he's not an enemy combatant. He is, quite simply, a traitor. It's actually pretty cut and dried.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
There are reports he yelled "Allah Akbar," or something to that effect, as he opened fire.
Tom, being a traitor is one thing. Murdering 12 American soldiers and a civilian employee of the military for a total of 13 dead (14 counting the unborn human in the pregnant woman), and wounding 38, is more than just treason. If he had hijacked an airliner and flew it into the Pentagon, would he still just be a traitor?
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Didn't you ever read Dante's Inferno? Treason was the 9th circle, right next to Satan himself.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The name Satan means "the enemy." Hasan became the enemy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, he's a traitor. His act of treason was mass murder or, if you like, acting on behalf of our nation's enemies by killing our soldiers in an ambush.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If he had hijacked an airliner and flew it into the Pentagon, would he still just be a traitor?
When you say "just" a traitor, what do you mean? I mean that he's a U.S. soldier clearly guilty of treason, which trumps pretty much anything else from a legal standpoint.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
How so?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I feel like that's the crux of the problem. It is really hard to distinguish that culture from the rest of Islam, or from the rest of religious Islam, or whatever...
Ok, but the original assertion was something like Muslims have a cultural illness (that promotes immoral or dangerous behaviour) and your response was that this is ridiculous.
On the other hand, you seem to have stated that radical Islam does have a cultural illness and that it is really difficult to distinguish that subset from the rest.
If you find it difficult to distinguish radical Islam from the rest of Islam, how do you know that the cultural illness is in fact restricted? How do we know for example that it is not in fact the peaceful variant of Islam that is "radical"?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Since the penalty for treason is death and the penalty for murder is death, what difference does it make which death penalty you give him? For that matter, what difference does it make which prison he's housed in before he's executed?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The name Satan means "the enemy." Hasan became the enemy.
Not to argue your point, but I believe it translates as "adversary." Its an important distinction.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Heh. I foresee a trip to Kansas in this guy's future. Punishment for treason, the ninth circle of hell, Kansas, what's the difference?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There are reports he yelled "Allah Akbar," or something to that effect, as he opened fire.
Tom, being a traitor is one thing. Murdering 12 American soldiers and a civilian employee of the military for a total of 13 dead (14 counting the unborn human in the pregnant woman), and wounding 38, is more than just treason. If he had hijacked an airliner and flew it into the Pentagon, would he still just be a traitor?
DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF TREASON!? Even Canada has the death penalty for treason in time of war it doesn't matter if you murdered 100 people or 5 if its treason its TREASON! Up to and including betraying state secrets and spying.
If hes a traitor then its the death penalty nothing to it, the difference is treason gets him the firing squad while criminal guilty depending on which state is other more grisly means.
Gods! You make it sound like "just treason" isn't significant or important on its own!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The name Satan means "the enemy." Hasan became the enemy.
Not to argue your point, but I believe it translates as "adversary." Its an important distinction.
Actually, the best translation would probably be "misleader". The verb soteh means to deviate, like off a path.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If you find it difficult to distinguish radical Islam from the rest of Islam, how do you know that the cultural illness is in fact restricted? How do we know for example that it is not in fact the peaceful variant of Islam that is "radical"?
I don't. But I draw from the examples I DO know. I know Jews, I know other cultural groups that have had the same "cultural ill" argument leveled against them, and it never really pans out.
I don't have many Muslim friends - I recently became close with one guy who I think in a very liberal Muslim and is probably not representative of many others.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally stated by Lisa: Actually, the best translation [of "Satan"] would probably be "misleader". The verb soteh means to deviate, like off a path.
Then the New Testament Greek equivalent would be "apostate."
Now, I can't pass up a chance here to spar with Lisa. Thayer's Bible Dictionary (what I have bundled with my multi-Bible software) defines Satan as: "adversary, one who withstands." The NASB (which I regard as generally the most scholarly translation) has "adversary" in the margin.
It seems to me that enemy and adversary are pretty close synonyms. Deviate or apostate sounds a little more like traitor. But when speaking of the Devil, who began his career as Lucifer, the highest of the angels, and then fell by conceiving of sin and steadfastly refusing to give it up so he had to be cast out of heaven (see Rev. 12:3, 4, 7-9; Ezek. 28:13-17; Isa. 14:12-20), the most natural definition is enemy. He made himself the enemy of God. The Revelation 12 passages (especially v. 4) does present Satan as a "misleader." ("His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven."--stars is symbolic of angels in Revelation. See v. 9)
As for deviate, that makes it sounds like such a person should be called a deviant. Sorry Lisa, but in our language, deviant usually connotes something else. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
So I know this thread's taken a long, wide turn away from the orginal bent but ... all my friends there are fine, but one of them has several friends that were killed. I think he's doing all right (mentally, he wasn't involved at all in the incident itself) but still pretty depressing.
Hobbes Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sorry to hear that Hobbes. Despite the size of Ft. Hood, it is still in many ways a large family. That is one of the reasons many people seek a career in the military. The massacre was an assault against family, for many people. And that is why Hasan's actions were such a betrayal.
But praise the Lord for "Mighty Mouse" Kim Munley, and her partner, Mark Todd. When Hasan was brought down, he still had "dozens of bullets left in his two handguns."
And Blayne, give it a rest. Sure Hasan was a traitor. But he went even further and became an active enemy combatant. He didn't just leak secrets to the enemy, he became the enemy. Why isn't that clear?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The name Satan means "the enemy." Hasan became the enemy.
Alright Dr. Hassan is a major in the military, he could be incarcerated at Gitmo, but it wouldn't be in the same sections as the Al Qaeda operatives or suspects, it would be where all the other soldiers are held as there is a prison there for that purpose. I just get the vibe from you that Gitmo is "Muslim Prison."
Further Satan does not mean the enemy, when Jesus says that he was going to die, and Peter says in effect, "No master, you don't have to die." and Jesus turns to him and says, "Get thee behind me Satan, for thou art an offense unto me." He was not saying that Peter is the enemy and must be removed, he was saying that Peter was getting in his way and becoming an obstacle because he was trying to persuade him not to do as his father had commanded.
IMO I agree with Tom, he's an American soldier whose sworn duty he has betrayed. He is a murderer, and a traitor. Further investigation will determine whether he had accomplices, his motives, and his fate.
---------
I'm actually very hopeful that Hassan will be able to in some way distance himself emotionally from the event and give us a rationale for why he acted as he did. After a basic think back I can't recall any instance of a shooter committing a mass killing and surviving to talk about it. I hope a solid suicide watch is in effect.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade, you need to go deeper. When Jesus called Peter Satan, he was addressing Satan who was using Peter at that moment to try to turn Jesus aside from His purpose. God does this with Lucifer and the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14, and the Devil and the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28. These are all examples of God addressing Satan through the human instruments he is using.
I just hope that liberals do not succeed in invoking "political correctness" to the extent that Hasan is treated as a victim to be pitied, and the real victims are disregarded, the way liberals are prone to do.
Justice is real, and it does matter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems to me that enemy and adversary are pretty close synonyms.
Yes, but "adversary" isn't the best translation. A better translation is, I am assured by people who actually speak the language, "tempter" or "misleader."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron Lambert: You are right that Jesus addresses Satan, through those who he is possessing, but there is no evidence that Peter was possessed at that time. Peter was doing the natural human thing of essentially saying, "Perish the thought!" When his master whom he loved talked about dying at a young age. Jesus who like anybody else had to come to grips with the mission he was given responded almost violently to Peter's words as to be honest, Jesus certainly had the power to avoid what was coming, but thinking that way is the precursor to doing it and he was smart enough to crush even approaching a place where he could make a mistake like that.
There is nothing wrong with trying to love those who are the enemy, did you not read Ender's Game? What Hassan did was absolutely terrible, but I don't really care much for the whole, "Who is the biggest victim here? Who should we all be paying attention to?!" If I knew a family member or one of the slain I'd spend the crux of my time on this matter doing what I could for them. I am not in that situation and so I spend my time focused on the perpetrator. Love dictates that I judge aright, and right now I am not completely convinced that Hassan is a blood thirsty murderer who served in the armed forces and decided that would be an ideal place to work for years while he brought his shooting plan to fruition.
Justice is real, but vengeance is God's not man's.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
God also holds man responsible if he fails to render justice. That is part of the duty appointed to governments. If a society fails to see that justice is done, then that whole society becomes unjust, and therefore is condemned itself.
Contrary to what you imply, rendering justice is not vengeance. Rendering justice is fulfilling what Justice requires. And God has told us what Justice is. He wrote it down on tables of stone with His own finger.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think a lot of this is misunderstanding.
I don't think anyone is trying to minimize Hasan's crimes. It's just that some of us, when we say 'traitor', that's a large umbrella under which a lot of things can fall.
For example, let's say that Hasan had been actively spying on the United States for some fanatical Islamic terrorist group, and he fled the US with all the secrets he's spied out and returned them to his controllers. After thorough debriefing he took the field against our soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world, killing many of them
He would still be a traitor, in addition to being many other things as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God also holds man responsible if he fails to render justice. That is part of the duty appointed to governments. If a society fails to see that justice is done, then that whole society becomes unjust, and therefore is condemned itself.
Contrary to what you imply, rendering justice is not vengeance. Rendering justice is fulfilling what Justice requires. And God has told us what Justice is. He wrote it down on tables of stone with His own finger.
Sure if men do not concern themselves with justice, then the entire society collapses.
Last I checked the Ten Commandments say what you should and should not do, it does not apportion the appropriate response to breaches of protocol. It was also never designed as a comprehensive outline of all that ought to be done. Where are the bits about taking care of the poor? Or defending the helpless? Where are the rules against prejudice? Its convenient to say the 10 commandments have got it all, but they don't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Treason shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to their enemies". The founders considered this important enough to put it in the actual Constitution; AFAIR it's the only crime so defined. Firing at soldiers in uniform, while wearing the same uniform, in time of war (loosely speaking; Congress has declared no state of war), seems a clear-cut case. Now, what is the purpose of getting indignant about how this is even worse than treason? Treason is the worst crime in the book already. Quisling and Benedict Arnold will still be well-known names when Osama and Saddam are footnotes in histories of the early twenty-first century.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hell, Quisling was so bad he's an actual word now. That's about as bad as it gets.
ETA: And Quisling got a word named after him in only a matter of generations, no less. That's an impressive anti-accomplishment, really.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God also holds man responsible if he fails to render justice. That is part of the duty appointed to governments. If a society fails to see that justice is done, then that whole society becomes unjust, and therefore is condemned itself.
Contrary to what you imply, rendering justice is not vengeance. Rendering justice is fulfilling what Justice requires. And God has told us what Justice is. He wrote it down on tables of stone with His own finger.
Sure if men do not concern themselves with justice, then the entire society collapses.
Last I checked the Ten Commandments say what you should and should not do, it does not apportion the appropriate response to breaches of protocol. It was also never designed as a comprehensive outline of all that ought to be done. Where are the bits about taking care of the poor? Or defending the helpless? Where are the rules against prejudice? Its convenient to say the 10 commandments have got it all, but they don't.
They're not in the 10 commandments, but they are in the rest of the Bible...
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Actually the whole point of that particular section of the Constitution was to limit the definition of treason in order to exclude things that were considered treason according to British law.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Back in the day, Orwell pointed out that "the word 'fascism' has now lost all meaning except to indicate that the speaker opposes whatever is so described". (I paraphrase from memory, and suspect Orwell put it rather more pithily.) Today, I suspect he would say something rather similar about 'terrorism'; terrorism has come to mean "violence of which the speaker disapproves".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hasan is awake and talking.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God also holds man responsible if he fails to render justice. That is part of the duty appointed to governments. If a society fails to see that justice is done, then that whole society becomes unjust, and therefore is condemned itself.
Contrary to what you imply, rendering justice is not vengeance. Rendering justice is fulfilling what Justice requires. And God has told us what Justice is. He wrote it down on tables of stone with His own finger.
Sure if men do not concern themselves with justice, then the entire society collapses.
Last I checked the Ten Commandments say what you should and should not do, it does not apportion the appropriate response to breaches of protocol. It was also never designed as a comprehensive outline of all that ought to be done. Where are the bits about taking care of the poor? Or defending the helpless? Where are the rules against prejudice? Its convenient to say the 10 commandments have got it all, but they don't.
They're not in the 10 commandments, but they are in the rest of the Bible...
Right but remember Ron made the statement that God "...wrote it down on tables of stone with His own finger." Clearly a 10 commandments reference.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The point is that there is an objective standard by which all other laws and systems of morality are to be measured. It is not dependent on human notions of righteousness. By this ultimate standard, all humans and human cultures will be judged by God.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So are we judged poorly by God if we don't send Hasan to gitmo?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I feel like we could learn a lot more valuable information about the mindset of homegrown terrorists in general if we try and study him. I'm not sure if any of that will be done in gitmo.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The point is that there is an objective standard by which all other laws and systems of morality are to be measured. It is not dependent on human notions of righteousness.
It may be worth pointing out - taking your premises as true for the sake of argument - that you are not the one who does this measuring.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I know other cultural groups that have had the same "cultural ill" argument leveled against them, and it never really pans out.
Really? Why not? Would it not be reasonable say that many cultures at one point or another had a cultural ill in the form of their promotion of slavery? Or how about the mistreatment of women?
To be even-handed, here's an example about Chinese culture written by a Chinese author.
quote:Lu Xun, China’s most revered modern writer, was a student of medicine in 1906 when he saw a lantern slide of Japanese soldiers decapitating a Chinese prisoner. It was a particularly low moment in China’s national self-esteem, and what appalled Lu Xun most was the passivity of the Chinese spectators. ... His later work abounded in such pitiless depictions, inaugurating a modern Chinese literature marked by what the critic C.T. Hsia called “an obsessive concern with China as a nation afflicted with a spiritual disease and therefore unable to strengthen itself or change its set ways of inhumanity.”
Your definition of a cultural ill seems to be reasonably similar to a 'spiritual disease.'
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, boy. Well, that'll certainly shut up your critics. A devastating counter! I'm mortified; I admit my error; your arguments are correct in every particular. Also, deleting posts and then reposting them to make replies go out-of-context is a nitwit idea.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Has anyone else noticed that Hasan looks a little like Arnold Vosloo, the actor who played Imhotep in the 1999 movie, The Mummy?
Just so everyone knows (since Ron has selectively deleted and reposted himself at least twice now)
here is the original progression of the two last posts.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Has anyone else noticed that Hasan looks a little like Arnold Vosloo, the actor who played Imhotep in the 1999 movie, The Mummy?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh, boy. Well, that'll certainly shut up your critics. A devastating counter! I'm mortified; I admit my error; your arguments are correct in every particular.
Then after the first incident, KoM amended:
quote:Also, deleting posts and then reposting them to make replies go out-of-context is a nitwit idea.
Ron keeps abusing the post deletion mechanism to pull his post below KoM's.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
By the way, Ron, don't do that again. It's supremely toolish.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
stay classy limbaugh
quote:On his radio show today Rush Limbaugh blamed the Ft. Hood shooting where 13 soldiers were killed on President Obama. Limbaugh said, "We could almost say this is Obama's fault, because this guy said that he believed Obama was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan."
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I'm glad to hear all your friends are ok Hobbes. I worried when I heard that one of the soldiers killed had chosen to join the army instead of going on a mission. It's been a rough time for everyone on the base!
And, in somewhat black humor, I did notice the same resemblance that Rob pointed out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, that is positively Orwellian of him (Limbaugh). I don't listen to his show, but knowing his politics I'd be surprised if he hadn't been against getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan-now when someone is mad Obama doesn't, their response is his fault.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
More reasons why Rush is an idiot, any bets on how long before Ron mimics this and puts the blame on our alledgedly illigitimate president?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
... your allegedly illegitimate president anyways ...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, I honestly thought you were replying to the post before mine. I could see no logical connection between your post and mine.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, I honestly thought you were replying to the post before mine. I could see no logical connection between your post and mine.
Here's the connection:
You delete your posts and repost them to mix up the order of posting and replies when you get salty about someone's reply to you.
Don't do it.
You're being a massive tool.
In the meantime, guys, be sure to quote Ron in your replies to him so he can't pull this weasel B.S.!
thanks for your time!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, I did not delete and repost my post for any reason other than the one I gave. I saw no logical connection between my post and yours. I was introducing an entirely new subject. Is your brain always this messed up?
I do not consider anything you say to be of any particular importance, since the quality of your reasoning is so poor. Frequently I just choose to ignore you. That was the case here. I introduced a new subject. I was not participating in any imagined dialog with you at all.
Next time you want to address some snarky comment of yours to me, it would help if you used my name.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sam, I did not delete and repost my post for any reason other than the one I gave.
Your given 'reason' makes no sense because it wasn't my post you threw out of order, it was King of Men's. And you did it twice, even after he reposted his again to make it adamantly clear that it was you he was replying to.
Don't try to BS your way out of this. Just don't delete and repost to throw post order out of whack.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, if it was King of Men who was making the non-sequitor comment, how do you know it was addressed to me? And why do YOU care, and make so much noise about it? Let KOM explain how his post was related to mine. You ought to mind your own business.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, it doesn't look to me as though you need any particular help in making yourself look like an idiot, but since you ask so nicely, sure. Why did you delete and re-post your comment, twice, so as to place it after mine? Especially when I edited my response to make it clear it was a reply to you? And why did you, when called on it, begin talking about Samprimary, whose post your mad d1337ing skillz did nothing to move around?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Does it really matter? Hatrack's a great place and all, but how much does it really matter if someone is messing with their posts? For that matter, why bother to do it?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
KOM, since I was introducing an entirely new subject with no relation to anything that had been discussed previously, I saw no way your post could possibly have anything to do with my post. I assumed you were reacting to something someone else, maybe Mucus, said earlier. I was merely trying to get out of the way to avoid confusion, because you had not made it clear whom you were addressing. Pardon me for being considerate.
You would look a lot less like a fool if you would mention the name of the person you are addressing, like I always do.
Oh, as for why the second delete and repost--the board was really slow. I had to wait for ten minutes, and never did get returned to the board. When I came out and back in, I saw my post was still there, between Mucus' post and yours, KOM, so I assumed my delete had not gone through. So I tried again.
You guys (speaking of Sam and KOM and a few others) and your silly debate tantrums really do not impress me, and I usually just ignore your silliness. If you think what you say is so important that anything anyone else says just has to be related to it, then you are entirely too ego-centric for your own good.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Here's an idea.....don't assume anything is or is not related, and don't worry about what order OTHER people's post show up in.
Just post. Or not. It's really not that hard.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I saw no way your post could possibly have anything to do with my post.
The KoM comment made perfect sense in the context of your own. If you couldn't figure that out, it's yet another argument about why you shouldn't try to be 'considerate' by deleting and reposting, because you can't be reliably assumed to be able to make those distinctions. Especially when you can't get who was involved straight immediately after the fact.
Simple.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
All presidents get blame and/or credit for what happens under their watch. Bush is still getting blame from this president.
We forgot the lessons learned from 911...we were wrong to view Islamist Jihad as an individual criminal situation. Under the current administration, we've returned to that mentality. The "Global War on Terror" is now an "Overseas Contingency Operation"..."Acts of Terror" are now "Man Made Disasters". GITMO detainees are no longer enemy combatants, they have civil rights. I'm glad to see you are calling the fort hood massacre a "home grown" problem...perhaps soon Americans will realize we have Jihadist's living within our borders, some American citizens. They don't need to be imported, they are fashioned in mosques within our borders. Stop the denial. How many synagogues, recruiting stations and military bases have to be attacked in the US in one year for us to accept the fact that they are among us? They are acting as individuals in a common movement. Islamic terror is real and within our borders. If he had wounded 40 and killed 14 (counting the unborn baby) at a mall instead of a military base, it would unquestionably be considered terrorism. Instead, like the DC sniper, just another follower of Islam who happens to be crazy, acting on his own.
What do they need, an Al Quaida membership card? It's a system of belief, not an organization. There are no generals or countries, only Allah. It will come to a head and our nation will have to weigh religious freedom against national defense. Still waiting for the "mainstream" practitioners of this "religion of peace" to speak out. The longer I wait, the more my objectivity of this religion erodes. Have we ever had a Hindu cell, a Budhist shooter or a Mormon bomber? Political correctness is costing American lives.
[ November 12, 2009, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The longer I wait, the more my objectivity of this religion erodes.
you don't say
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Burke
[ November 12, 2009, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
the term "Man Made Disaster" is the white house washing machine (read: department of misinformation and propaganda) on full spin cycle. i wonder if they will rewrite the history books to say timothy mcveigh wasnt a terrorist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If he had wounded 40 and killed 14 (counting the unborn baby) at a mall instead of a military base, it would unquestionably be considered terrorism.
Well, yes. And if the people we were fighting had worn uniforms, we wouldn't be able to call them "enemy combatants." That's sort of how it works.
quote:It will come to a head and our nation will have to weigh religious freedom against national defense.
Let me go on the record as saying that if religious freedom does not win, the terrorists did.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If we surrender our principles in exchange for safety I don't see what is left in this country that's worth fighting for.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We forgot the lessons learned from 911...we were wrong to view Islamist Jihad as an individual criminal situation. Under the current administration, we've returned to that mentality. The "Global War on Terror" is now an "Overseas Contingency Operation"..."Acts of Terror" are now "Man Made Disasters". GITMO detainees are no longer enemy combatants, they have civil rights. I'm glad to see you are calling the fort hood massacre a "home grown" problem...perhaps soon Americans will realize we have Jihadist's living within our borders, some American citizens. They don't need to be imported, they are fashioned in mosques within our borders. Stop the denial. How many synagogues, recruiting stations and military bases have to be attacked in the US in one year for us to accept the fact that they are among us? They are acting as individuals in a common movement. Islamic terror is real and within our borders. If he had wounded 40 and killed 14 (counting the unborn baby) at a mall instead of a military base, it would unquestionably be considered terrorism. Instead, like the DC sniper, just another follower of Islam who happens to be crazy, acting on his own.
Ah, the delicious unintentional irony.
"You people are forgetting the lessons of 9/11. Instead, you should emulating the last administration, whose response was in no way counter productive and sure didn't do far more damage to the nation or cost more American lives than 9/11 did."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Let me go on the record as saying that if religious freedom does not win, the terrorists did.
QFT.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
This conversation is a bit silly without a real policy manifestation that should come out of it. What are we really arguing, that Muslims are terrorists? Some of them are, yes. Are all Muslim terrorists? Well, if you think so, are you suggesting we expel them, put them in internment camps? Deprive them of citizenship, or the rights afforded American citizens? If you are, do so, and then we can begin productive discussion.
If you aren't, and you have no policy measures to suggest, then it sounds like you're either okay with letting a terrorist nation live among you, or you don't really believe they're all terrorists or support terror - you're just fearful and angry - responses I wouldn't say are inappropriate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Not really, it is entirely possible that Islam, like many other religions or institutions, *is* a cultural ill that leads its adherents to greater levels of violence or blind submission to orders.
This is not necessarily contradictory to the possibility that a system of religious freedom and free religious debate is still the best way of dealing with the problem.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I heard on NPR this morning that the guy was quite likely psychotic, as I suspected. I think the whole Islam thing is a red-herring.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
On a completely separate note, does anyone else see Ford Hood Shooting on the thread title and think of some guy with his rifle propped up on the bonnet of his Taurus having a snipefest?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I heard on NPR this morning that the guy was quite likely psychotic, as I suspected. I think the whole Islam thing is a red-herring.
I wouldn't say it's a red herring. My brother is a schizophrenic and has gone through a couple psychotic breaks in his life; each of them has been associated with some form of delusional religious conversion. I think psychosis makes you very vulnerable to certain forms of religious passion, and vice versa.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yeah, I just noticed the Ford thing, too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Burke
This is actually erroneous, Burke never actually said this.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
From all I can find, he did. Even if he didn't, the words stand by themselves.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: This conversation is a bit silly without a real policy manifestation that should come out of it. What are we really arguing, that Muslims are terrorists? Some of them are, yes. Are all Muslim terrorists? Well, if you think so, are you suggesting we expel them, put them in internment camps? Deprive them of citizenship, or the rights afforded American citizens? If you are, do so, and then we can begin productive discussion.
If you aren't, and you have no policy measures to suggest, then it sounds like you're either okay with letting a terrorist nation live among you, or you don't really believe they're all terrorists or support terror - you're just fearful and angry - responses I wouldn't say are inappropriate.
Most are not terrorists but few speak against it. One thing is certain, with them comes violence and a desire to impose Sharia. Will there be a breaking point? 1% of millions is a formidable force. In the future if 5% are hostile, should we expell them all. 10%? 20%? What happened to Lebanon, will happen to Germany and eventually America and the rest of the world. Lebanon was the shining example of peaceful coexistence of religions and quickly becoming the banking center of the middle east. Until of course, Islam became the majority. They live in peace until their numbers are significant.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Burke
This is actually erroneous, Burke never actually said this.
Just reference Boondock Saints. That's the first place I remember hearing it. Burke has plenty of good lines.
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Let me go on the record as saying that if religious freedom does not win, the terrorists did.
QFT.
Those who sacrifice liberty in order to acquire a little temporary safety...
QFT indeed.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: stay classy limbaugh
quote:On his radio show today Rush Limbaugh blamed the Ft. Hood shooting where 13 soldiers were killed on President Obama. Limbaugh said, "We could almost say this is Obama's fault, because this guy said that he believed Obama was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan."
If anyone thought Obama was going to get us out of Afghanistan, they weren't paying any attention at all. Not only did he never pledge to do so, he pledged to get us MORE involved in Afghanistan.
No president is responsible for someone totally disregarding what they're saying and then acting on their own misunderstood logic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sharia will eventually be imposed via the ballot box
As if you hadn't already gone well off the reservation. By the ballot box? Muslims comprise roughly three percent of British population. 3% Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Assuming that is accurate, combining the article would give even less, roughly 0.03*0.4*100 => 1.2% of the population.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Most are not terrorists but few speak against it.
Once again, malanthrop, you are not dealing with reality.
"MPAC and the Muslim American community unequivocally condemn this heinous incident. We share the sentiment of our President, who called the Fort Hood attack "a horrific outburst of violence." We are in contact with law enforcement and US federal government officials to gain more facts from this tragic incident and work together in dealing its aftermath.
"Our entire organization extends its heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed as well as to those wounded and their loved ones," said Salam Al-Marayati, Executive Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. We stand in solidarity with law enforcement and the US military to maintain the safety and security of all Americans.
MPAC reaffirms its call to all members of American Muslim communities to be in contact with local law enforcement for the safety and security of their communities and their institutions."
"(Washington, DC, Nov. 5, 2009) The Islamic Society of North America condemns in the strongest terms the attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, resulting in the murder of at least a dozen soldiers and the wounding of many others. We express our deepest condolences to the victims and their families.
Although many details of the shooting are unknown at this time, it appears that the attack was led by a career soldier, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The soldier who led this attack was either mentally unstable, or was motivated by a perverted ideology for which there can be no justification.
ISNA is proud of the many Muslim men and women who serve loyally in the United States military. We are grateful for the sacrifices made by all US soldiers, who represent the religious, racial and ethnic diversity of America, to defend the Constitution and our national security. ISNA, a faith endorser of US Muslim military chaplains, is proud of the service they provide, offering comfort and support to people of all faiths and beliefs. Just today, ISNA's chaplain endorser, Dr. Louay Safi, conducted a workshop at the US army base in Fort Bliss, Texas."
"In a statement, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:
“We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”
Along with innumerable condemnations of terror, CAIR has in the past launched an online anti-terror petition drive called “Not in the Name of Islam,” initiated a television public service announcement (PSA) campaign against religious extremism and coordinated a “fatwa,” or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism. "
"The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) announced Monday, November 9, the launching of a special fund, The Ft Hood Family Fund, for the benefit of the families of the Ft Hood victims in collaboration with various national Muslim and interfaith organizations. "
kmbboots, I applaud your efforts but I did the exact same thing for malanthrop a few months ago, for a statement of his that was very similar. It clearly did not sink in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. I have little hope of getting through to malanthrop, but at least that lie won't go unchallenged.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I actually might feel bad for all the peaceful Muslims in the US, if a few more of these incidents happen. It could get really ugly for them. If non-Muslims in the US start really fearing for their safety every time they see a Middle-Eastern looking man (who isn't clearly in the process of gas station clerking, etc.) out in public...that's not going to go well for Muslims in the US. If someone fears for their own safety, acceptance and tolerance can end up taking a temporary back seat to more base impulses. That's just human nature. Hopefully that's not how it's going to happen. It would be nice if someone could figure out how to reach out to American Muslims to make them feel valued. I have to admit, I don't know enough about the various Middle Eastern cultures to even know if they are worth the energy to learn/know about. Clearly Islam has turned into something that only deserves to be a minor historical footnote (versus a living religion), but non-Islamic aspects of those cultures might be interesting or worth studying. I don't know.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Clearly Islam has turned into something that only deserves to be a minor historical footnote (versus a living religion), but non-Islamic aspects of those cultures might be interesting or worth studying. I don't know.
What in the world are you talking about?
Worldwide (source Wikipedia, World Religions):
Number of followers:
Christianity: 2.2 billion Islam: 1.6 billion Hinduism: 1.5 billion Buddhism: 500 million Sikhism: 30 million Judaism: 18 million
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: From all I can find, he did. Even if he didn't, the words stand by themselves.
And yet the false appeal to authority that you perpetuated remained important enough for you to attribute the line that is in itself a common aphorism. I've seen words to that effect attributed to Lincoln, FDR, and Winston Churchill. Probably, as per usual, it was coined by some nearly anonymous journalist.
Edit: Also, the words don't stand for themselves because they comprise a pithy and meaningless tautology. In the sense that "doing nothing" is an act of failure in itself committed by the good people of the world, and that such a failure is in itself contrary to the nature of a good person, the saying indicates that the only thing that will let evil succeed is people not being good. Well, I'm sorry, but that's neither powerful nor useful to me.
[ November 13, 2009, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Islam is and has been, a religion with a political agenda. It is not the kind of religion that can live in peace for long with other religions. No where Islam is prevalent is there a separation of church and state. Leftists fear christian intervention in politics, proclaiming the separation of church and state - this focus needs to be placed on Islam. Their religion's express purpose is to take over the state. The entire basis of Islam is the aqusition, return and retention of land and the conversion or persecution of the non-believer. Russia: Ave Muslim Woman has 10 Children http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/20/20061120-115904-9135r/?page=2
"Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent" http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/03middleeast_taspinar.aspx
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has stated, “Multiculturalism has failed.” She elaborated and said that the time has come to stop the encroaching insidious nature of Islam, and to re-establish German culture and German values within the German nation. “We cannot allow Muslim foreigners to de-establish thousands of years of the German way of life.”
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The White Whale: Depends on the definition of "deserves." But it is fairly easy to postulate a number of definitions that would reject any number of those religions regardless of number of followers.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Sure, but I would have trouble accepting a definition that hand-waves away the religious histories of 1.6 billion people.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* I accept the 1.6 billion and raise you 2.2 billion Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I am all in. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The entire basis of Islam is the aqusition, return and retention of land and the conversion or persecution of the non-believer.
This is the entire basis of Christianity- it is what the entirety of Christendom was built upon. Constantine even used Christianity for this specific purpose- regardless of what the Christian faith actually espouses, it was spread and empowered through blood and persecution. It was and remains a tool.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Sure, but I would have trouble accepting a definition that hand-waves away the religious histories of 1.6 billion people.
My definition of "deserves" would include, at the very least, "peacefully coexisting with other faiths and cultures in a highly technological world."
Flying planes into buildings does not really strike me as "coexisting in a highly technological world." For that matter, shooting at unarmed soldiers kind of cramps my style too. I'm already pretty tired, along with many, many other people, of not even being able to get through airport security without wanting to void my bodily fluids on some security screener's head. What next? I'm getting fed up. Islam has lost all it credibility. It's sad but true.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'm getting fed up. Islam has lost all it credibility. It's sad but true.
Again and again and again. Extremist Islam has lost all of it's credibility. Indeed, it never had any to begin with. Same for extremist Christianity or extremist *fill in religion here.*
Again and again and again. Not every Muslim is an extremist. As has been shown, nearly all of them are not extremist and oppose the actions of the extremists and most are very nice people.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I wont argue that hundreds of years ago Christianity had a political agenda. The fact that the Christians had a crusade does not erase the CURRENT Islam political agenda. Christianity is now centered on a relationship between the individual and God, like most religions that are capable of peacefully coexisting with others.
If Muslims were told they couldn't gather at their home, even if they were espousing Jihad, there would be an outcry from the left.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Here's an interesting quote from the actual Edmund Burke:
quote: It is an advantage to all narrow wisdom and narrow morals that their maxims have a plausible air; and, on a cursory view, appear equal to first principles. They are light and portable. They are as current as copper coin; and about as valuable. They serve equally the first capacities and the lowest; and they are, at least, as useful to the worst men as to the best. Of this stamp is the cant of not man, but measures; a sort of charm by which many people get loose from every honourable engagement. Edmund Burke
Kind of makes you wonder...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I didn't say Christianity gets a free pass. One thing at a time, though. I can't say that I fear that the average Christian is going to pull out a gun and try to ventilate my spleen. Yes, there are a few Eric Robert Rudolphs out there, but their behavior generally is condemned by other Christians. Generally. I'm not so sure that the majority of Muslims even condemn suicide bombers. Maybe publicly, sure. Privately? I'm going to need proof. Big proof.
A good example (of why I need BIG proof) is that I heard an interview with a Muslim college student on NPR about posted notices by Muslim students about Muslim student gatherings on the bulletin board at his college's student union (I think it was U of Chicago, but I could be wrong). He said that the English statements on the notices were all about peace, brotherhood, etc. The Arabic translation on the same notice was all about "kill the infidel", etc. No joke, these people are crazy.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Some of these people are crazy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I wont argue that hundreds of years ago Christianity had a political agenda. The fact that the Christians had a crusade does not erase the CURRENT Islam political agenda.
Nor is the current Islamic agenda represented wholly or even in larger part by extremist Muslims. This is true in the same way that Mormonism doesn't represent all of Christianity in its very overt political agenda against gay rights. Nor is Christianity wholly represented by the Catholic church's also overt political agenda on reproductive rights and birth control. These churches are heavily involved in politics. Maybe not in a way that bothers you, but they are nevertheless involved. You constantly harp on "Black Liberation Theology" as if it doesn't comprise a part of the religion you are claiming has no political agenda. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Some more good Burke:
"Applause is the spur of noble minds, the end and aim of weak ones."
"By gnawing through a dike, even a rat may drown a nation."
"Education is the cheap defense of nations."
"Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing."
"In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority."
My favorint Rand quote follows the above one well: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Read that last paragraph again.
"A good example (of why I need BIG proof) is that I heard an interview with a Muslim college student on NPR about posted notices by Muslim students about Muslim student gatherings on the bulletin board at his college's student union (I think it was U of Chicago, but I could be wrong). He said that the English statements on the notices were all about peace, brotherhood, etc. The Arabic translation on the same notice was all about "kill the infidel", etc. No joke, these people are crazy."
I don't trust them. Not at all.
I will say that, quite often, the craziness is readily apparent years and years before they actually take action. Plenty of people knew that Hasan was crazy as all get out. It wasn't exactly a state secret. However, I somewhat doubt the ability/willingness of normal Muslims to accurately monitor and report the craziness of the crazier ones. Hence, I don't trust them. Plus, read my paragraph above, again.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Read this sentence carefully. I meant it.
"I somewhat doubt the ability/willingness of normal Muslims to accurately monitor and report the craziness of the crazier ones."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If Muslims were told they couldn't gather at their home, even if they were espousing Jihad, there would be an outcry from the left.
Yes, because prior restraint of 1st amendment rights is, *gasp* a violation of the first amendment.
Please keep in mind that the bill of rights only works one way. It guarantees rights- it does not in any way prohibit any form of speech, nor does it provide recourse for the government to ensure that illegal forms of speech, such as conspiracy, have no chance of happening. In our system, we punish people for breaking the law. We cannot prevent them the opportunity to break laws, above and beyond what action prudence demands (ie: we set up police check points, but we don't stop people from drinking if they have the opportunity to drive). The bill of rights is there to show us in clear terms that our acts of prudence are not to approach a certain limit- preventing peaceable assembly would be a breach of that limit.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Black Liberation Theology uses christianity. It's primary focus is not the individual and God, it is the group and state...us vs them. Black Liberation theologists aren't typically terrorist...disgruntled American blacks take that step when they convert to Islam.
Mormon's aren't shooting homosexuals. You can always find minority fringe of extremists in any group. Your attacks on other religions is no defense of Islam.
To see the truth, ask yourself these questions....What religion in the world today is the most violent? In the name of what religion are the most people killed? Which nations have the least freedom and what religion is at the helm? Political correctness blinds you from the facts and endangers any nation that allows Islam to gain a strong foothold.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
Christianity is and has been, a religion with a political agenda. It is not the kind of religion that can live in peace for long with other religions.
Fixed it for you.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"....disgruntled American blacks take that step when they convert to Islam."
Surely you jest. Did you notice that Hasan wasn't black? He's not some brother from the 'hood that converted in prison.
If I'm walking down the street, the black man that might worry me would be one that dresses like a gang member, not one in the traditional Muslim garb. If you feel differently, you are on some serious drugs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
Christianity is and has been, a religion with a political agenda. It is not the kind of religion that can live in peace for long with other religions.
Fixed it for you.
Not really.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Blackblade, I seem to recall that the LDS church was pretty politically active in getting gay marriage banned in California.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You can always find minority fringe of extremists in any group. Your attacks on other religions is no defense of Islam.
I'm not defending Islam. Islam is a travesty in the same way that Christianity is a travesty. Both religions have been used as a political tool by people and groups on every single point on the political spectrum. Of course you recognize this and hand-wave it in the case of Christianity because you are a Christian. It doesn't matter to you that on top of your religion, you happen to be a hypocrite, not to mention a racist.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I didn't suggest that Hasan was black. I was discussing the overall danger of Islam. But for your edification, here's some American Black converts that engaged in Jihad....but again you would say it has nothing to do with their religion...like Hasan, just a crazy individual.....right?
quote:Originally posted by steven: If I'm walking down the street, the black man that might worry me would be one that dresses like a gang member, not one in the traditional Muslim garb. If you feel differently, you are on some serious drugs.
I don't know if I've met more Muslims than most people here, or than you, but I wholeheartedly agree. Every Muslim I've ever met (granted I've never been in a Muslim country, so we're talking California and Europe) has been politically moderate and open minded. Any place I've ever lived, therefore, I have had no fear of Muslims. And this is coming from someone who was living in London during the 2005 bombings, and could easily have died himself had he not on that particular day left the city to go to Stratford. The bombing was even on the line that I used every day (as many do). But they were murderers. They were terrorists. Their crime was wholly political, and whether they believed they were committing an act in support of their religion is meaningless to me. They were being used, and they were being used to the benefit of someone else. We can easily fight evil- but no religion is inherently evil. They are all no different from any other institution of people, which means they all carry the same flaws, and those flaws find expression according to what the adherents of the religion need, politically.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
You remember how I posted this sentence above?
"If I'm walking down the street, the black man that might worry me would be one that dresses like a gang member, not one in the traditional Muslim garb. If you feel differently, you are on some serious drugs."
I meant it.
I will grant you, there are a few crazies among the Black Muslims. However, they are few and far between. Besides, American black culture is mostly Christian. It's a whoooole lot easier to identify the crazy black Muslims among the black Christians.
I feel like I can understand and deal with a black Muslim more easily. At least he's an American. We can bond over Dave Chapelle, or some other aspect of pop culture we both like. I can read his body language and facial expressions more easily, whereas I can't say the same for Osama bin Crazy.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Your hypocrasy is glaring. A Mormon votes against gay marriage and you consider it an inapropriate intervention of religion in politics. A follower of Islam shoots and bombs government employees and you consider it the acts of a crazy individual. The peaceful expression of one's moral code via voting rights is what makes America great. You cannot equate Muslim violence with the voting patterns of other religions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: But again you would say it has nothing to do with their religion...like Hasan, just a crazy individual.....right?
I'm sorry, where is your disconnect here? A crazy and or self destructive and angry individual joins a religion because there are elements of that religion that cater to his violent, self destructive tendencies. That is not a surprise. That is not a revelation. And it also says little about the religion. It says a lot about politics. For instance, you are self-conscious, jealous, envious of others, and have a massive inferiority complex- therefore you gravitate to the sector of right wing politics that tells you that you are, in fact, superior in your very nature to most of the people in the world. This feeling comforts you. Not surprising.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Your hypocrasy is glaring. A Mormon votes against gay marriage and you consider it an inapropriate intervention of religion in politics. A follower of Islam shoots and bombs government employees and you consider it the acts of a crazy individual. The peaceful expression of one's moral code via voting rights is what makes America great. You cannot equate Muslim violence with the voting patterns of other religions.
No, I don't consider the former to be an inappropriate intervention of religion in politics. I consider it to be an inevitable one. You've slanted my words to argue against the idea that religious involvement in politics is wrong. I don't care if its right or wrong. I was pointing out that it exists- a fact which you several posts ago denied flatly in the case of Christianity. You now cite an example of why you were then wrong. You lose sir. Good day.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I agree that the vast majority of Islam in America are peaceful. I'll pose the question again, what percentage is a problem? 1% of millions makes a very dangerous force in every American city. The peaceful ones need to speak out and report the non-peaceful ones. The only choice is the inevitable cycle of violence and persecution of the entire religion. American's will not always feel comfortable with Islam when the attacks become prevalent. .01% of them could kill millions. I'm not worried about .01% of the Christians, Jews, Hindu's, Budhists, Athiests, Greenies, Wiccans, etc. Continue to deny the threat and it only grows.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm quite sure many athiests voted against gay marriage. You are not offended by their action, rather their motivation. The Mormons you brought up were a small percentage of the vote. The ballot wouldn't have passed but for the blacks that came out to vote for Obama and overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. Why aren't you attacking American blacks for being intolerant, instead of the tiny fraction of Mormom votes that were ultimately inconsequential.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure many athiests voted against gay marriage.
Really?
From where have you gained this certainty? What would you call 'many'?
Although my personal experience doesn't mean much, I don't know a single atheist that is against gay marriage. I'm imagine a few might exist out there. But I highly doubt it's many.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yes really, BlackBlade. Islam has just hit its violent stage at a different time than Christianity and in a different way. Personally I find its violent stage to be doing far less harm than Christianities.
Do I really need to remind you of the attrocities committed in the past in the name of Christianity? Often sanctioned or encouraged by its churches? And we're not talking a few crazy priests, we're talking the heads of the churches. Vatican scale.
So don't tell me that Christianity isn't a political religion and don't tell me it hadn't done great damage.
We just need to remember that, just as the vast majority of Christians today regret much the damage done in the name of their religion, the vast majority of Muslims also regret the damage being done in the name of theirs. They do not support it. The actions of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other like minded extremists do not even remotely represent them.
Remember that, when Christianity was busy launching crusades against it and killing witches for fear they were causing the black plague, an Islamic caliphate was the height of science and culture:
quote:During the Muslim conquests of the 7th and early 8th centuries, Rashidun armies established the Caliphate, or Islamic Empire, one of the largest empires in history. The Islamic Golden Age was soon inaugurated by the middle of the 8th century by the ascension of the Abbasid Caliphate and the transfer of the capital from Damascus to the newly founded city Baghdad. The Abbassids were influenced by the Qur'anic injunctions and hadith such as "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs" stressing the value of knowledge. During this period the Muslim world became the unrivaled intellectual centre for science, philosophy, medicine and education as the Abbasids championed the cause of knowledge. They established the "House of Wisdom" (Arabic:بيت الحكمة) in Baghdad, where scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, sought to gather and translate all the world's knowledge into Arabic in the Translation Movement. Many classic works of antiquity that would otherwise have been forgotten were translated into Arabic and later in turn translated into Turkish, Persian, Hebrew and Latin. During this period the Muslim world was a cauldron of cultures which collected, synthesized and significantly advanced the knowledge gained from the ancient Mesopotamian, Roman, Chinese, Indian, Persian, Egyptian, North African, Greek and Byzantine civilizations. Rival Muslim dynasties such as the Fatimids of Egypt and the Umayyads of al-Andalus were also major intellectual centres with cities such as Cairo and Córdoba rivaling Baghdad.[6]
And frankly, I'm far more frightened by radical right Christian extremists in this country than I am of radical Muslim extremists. Don't tell me they don't exist. Have you forgotten about the holocaust museum and the immigration center? Given the recent shootings by far right radical Christians, what's to stop me from pointing to those to damn the whole of Christianity the same way you are attempting to damn the whole of Islam, malanthrop?
Intelligence does. I understand that those radical few do not represent the majority. So please, show some intelligence, malanthrop, and drop the paranoid bs.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There are gays against gay marriage. And Thomas Sowell is a great educator and political writer, and a black man opposed to affirmative action. By saying "many" I didn't mean the majority. No one is slandered by the self proclaimed "tolerant" party more than minorities that fail to adhere to the stereotype. Palin, Clarence Thomas, etc. The big-tent is actually a collection of small tents. I imagine a fiscally conservative christian homosexual would be more accepted in the GOP than the Dem party. They look out for the minorities so long as they stay in there place.
I'm pointing out the inconsistency of the logic. With Mormon's the religious motivation is the measure, with Islamic Terror the religious motivation is ignored.
A Christian or Mormon dares to vote against gay marriage and the focus is on their intolerant belief system. A man shoots soldiers yelling "Ala Akbar" and the belief system is insignificant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
And whatever your denomination you may say, "Well my denomination never did that." Yes. It did. At once time your denomination was part of the catholic church, before the protestant splits. And there were plenty of atrocities in the name of Christianity committed before those splits. And after those splits it was some of the major protestant denominations from many of the others are descended that did much of the damage in the new world and the far east.
Well, this is bogus reasoning, Alcon. I understand where you're coming from, but it just is. Do modern Christians need to be aware of atrocities committed by the Vatican in the past? Certainly, and for lots of reasons. Were those atrocities committed by every Christian's denomination? Well, of course not.
Many Christian denominations got their start as explicit rejections of the Vatican, so I really don't see how you can tie the two that closely together.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Although my personal experience doesn't mean much, I don't know a single atheist that is against gay marriage. I'm imagine a few might exist out there. But I highly doubt it's many.
Did a quick google-fu on this and I would never say it is 'many'. Even a few is stretching it. The individuals I did find were basing their logic on 'if two men can get married, can I marry my dog?' arguement.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Well, this is bogus reasoning, Alcon. I understand where you're coming from, but it just is. Do modern Christians need to be aware of atrocities committed by the Vatican in the past? Certainly, and for lots of reasons. Were those atrocities committed by every Christian's denomination? Well, of course not.
That would be why I removed it to reword it
Apparently I wasn't fast enough, I realized only after reread on post that it hadn't come out quite correctly. The point stands with out that part of the argument.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Your hypocrasy is glaring. A Mormon votes against gay marriage and you consider it an inapropriate intervention of religion in politics. A follower of Islam shoots and bombs government employees and you consider it the acts of a crazy individual.
Nobody here is considering "a religious person voting based on their religious convictions" an inappropriate intervention of religion in politics.
Furthermore, the Hasan shooting was the act of a crazy person.
So, your charge of hypocrisy is rooted in argumentative misappropriation, factual misappropriation, and a whole host of simplistic cause-finding.
And you've even managed to drag blacks, mormons and atheists into this crazy theorycrafting mission. Good job! I'm sure they're all proud.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Many Christian denominations got their start as explicit rejections of the Vatican, so I really don't see how you can tie the two that closely together.
Actually you can, because their rejections had nothing to do with the atrocities committed and entirely to do with other theological issues. Also the denominations that split went on to commit similar or worse atrocities themselves so... *shrug*
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I agree that the vast majority of Islam in America are peaceful. I'll pose the question again, what percentage is a problem? 1% of millions makes a very dangerous force in every American city. The peaceful ones need to speak out and report the non-peaceful ones. The only choice is the inevitable cycle of violence and persecution of the entire religion. American's will not always feel comfortable with Islam when the attacks become prevalent. .01% of them could kill millions. I'm not worried about .01% of the Christians, Jews, Hindu's, Budhists, Athiests, Greenies, Wiccans, etc. Continue to deny the threat and it only grows.
Yeah, you're not worried about those people because you're a racist. I get it. That's fine. Well, it's not fine, but I get it.
Extremist Islam is a real threat. Extreme anything is a real threat- there have been are and will be terrorists of every stripe in this world.
And by the way, the number of Muslims that actually engage in acts of terrorism is vanishingly small. Out of the entire Islamic world, international terrorists constitute perhaps 0.000001 percent or less.
My point here is that you are looking at these people's religion as if fighting it or understanding it as a whole is going to help something. I wonder why, when there are clearly much more prescient political and economic reasons for terrorism to exist in the middle east. Even World War II is not considered by westerners to be a religious war, even as it saw a genocide that was carried out along religious lines. Why? Because we recognize that the political forces in Europe at the time created an atmosphere of nationalism that caused a violent purging of ethnic minorities. It happens all over the world, all the time. Even if every Muslim in the world were a member of some other religion, with totally different teachings, were they placed in a similar situation as they are in today, there would be violence.
That is not "Islam's fault." That is not anyone's fault. That is the result of many long chains of circumstances that affect human behavior in unusual and dramatic ways. Your solution is *not* a solution, it is a blame game, and it is useless. I'm very sorry that you have become such a wretched and pathetic coward, but I don't know what to do about it.
*I exclude Iraqi or Afghan insurgent fighters, and other Muslims in arms, who are fighting in their homelands, and so are not terrorists in the sense that we are talking about.
[ November 13, 2009, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Extremist Islam is a real threat. Extreme anything is a real threat- there have been are and will be terrorists of every stripe in this world.
Yes.
I also think it is important to point out that the flip side of this is that non-extremist Islam and non-extremist Muslims and non-extremist anything should not be broad-stroked into the same category as the extremists. And I still feel like steven and malanthrop do this again and again, knowingly and willingly. And that this is the wrong thing to do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Yeah, you're not worried about those people because you're a racist.
Pffh, nobody's a racist unless they admit to it or join the KKK or something. Being afraid of what happens when we have too many cultural minorities in our cities doesn't count.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Yeah, you're not worried about those people because you're a racist.
Pffh, nobody's a racist unless they admit to it or join the KKK or something. Being afraid of what happens when we have too many cultural minorities in our cities doesn't count.
Don't get me wrong, I have black friends. I even let them use my bathroom. I'm not racist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Nobody here is considering "a religious person voting based on their religious convictions" an inappropriate intervention of religion in politics.
*Raises hand*
Objection! Religious people being permitted to vote is, indeed, an inappropriate intervention of utter irrationality in politics.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah well, I'm attracted to women of other races, so I'm also not a racist.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You didn't notice the list of religions I'm not worried about which included many races and cultural minorities. Hindu, Budhist, Jews, etc. Race has nothing to do with it, nor does religious intolerance. I've repeatedly acknowledged the vast majority of the followers of Islam in America are peaceful but the small minority can cause mayhem and death. We need the majority of Islam to aid in rooting out the extremists. If for no other reason than their own self preservation. The more attacks there are from the minority, the less tolerance there will be for the passive majority and their tacit approval of the extreme.
The KKK would regard themselves a "christian" organization. There is zero tolerance for this extremist organization in our country, rightfully so. Even though the KKK currently commits murder far less than extremist Islam, no one comes to the defense of this "religious" group. Extremist Islam is a perversion, a theopolitical cult. Those who espouse Jihad within the US should be arrested and tried for treason rather than be shielded under the guise of freedom of religion and speech.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Who is coming to the defense of Extremist Islam groups? Besides other Extremist Islam groups.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You didn't notice the list of religions I'm not worried about which included many races and cultural minorities.
:snort: I noticed. It's rather like a person claiming not to be an abuser, because, although he regularly beats his wife, "I never touched the kids!"
Even more to the point, it's claiming not to be racist because you are not actively suspicious of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Shintoists, Zoroastians, or whatever other ethnic and or religious group you can name. Just because you hold a special little racist place in your heart for Arabs and Persians doesn't mean you aren't fully on board the racist boat. You are.
FYI: you are using a rather poor definition of racism. Racism is not white supremacy (or belief in the supremacy of any race) although white supremacy is racist. Racism can take the form of selective interpretation of cultural attributes in order to draw false conclusions about ethnic groups. In fact, the majority of institutional racism is non-explicit, unspoken, and oft committed without real malice. It is nevertheless ignorant, and destructive.
quote: The KKK would regard themselves a "christian" organization. There is zero tolerance for this extremist organization in our country, rightfully so.
This is simply incorrect. There is tolerance for the existence of organized racial supremacist groups in the United States. The KKK is protected by the first amendment. Once again- the constitution doesn't exist for the purpose of advancing what you apparently believe is a general sense of right and wrong. Nor could such a document work in the way that the constitution does. It exists as a framework for the management of our justice system and government.
[ November 13, 2009, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There is zero tolerance for this extremist organization in our country, rightfully so.
From the Wiki:
quote:The ACLU has provided legal support to various factions of the KKK in defense of their First Amendment rights to hold public rallies, parades, and marches, and their right to field political candidates.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rightfully so.
But you know KoM, he's just going to say he meant that society in general in the United States doesn't tolerate the KKK.
Also false, since we all *do*.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Racism has nothing to do with religion. There are followers of Islam from all races and there are Arab Christians. Arabs don't concern me, Islamic extremists do. As shown by my concern of Americans who convert to this religion of peace and waged Jihad against their fellow citizens.
If you have to revert to accusations of racism, you've lost the argument.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
And what about the Americans who convert to Islam and don't wage Jihad? I'm going to keep harping on this point until it is addressed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Every Muslim I've ever met (granted I've never been in a Muslim country, so we're talking California and Europe) has been politically moderate and open minded.
I'd note the caveat that you've also previously noted that you've never encountered someone against gay marriage below some age cutoff in the US, which you noted was a bit of a surprise when actual statistics came up.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I agree that the vast majority of Islam in America are peaceful. I'll pose the question again, what percentage is a problem? 1% of millions makes a very dangerous force in every American city.
You can guesstimate some numbers behind your argument.
quote: Overall, 8% of Muslim Americans say suicide bombings against civilian targets tactics are often (1%) or sometimes (7%) justified in the defense of Islam. Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain were twice as likely as Muslims in the U.S. to say suicide bombing can be often or sometimes justified, and acceptance of the tactic is far more widespread among Muslims in Nigeria, Jordan and Egypt.
quote:Overall, 68% of Muslim Americans view al Qaeda either very unfavorably (58%) or somewhat unfavorably (10%). Of the rest, a large proportion (27%) declined to express an opinion on the terrorist group, while just 5% of Muslims in the U.S. have a very (1%) or somewhat (4%) favorable view of al Qaeda.
(Given the numbers of actual Muslims in the US combined with the percentages, I can't say I'm losing much sleep. I think I'm much more likely to get killed by a Christian rather than a Muslim when I next travel to the US for example)
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [... Even if every Muslim in the world were a member of some other religion, with totally different teachings, were they placed in a similar situation as they are in today, there would be violence.
Some violence, sure. But the same amount of violence I find doubtful.
For example, if you compare the Tibetan Buddhist situation and Xinjiang Muslim situation you find quite a significant disparity in how the two groups use (or don't use) violence despite fairly similar circumstances.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am pretty sure that anyone who can write:
quote:They look out for the minorities so long as they stay in there place.
is a racist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Alcon:
quote:So don't tell me that Christianity isn't a political religion and don't tell me it hadn't done great damage.
Christianity isn't a political religion, at least not normally. Until Jesus shows up again it's full set of political ideals lie dormant.
Also lets not forget the crusades happened after the Muslims pushed up from North Africa, driving the predominantly Christian Byzantine empire before it. There were even Muslim incursions into Italy before the first crusade was even launched. People on both sides used their religion as a ticket to empire building. There is nothing in the Christian canon that states Christians need to be in possession of Jerusalem. It doesn't say that Christians need to speed up the apocalypse by inciting their enemies.
Christians frequently attempt to create their own nations which passes laws that allow it to flourish, but this too isn't in the doctrine, it's simply an idea people concocted on their own. It's natural for people to attempt to combine into groups based on ethnicity, belief systems, or against common enemies.
Mormons are Christians that also have political agendas that they often use religion to support. The ones in Utah come from a strong background of pioneers. People who had their rights taken away and so went somewhere else to practice their religion peacefully. The country caught up with them and it was not really an option to stay out of the union. So now they support their country, vote their consciences, and strive to live as all Americans live.
It's history taken as a whole shows such a lack of participation on the political front that only a fool would use the church as a synonym for Christian political activism. Yes it has gotten involved in politics, I will likely get involved again, but political activism is not one of the things discussed at church almost ever. I think in my 20 or so years of attending church I have heard politics come up maybe twice. But again this is a matter of Mormons also having political agendas, like everyone else. The prophet in the case of Proposition 8 made his opinion clear, and invited Mormons to become politically active if they so chose. Members who disagreed with the prophets opinions were not censured, isolated, ostracized, or chastised.
The idea that the entire church has ever been galvanized under a specific political effort just does not hold water. When Jesus shows up again, yes the church will insist that the entire world allow Jesus to be Lord over this planet, but it won't have to do anything as Jesus will manifest himself to the world and there will be no doubt that he ought to be in charge.
In short, Christians have definitely been involved in numerous political movements, but the doctrine does not instruct that movement, the people choose to get involved and then reassure themselves they are right to get involved by looking at ideas espoused by the scriptures.
Is it hard to see that when the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" it does not describe all that is killing? It does not prescribe punishments, it simply says it ought not to be done. A Christian looks at abortion as says, "Hey that's killing, and they aren't going to stop." So they choose to pass laws forbidding abortion, or choose to bomb clinics, or murder doctors, or debate the idea, persuade others that they are right. The scriptures do not specifically prescribe any of those courses of action accept for being a living example of the ideas you espouse.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Every Muslim I've ever met (granted I've never been in a Muslim country, so we're talking California and Europe) has been politically moderate and open minded.
I'd note the caveat that you've also previously noted that you've never encountered someone against gay marriage below some age cutoff in the US, which you noted was a bit of a surprise when actual statistics came up.
True. I always try to make clear that my anecdotes are only my limited experiences. I invite others to tell me theirs, but they don't stand in place of other pieces of information. What I have found personally is nothing that I fear, in the same way that every Christian I have ever met has been equally non-violent. I can't say I have ever personally met an extremist of any stripe other than that of a survivalism, which seemed to be fairly a-political.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [... Even if every Muslim in the world were a member of some other religion, with totally different teachings, were they placed in a similar situation as they are in today, there would be violence.
Some violence, sure. But the same amount of violence I find doubtful.
For example, if you compare the Tibetan Buddhist situation and Xinjiang Muslim situation you find quite a significant disparity in how the two groups use (or don't use) violence despite fairly similar circumstances.
Hmm. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that I'm not credulous of the idea that these people's religion is a primary factor in the expression of discontent through violence. Obviously, Xinjiang Muslims are living in a different situation from others, and I simply think that a person's living situation should be much more determinative of their political motivations, and any motivation they may have to commit acts of violence as a group.
In point of fact, the Tibetan Buddhists and the Xinjian Muslims are living in cultures that inherit very disparate circumstances. It's extremely difficult to determine whether these groups arrive in their current circumstances as a result of their religious beliefs, or as result of even slightly different histories. This gets fairly meta, but the political and social circumstances that bred the creation of these two religions continues to effect the experiences of these two groups- so in a way I'm trying to say that yes, it's simple and can be useful to peg these generalizations to religion, but in fact I think the root causes of pacifism as well as violence run deeper than any religion.
I think people believe things according to what they need to do, not that they do things according to what they believe. The obvious problem arises when, I think, people are too quick to treat belief and action as synonymous. Though there is a useful and real connection between a person's established belief system and their personal actions, the actions of large groups of people correspond to political and social/economic situations in ways that are not predicated upon their religious doctrines. One could find as much violence in the Bible as in the Koran, mainly because these works are meant to appeal to vast and evolving swaths of the world population all at once. Really, any necessity of action is provided for with ostensibly or superficially sound theological basis in virtually any religion. That is why I will continue to say that the religion of a group is not likely to long interfere with that group's own will to act in its own service.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The idea that the entire church has ever been galvanized under a specific political effort just does not hold water. When Jesus shows up again, yes the church will insist that the entire world allow Jesus to be Lord over this planet, but it won't have to do anything as Jesus will manifest himself to the world and there will be no doubt that he ought to be in charge.
Huuuhh... I've never before heard a fantasy about the second coming that involves a political struggle to install Jesus Christ as President of Earth. Usually these kinds of daydreams involve people flying up into the sky and the Earth opening to swallow up legions of dark skinned people and liberals into the flames of hell.
Look, I don't mean to stomp all over you here, but the genuine reaction I have to an idea like this one, expressed in this way, is not at all different from the one I would have if you started talking about the technicalities of the Tooth Fairy's corporate finance structure. It's kind of like doing an autopsy on a cartoon character- there's nothing to look at here. It's just kind of childlike and vaguely sad.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: The idea that the entire church has ever been galvanized under a specific political effort just does not hold water. When Jesus shows up again, yes the church will insist that the entire world allow Jesus to be Lord over this planet, but it won't have to do anything as Jesus will manifest himself to the world and there will be no doubt that he ought to be in charge.
Hell no. Reminds me of a story I was reading where Heaven decided to hand over Earth to hell... Earth's response? To declare war on both, When all Hell breaks loose on Earth, all Earth breaks loose on Hell.
Their faith met our firepower. Firepower won.
The Salvation War, and its epic.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... but in fact I think the root causes of pacifism as well as violence run deeper than any religion.
I think people believe things according to what they need to do, not that they do things according to what they believe. ...
See, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that idea. I believe that there are ways in which religion evolves and adapts. For sure, we can see that certain churches and faiths deal with changes like scientific developments and lifestyles by adapting.
But I do believe that that there are core decisions and beliefs that are embedded in certain religions that are very difficult to change and affect how people behave.
For example, one core one is whether the religion believes whether there is an exclusive god, many gods, or even no god, and this has pretty strong influences on how well a particular religion can co-exist with others.
In a way, you can think of where I'm coming from as a nature vs. nurture debate. Of course the parallel is not perfect, even if you model religions as memes, but I think the overall point is clear. While I think nurture is important, I think nature definitely has a very big influence as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: I wasn't saying there's going to be a struggle to seat Jesus. I was saying the church would not have to do anything in that regard as Jesus would openly manifest himself to everybody, and it won't be a question of whether you have enough evidence anymore. It will purely be a question of whether or not you are a good or bad person.
edit: I don't know where you got the idea of dark skinned people and liberals burning in the fire. You don't have to believe that Jesus will come again, I don't expect you to. When he does I just hope the transition isn't too hard.
Further I imagine the society Jesus would be helming is in such stark contrast to how things are now that it in many ways could be called for more liberal.
[ November 14, 2009, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
But I do believe that that there are core decisions and beliefs that are embedded in certain religions that are very difficult to change and affect how people behave.
For example, one core one is whether the religion believes whether there is an exclusive god, many gods, or even no god, and this has pretty strong influences on how well a particular religion can co-exist with others.
[/QB]
The monotheistic religions sure do seem to have trouble with the whole "love thy neighbor" concept. I'm trying to remember if I've ever heard of Taoist or Hindu terrorism. I'm pretty sure I haven't. Also, I don't remember the Taoists or Hindus doing a lot of fighting of holy wars. Finally, let's remember that the Hindus got along fairly well with the Muslims until the British intentionally (and with malice aforethought) stirred up tensions between them. I put that down to Hindu tolerance and openmindedness, because certainly the Muslims aren't known for their ability to play well with others.
An excellent point, Mr. Mucus.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Mucus, I see what you're getting at. I think though, that obviously characterizing Islam as a religion in sum that encourages terrorism is obviously a mistake, if only because the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. And, as I did point out, extremists of every stripe engage in terrorism or other violent means of furthering their beliefs or goals.
What I still think hasn't been shown clearly is that Islamic terrorists do definitely commit acts of terror because they are Muslim, where any totally different religious group in the same circumstances would definitely *not* commit acts of terror. That to me is the important bit- otherwise we're only justifying our views of their religion after the fact, claiming as a cause, or even a mediating factor, something that can't be controlled out of the equation. Perhaps this type of hair splitting is unfair, as it is mostly unfalsifiable, but I nevertheless reserve a healthy amount of doubt. I think Islam and all its traditions *do* provide convenient justification for violence, but I think such justification exists wherever a person is desperate enough to look for it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Orincoro, where are the Hindu/Taoist/Buddhist terrorists? At some point, you have to stop justifying bad behavior and face facts. To be clear, though, I don't think Christianity has cleaner hands, looking back over the last 1200 years.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Racism has nothing to do with religion.
And math has nothing to do with numbers.
In point of fact, racism is the justification of ethnic supremacy based upon cultural differences that are valued according to the priorities of only one culture. So, the fact that Africans or native Americans were not Christian (and in fact had no familiarity with any part of Western European or Semetic philosophy) when the Spanish and English and Dutch and French and Belgians began colonizing these areas, was seen as a justification for the subjugation of those people according to race. Their racial features were used as an identifier for otherness, and stood in place of actual knowledge of or interest in their cultures or civilizations. The fact that they did not hold the same religious beliefs as white Europeans, and the fact that they *looked different* led many to believe and to postulate that they were sub-human, and incapable of adapting to our version of the modern world.
You throw out such a statement, I think, without even considering what you yourself have been saying. Your phantasmal "Black Liberation Theology" which is of course shadily connected to Islam, is supposedly a racist theological viewpoint. There: racism and religion, like milk and coffee!
In fact, nearly every religion on Earth has a history bound up with racism and race hate. Some modern religions have blatantly racist organizing structures, and theological justifications for such racism. Trust me, it's everywhere in religion, and the two are deeply connected.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Orincoro, where are the Hindu/Taoist/Buddhist terrorists? At some point, you have to stop justifying bad behavior and face facts. To be clear, though, I don't think Christianity has cleaner hands, looking back over the last 1200 years.
That kind of shallow thinking is where we lead ourselves because it's easy, and readily makes sense to us. It's also useless if you actually want to try understanding people or solving real differences. I'm not trying to justify bad behavior because I don't find justice in terrorism. I also don't find justice in ethnic and cultural prejudice, which is what Mal advocates and practices.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Orincoro, where are the Hindu/Taoist/Buddhist terrorists? At some point, you have to stop justifying bad behavior and face facts. To be clear, though, I don't think Christianity has cleaner hands, looking back over the last 1200 years.
That kind of shallow thinking is where we lead ourselves because it's easy, and readily makes sense to us. It's also useless if you actually want to try understanding people or solving real differences. I'm not trying to justify bad behavior because I don't find justice in terrorism. I also don't find justice in ethnic and cultural prejudice, which is what Mal advocates and practices.
You're trying to paint all religions with one broad brush. That's not realistic. Put it this way. Let's say you work in the HR department of a major defense contractor, one that's working on a really powerful new weapon, like a shoulder-mounted nuke (just a random example). Let's say you are hiring an outside scientist to come in and work on the project. You have two applicants who are the most qualified. Both have equal test scores, credentials, experience. etc. and are, for all practical purposes, equally qualified. One is a Hindu, one is a devout Sunni Muslim. Who would you pick?
If there's even a question in your mind, then you, my friend, need to step away from the crack pipe.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
steven: are you serious? Like the buddhists who used Sarin gas in Tokyo subways? The Sikhs who would stop buses in Punjab, take people off, and shoot them by the side of the road, assassinated the prime minister of India, and blew up an Air India flight? (Granted, Sikhs aren't on your list, but they're a good example; these are just things that spring quickly to mind).
(edit: and I'm restricting myself to religiously-motivated terrorism. There are tons of people of those religions involved in other terrorist organizations -- the Tamil Tigers has numerous Hindu, for instance, and other terrorist organizations opposing them have often been filled with Buddhists).
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: steven: are you serious? Like the buddhists who used Sarin gas in Tokyo subways? The Sikhs who would stop buses in Punjab, take people off, and shoot them by the side of the road, assassinated the prime minister of India, and blew up an Air India flight? (Granted, Sikhs aren't on your list, but they're a good example; these are just things that spring quickly to mind).
I can name more Islamic terrorism that happened in the last week than Buddhist terrorism ever. Besides, I hardly consider those Tokyo terrorists to be Buddhists at all. Here's the quote from the wiki:
"Aum Shinrikyo/Aleph is a composite belief system that incorporates Asahara's idiosyncratic interpretations of Yoga with facets of Buddhism and Christianity, and even the writings of Nostradamus."
How shocking that the one Buddhist terrorist act that you can name comes from a Buddhist cult that includes Christian beliefs. Shocking in that "not really" way.
Also, I didn't name Sikhs for a reason. They're not a mainstream religion in the way that the others are. My point is, you can find weird little religious offshoots that are exceptions to general trends. However, we certainly couldn't say that all Christians are peace-loving and nonviolent, just because of the Quakers. Right? Same difference.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
More from the wiki on the Tokyo terrorists--
"In 1992 Asahara published a book, within which he declared himself "Christ," Japan's only fully enlightened master and the "Lamb of God." His purported mission was to take upon himself the sins of the world. Asahara said he could transfer to his followers spiritual power and ultimately take away their sins and bad Karma. He also saw dark conspiracies everywhere promulgated by Jews, Freemasons and rival Japanese religions. Ultimately, Asahara outlined a doomsday prophecy, which included a Third World War. Asahara's final conflict would culminate in a nuclear Armageddon. Asahara even used the term "armageddon," which he took from the book of Revelation.[1] Humanity would end, except for an elite few. Those elite few meant those who joined Aum.[1] Aum's mission was not only to spread the word of "salvation," but also to survive these "End Times." Asahara predicted Armageddon would occur in 1997.[1] Asahara incessantly attacked the Jews and even the British Royal Family as principals in conspiracies. He named the United States as the Beast from the Book of Revelation predicting America would eventually attack Japan.[1]"
I think I got you on this one, fugu. LOL
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
steven: Look into the civil war in Sri Lanka, a land filled with a majority of Buddhists. It went on for around 25 years, and at least 80,000 people were killed. Atrocities committed by both sides match just about anything you read in any other conflict.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: steven: Look into the civil war in Sri Lanka, a land filled with a majority of Buddhists. It went on for around 25 years, and at least 80,000 people were killed. Atrocities committed by both sides match just about anything you read in any other conflict.
So was it a religious conflict, and were the atrocities done in the name of religion? No.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Come on, guys, put up a fight. Somebody. Please? This is too easy. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You think Sikhs aren't a mainstream religion in the way Taoists are?
They're the 5th largest religious group in the world, with over twenty million adherents!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It wasn't a religious conflict, but atrocities in the Sri Lankan civil war have definitely been committed in the name of religion. Several of the splinter groups keep themselves religiously pure, arguably making them religious terrorists.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Fugu, there are more people in the Southern Baptist Convention than there are members of the Sikh religion. I'm begging you, give me something harder. This is too easy.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: It wasn't a religious conflict, but atrocities in the Sri Lankan civil war have definitely been committed in the name of religion. Several of the splinter groups keep themselves religiously pure, arguably making them religious terrorists.
Please feel free to give us some links. Do bear in mind, if these are crazy splinter groups that you're talking about, I already crushed the argument that splinter groups are representative of the larger religion. Thoroughly crushed.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
steven, what do you think of all of the Muslims who do not condone violence? kmbboots provided a list of Islamic organizations that actively oppose violence and list reasons based on their faith.
When you say things like:
quote:...because certainly the Muslims aren't known for their ability to play well with others.
you are still speaking of 1.6 billion people as if they were one group and one mind. How many Muslims have you met? Talked to? Had dinner with?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: steven, what do you think of all of the Muslims who do not condone violence? kmbboots provided a list of Islamic organizations that actively oppose violence and list reasons based on their faith.
When you say things like:
quote:...because certainly the Muslims aren't known for their ability to play well with others.
you are still speaking of 1.6 billion people as if they were one group and one mind. How many Muslims have you met? Talked to? Had dinner with?
You may not have read the paragraph that I posted twice on the previous page, so I'll post it a third time, for your edification.
"A good example (of why I need BIG proof) is that I heard an interview with a Muslim college student on NPR about posted notices by Muslim students about Muslim student gatherings on the bulletin board at his college's student union (I think it was U of Chicago, but I could be wrong). He said that the English statements on the notices were all about peace, brotherhood, etc. The Arabic translation on the same notice was all about "kill the infidel", etc. No joke, these people are crazy."
Bear in mind, the students that were writing "kill the infidel" on these posters in Arabic were not even terrorists. How much sneakier and hate-filled are the terrorists themselves? They come into this country, get jobs, work, live, etc....but they still harbor so much hate and violence, deep, deep in their hearts. Other immigrant groups are different. You don't see the Hindus/Taoists/Buddhists blowing stuff up, committing mass killings, etc.
This is just how it is. Please don't think I see Christians as having clean hands, either. Currently they behave better, but historically, it's a dead heat.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I've read this paragraph several times. And you are still taking one example of what some Muslim students did at one college. What do you think of the Muslim student that reported it? Of the Muslims that oppose the actions of these students? Why do you think this made the news? Because it was an extreme event. It was dealt with.
You go from "some students" and "the terrorists" and "the extremists" to "the Muslims." Why do you keep doing that?
And please, tell me: how many Muslims have you met and talked to?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...It was dealt with."
No it was not. This student related something that happened years ago, when he was in college, as an example of how the Muslim community says one thing, and promptly does another. These other students committed no crime. None of them were terrorists. They sure hated American citizens, by and large.
My point is, if the average Muslim thinks/acts like those students, how much sneakier, more hate-filled, and dangerous are the crazy ones, that actually end up doing a 9/11?
These people are not to be painted with the same broad brush as other major religions. In my humble opinion.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
That's a big if. An if that I do not believe at all.
I am asking you directly: how many Muslims have you met and talked to in person?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Not that many. Probably less than ten, if you only count face-to-face meetings, and don't count interactions in convenience stores.
When I see beheadings on youtube, the evening news, etc., I don't need to meet these people in person. I don't WANT to, thank you very much. They can keep their machetes to themselves.
Beheadings? Man, these people are crazy. When's the last time you heard of a Hindu beheading someone, for religion?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Good grief.
Do you not see what you are doing?
You see a beheading on YouTube. Performed by an extremist. An extremist, by definition, does not represent the average views of his people. I don't know anyone who wants to meet an extremist.
And these are your words:
quote:Do bear in mind, if these are crazy splinter groups that you're talking about, I already crushed the argument that splinter groups are representative of the larger religion. Thoroughly crushed.
Your words.
There is a Muslim in my lab. He's a great guy. One of my closest friends works daily with Muslims. She works for an inter-religious non-profit. She tells me stories of how they are great Americans. They care about their community and their children. They are open and friendly and give back to the community. Go talk to one of them. You'll learn a lot, unless you stick with your arrogant ignorance.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Osama bin Laden isn't part of a splinter group. He's just a Wahhabist. Nadal Hassan wasn't part of a splinter group. They're just Islamic.
You can say, "oh, it's the fault of the extremist clerics. Only some clerics are extremists." Yeah, bullshit. They day the extremist clerics start calling themselves something different than the other Muslims around, then I'll call them a "splinter group." Until then, they're just Middle Eastern Muslims to me. If they won't give me a different name to call them, I can't call them by a different name. "Extremist" is not a religious denomination, genius.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
What? It's what *they* call themselves? So anybody acting in the name of a religion automatically represents it? Really?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:The Islamic Society of North America condemns in the strongest terms the attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, resulting in the murder of at least a dozen soldiers and the wounding of many others. We express our deepest condolences to the victims and their families.
quote:MPAC and the Muslim American community unequivocally condemn this heinous incident. We share the sentiment of our President, who called the Fort Hood attack "a horrific outburst of violence."
quote:“We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”
Nadal Hassan was an Islamic individual of which this Islamic community "condemned in the strongest terms" or "unequivocally condemned" or "condemned in the strongest possible terms." I can't see your willingness to ignore the clear and straightforward messages of the Islamic community as anything but arrogance, stupidity, or racism.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What? It's what *they* call themselves? So anybody acting in the name of a religion automatically represents it? Really?
Well, yeah, I'd say so--and so would you, if we were talking about Christian extremism, you double-standard holder. If Hasan's fellow Muslims had really had a problem with crazy extremism, they'd have turned him in already. The warning signs were there. His superiors said so. At least, from what I've read.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale "I can't see your willingness to ignore the clear and straightforward messages of the Islamic community as anything but arrogance, stupidity, or racism."
You're the first person I've ever dealt with that might actually deserve the name "LefTaliban." LOL
Grow up. I work with a Muslim too. She's actually pretty hot, doesn't wear the hijab. It's possible I'd even ask her out, if I got a chance. It's not her I'm really worried about, anyway. If she has a crazy brother, unmarried, in his 20s or 30s, yeah, now HE might worry me, if he worked there.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Just...wow.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
What if she had a normal brother?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Wow right back at you. Who do you think would be safer, you on vacation in Western Pakistan, or a Pashtun tribesman or Taliban fighter on vacation in your town?
That's right. Those people's idea of appropriate behavior is vastly different from both yours and mine.
What really worries me is the deception and collusion. I don't mind someone hating me and wanting me dead, relatively. It's when that person pretends to like me, workes beside me for years, then, one day, yells "Allahu Akbar" and declares it's open season on stevens, that really ticks me off. LOL
I realize that the Muslims are carried along by forces larger than themselves. There's almost no economic opportunity in their homelands, and tremendous overpopulation, and they've lived in isolation for hundreds of years, ever since the Silk Road fell into disuse.
However, I think it's important to call a spade a spade. Nobody gets a free pass with me. Let's face it, everybody who's arguing with me here would be more than happy to rail on Conservative Christians for pages and pages of thread. Fine. I support that, so long as its factual railing (and you don't have to get rude to rial on them, between Jack Chick and Fred Phelps, etc., they provide people with tons of material). However, Muslims don't deserve to be a part of our technological society if all they're going to do is fly planes into buildings and shoot up unarmed soldiers, unarmed pregnant women, etc. If my Muslim co-worker were male, that'd worry me, until I felt sure I had a better understanding of him. It's not like I suspect every unmarried Muslim male in his 20s or 30s...but I'm not about to trust sane Muslims to turn in crazy ones. When's the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by one American Muslim turning in another one?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
If I knew that a Taliban fighter was next door, that would freak me out. If I knew that there was a Muslim living next door, that would not freak me out. If this Muslim neighbor acted secretive, seemed angry all the time, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would freak me out. But the fact that he is Muslim would not. If anyone else lived next door, acted secretive, seemed angry, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would also freak me out.
Do you think that the Muslims in this country that make up the organizations linked to above would not report terrorism if they knew of it? I'm guessing that you think that they would not, and that is what I just don't understand.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I wont argue that hundreds of years ago Christianity had a political agenda.
They do these days as well. How do you think Bush got elected in the first place?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:When's the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by one American Muslim turning in another one?
When was the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by an American Christian turning in another one? What, you never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing? Plenty of Christian terrorists, in fact given the demographics of the US, probably more of them (domestically) than Moslems.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmmm, going back and ignoring some of the emotions and stuff here.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Mucus, I see what you're getting at. I think though, that obviously characterizing Islam as a religion in sum that encourages terrorism is obviously a mistake, if only because the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Well, I'm not sure I necessarily buy that particular line of reasoning. The majority of the Aztecs probably didn't do human sacrifice, but I would be surprised if a majority actually opposed the practice.
That said, we can roughly guesstimate from the above Pew survey that a majority of Muslims do not in fact approve of say suicide bombing. However, we do have a level of support for it ("often/sometimes justified" support of roughly 8% in the US to roughly 16% in Western Europe and roughly 30% in Egypt or Jordan).
So yes, on one hand it is a mistake to characterize Islam in whole as a religion that approves of suicide bombing. But still, I'd be fairly surprised if we found anywhere near that level of support in say Tibetan Buddhism despite a much more critical situation.
quote:What I still think hasn't been shown clearly is that Islamic terrorists do definitely commit acts of terror because they are Muslim, where any totally different religious group in the same circumstances would definitely *not* commit acts of terror.
See, this is true. But in a way, I don't think there would be anyway to truly test this without a time machine and a mind writer ala Dollhouse. Otherwise, I think we could both go around and around arguing why this factor might explain why this group found terrorism a viable option or why not.
So this is why we have to settle for "close enough" and I think the histories of Xinjiang and Tibet before and after the end of the Chinese civil war are similar enough that we can draw some conclusions about how easily each group resorts to violence under pressure.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's worth pointing out that the West, too, has a tradition of approving people who make a last stand against overwhelming force, knowing they are going to die. The problem with suicide bombings is not the suicide, but the target. And the West has an extremely undistinguished record of deliberately targeting civilians.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Has anyone thought that "sometimes" justified could in fact be a Muslim who was thinking about a situation far different than the one they are in now? After all, there are few of us who wouldn't be willing to go to extremes if we were backed into a real corner, and we felt our very existence was at stake. It's that old philosophical problem of, "Would you kill 1 man you know to save a million you don't."
I would say that I believe it is possible, in some situation (though not any I know of at the moment), that suicide bombing could be the lesser of two evils.
Also, let us not forget, civilian targets have never actually been considered completely forbidden. In the Middle Ages entire villages were torched in order to prove a point. You may have reached the high point of avoiding civilian targets in the 17th and 18th centuries when Armies pretty much lined up on battlefields, but even then I suspect there were some civilian casualties. By the time you get to our own civil war, we're back to burning as we go, inevitably causing civilian death by starvation if nothing else. Once we got aircraft, it became standard procedure to bomb large cities of the enemy, long before there could be any serious attempt at pinpointing specific military targets. At the same time, submarines were sinking any and all "enemy" ships, including passenger liners. And of course, we can't forget the biggest of them all, our nuclear bombs!
Even today, we can't say we go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties. We partner ourselves with Israel who seems determined to continue to live by "an eye for an eye". We've caused, by most eyewitness accounts I've heard, an under reported number of civilian deaths in Iraq (though still probably less than Saddam would have caused by now). I'm listening to "We Were One" (an audio book about US troops in Falusia), and there is a story about an allied Humvee that callously drove through a persons yard and killed someone, and never even looked back. Another one of the soldiers saw it, and did the best he could to make up for it, but nevertheless, nothing was officially done.
While I would not say I'm "for" suicide bombing, it's hard for me to really say that all Muslims should be convinced that there is NEVER a time or place for it. After all, we, as US citizens seem to be able to turn our heads away from the civilian casualties we cause, so long as we think it's for "the greater good".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Another point to consider. Let us suppose that the Moslem religion is, indeed, a danger to the western world. What are we going to do about it? Is anyone here (other than me and presumably Lisa) willing to straightforwardly stand up and say "This religion must be eradicated, by force if necessary"? I will point out that no widespread religion has ever been destroyed except by force. Education - a euphemism for "state-enforced religious indoctrination" - just makes people teach their children to parrot the state's words in public, and do actual worship in private. Secret Jews, anyone? And Spain had its secret Moslems, too. Although probably not as many as the Inquisition claimed to have caught.
A clarification of my previous post: Pointing out the existence of a Western tradition of civilian targets and suicide missions, indeed of a moral equivalence between us and them, is not intended as saying we should do nothing. Quite the opposite: I'm saying we should stop squealing about how immoral this form of war is, and do to the Arabs what we did to the Germans and Japanese: Retaliate in kind, with more and better weapons.
So, a challenge to both sides of this debate: What are you going to do about it? The right is correct in arguing that Islam is a danger. Fine, now what? The left is correct in arguing that there is moral equivalence. Fine, now what? Neither side, as far as I can see, is putting forward any sort of plan of action.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Another point to consider. Let us suppose that the Moslem religion is, indeed, a danger to the western world. What are we going to do about it? Is anyone here (other than me and presumably Lisa) willing to straightforwardly stand up and say "This religion must be eradicated, by force if necessary"? I will point out that no widespread religion has ever been destroyed except by force. Education - a euphemism for "state-enforced religious indoctrination" - just makes people teach their children to parrot the state's words in public, and do actual worship in private. Secret Jews, anyone? And Spain had its secret Moslems, too. Although probably not as many as the Inquisition claimed to have caught.
A clarification of my previous post: Pointing out the existence of a Western tradition of civilian targets and suicide missions, indeed of a moral equivalence between us and them, is not intended as saying we should do nothing. Quite the opposite: I'm saying we should stop squealing about how immoral this form of war is, and do to the Arabs what we did to the Germans and Japanese: Retaliate in kind, with more and better weapons.
So, a challenge to both sides of this debate: What are you going to do about it? The right is correct in arguing that Islam is a danger. Fine, now what? The left is correct in arguing that there is moral equivalence. Fine, now what? Neither side, as far as I can see, is putting forward any sort of plan of action.
QFT.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
what does that mean?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Quoted for truth". It means either that the quoter does not trust the quotee to refrain from editing the post, and so is making a separate copy of the original words; or else that the quoter agrees with the quotee, and is making a separate copy in order to increase the total amount of truthful words in the world.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I quoted for the latter meaning, as I tried to make that point around 3 pages ago. KoM did a better job.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Of course I did. How could it be otherwise?
That aside, what is your answer to the question, other than agreeing that it's an important one? Are you willing to use force to eradicate Islam, do you prefer some other means of eradicating Islam, or do you perhaps think that it can be reformed? Or do you have a fourth alternative?
I assume you are not willing to convert or to live as a Jew under sharia, or other variants of surrender. It's worth pointing out, though, that any war does have the option of surrender, or of a negotiated peace; it's only because the English-speaking countries have been so extraordinarily successful in their wars that you rarely hear it mentioned. This is a point on which in a different conflict we might have something to learn from Germans, French, Russians, Japanese, and all the other nations who have swallowed defeat at one point or another and gone on with their lives. A possible alternative to genocide is, perhaps, to get real energy independence; this is fantastically inefficient economically speaking, but "defense before affluence", as Adam Smith reminds us. (Or more defiantly, "Millions for defense but not a cent for tribute!") Let the price of oil drop to its pre-1970 level of a few dollars a barrel, and the Moslems can rant and rave all they like; they won't have the money to hurt anyone. The difficulty is, though, that other people like oil as well; if the US stops buying, China, Europe, and Japan will all gladly step up. It seems a bit difficult to provide energy independence for them on top of the US.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
If you're asking me, my answer is that the assumption is ridiculous. That's like saying, "what would you do if one day you woke up and all the air outside your home was jelly?" How am I supposed to come up with a reasonable answer?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What? It's what *they* call themselves? So anybody acting in the name of a religion automatically represents it? Really?
Well, yeah, I'd say so--and so would you, if we were talking about Christian extremism, you double-standard holder.
You are absolutely wrong in that assumption, and what's more, I think you know that, and are just being a petulant child.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
If - and a big if - being clear, that this is not what I believe, but just playing with KoM's hypo - Islam is indeed, in itself, dangerous - then I'd try my best to first wage a cultural war.
Try to use cultural influences to convert, have fall away, or secularize the majority. This would be done subtly, not to create any clear sides so as to avoid any real war.
If that failed, or was only semi-successful, I think it would be best to weigh the danger with the costs of a war seeking to "eradicate" that religion. If the danger is higher than the cost, then we should start real war with the most extreme factions and the governments that support them or are unsuccessful at reigning them in.
If the costs were as steep as the danger, or higher, then I suppose we'd have to bear the situation until the playing field changes.
We're doing a little bit of that right now, mostly, because I don't think we have enough data to make any real determinations that should affect policy.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:When's the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by one American Muslim turning in another one?
When was the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by an American Christian turning in another one? What, you never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing? Plenty of Christian terrorists, in fact given the demographics of the US, probably more of them (domestically) than Moslems.
Yes, KoM, I know. I have no excuse for those Christians, and I'm just glad that Eric Robert Rudolph was not from my county in NC. Bear in mind, I am not a Christian, although I've got nothing against the Quakers and Unitarian/Universalists. They're nice folks, and I wouldn't probably have problems dating members of those religions.
I think it's a bit dickish to come to this country and criticize its citizens, who have been so kind as to allow your foreign-born butt to stay here. If you took some Norwegians and isolated them as badly and as long as a lot of backwoods Christians have been, you'd see some crazy fundamentalist-type stuff from those very Norwegians (more probably their descendants). That's just human nature. That doesn't mean it's great, just that it's human nature.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: If I knew that a Taliban fighter was next door, that would freak me out. If I knew that there was a Muslim living next door, that would not freak me out. If this Muslim neighbor acted secretive, seemed angry all the time, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would freak me out. But the fact that he is Muslim would not. If anyone else lived next door, acted secretive, seemed angry, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would also freak me out.
Do you think that the Muslims in this country that make up the organizations linked to above would not report terrorism if they knew of it? I'm guessing that you think that they would not, and that is what I just don't understand.
Your first paragraph I agree with. Your second paragraph, was, I hope, written by a crack-addicted family member who paid you $20 to let him finish your post.
Seriously, yes, I suspect the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims are pretty much in collusion, to the degree of not turning in fellow Muslims. Not all off them. A lot, though.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
And that's where your reality and my reality are fundamentally different.
Posted by J-Put (Member # 11752) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
Seriously, yes, I suspect the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims are pretty much in collusion, to the degree of not turning in fellow Muslims. Not all off them. A lot, though.
Do you have any idea what a nutjob this makes you sound like? You really think that there's a billion person conspiracy to cover up the actions of a tiny percentage? Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: And that's where your reality and my reality are fundamentally different.
I haven't the slightest idea what the Muslims in those organizations would do. I couldn't care less. The question is, what is the next one I encounter going to do, be a good boy, or a bad boy? Mine is a natural caution, born of looking carefully at the people I get on planes with, trying to figure out if one of them plans to yell "Allahu Akbar" and fly us into a building. I don't care about the Muslim you work with, or the one you live beside. They don't concern me. The next one I encounter concerns me. Political correctness does not override my caution. If I meet a strange dog, my first thought is not "am I prejudging this dog unfairly?". I am too busy checking his behavior for danger signs versus signs of friendliness.
I think you're right. Your reality is all about somebody's feelings, or some such. My reality is all about not dying at the hands of a crazy man, among other things. I sincerely hope, for your sake, that if you ever have the crappy luck to encounter a crazy person like Nadal (or that guy that shot up the church, Jim Adkisson), you react the smart way and stay alive. Safety first. Call me a Neanderthal, but...safety first.
Let's face it, while profiling sucks, we all do it. What do we do when we see a young black man that looks like a gang member? We watch him and steer clear. It's the same thing. It might not be pretty...but it saves lives. I'm not about to sacrifice my safety, or my family's, or anyone else's around me. Hate me if you want. I'd still save you from a Nadal, or a Jim Adkisson, if I could. You'd probably complain afterwards because I punched him too hard, and engaged in excessive brutality, but I'd get over it. I'd have to, because clearly nothing convinces you.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by J-Put:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
Seriously, yes, I suspect the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims are pretty much in collusion, to the degree of not turning in fellow Muslims. Not all off them. A lot, though.
Do you have any idea what a nutjob this makes you sound like? You really think that there's a billion person conspiracy to cover up the actions of a tiny percentage?
OK, seriously, the name-calling is unnecessary, don't you think? I'm a nutjob?
I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think that people
a. don't care b. don't want to get involved c. are afraid of Muslim reprisals d. aren't paying full attention, because, after all, a devout Muslim is a good one, right? The crazy devout ones can slip under your radar, if your main focus in judging someone is how devout they are.
So, ignorance, apathy, excessive religious zeal, and fear. No, there's no conspiracy. That's like saying there's a conspiracy among young people to form gangs and deal drugs. Yeah, they're all in on that together. LOL
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by J-Put:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
Seriously, yes, I suspect the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims are pretty much in collusion, to the degree of not turning in fellow Muslims. Not all off them. A lot, though.
Do you have any idea what a nutjob this makes you sound like? You really think that there's a billion person conspiracy to cover up the actions of a tiny percentage?
Well, believe it or not, there is a large percentage of Americans who feel the same way steven does, including much of the media. I guess you could compare it to the whole 'stop snitchin' movement within the black community, where there may be an exaggeration in the reporting of the phenomena, but there is some truth behind it. These things do happen; turning these bad guys in could result in violence towards your own family in some places, and yet its very easy for us to consider not turning them in just as bad as the crime itself. It's not an easy situation, and I'm sure not sure what I would do in that situation. Yes, taking a stand against these people would be the right thing to do, but for many Middle Eastern Muslims who think that us Americans are just as bad as the terrorists (and depending on your opinion, there is justification for this), I'm not sure there's a whole lot of motivation to do the right thing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: While I would not say I'm "for" suicide bombing, it's hard for me to really say that all Muslims should be convinced that there is NEVER a time or place for it.
I'll quickly note that I didn't exactly say that all Muslims should be convinced that there is never a time for suicide bombing. I mean, it should be fairly obvious that suicide bombing (or the related act of flying planes into buildings) is a awfully effective and cheap way of terrorizing a society.
My previous contention was merely that I suspect the statistics describe a greater tendency toward violence, one that can be compared to the greater frequency of non-violent protests (at least to others) like for example, self-immolation when looking at groups like Buddhists or Falun Gong.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Well, believe it or not, there is a large percentage of Americans who feel the same way steven does, including much of the media. I guess you could compare it to the whole 'stop snitchin' movement within the black community, where there may be an exaggeration in the reporting of the phenomena, but there is some truth behind it. These things do happen; turning these bad guys in could result in violence towards your own family in some places, and yet its very easy for us to consider not turning them in just as bad as the crime itself. It's not an easy situation, and I'm sure not sure what I would do in that situation.
I'm not sure what I would do, either. But that's not what I'm talking about.
You folks are confused. I'm not talking about policy decisions, or broad judgements preached from some bully pulpit. I'm talking about law-enforcement-level profiling, and individual-citizen-level profiling. It's not pretty, but brother it works. Hate me for saying it, but...I'm no martyr, willing to die for political correctness. If you folks want to be, more power to you, but don't expect me to suddenly change. I didn't live to 34 with all parts intact and working reasonably well by ignoring common sense in life-or-death situations. Either physical safety is your #1 priority, or something else is. Your call, but don't expect me to change my call.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... So, a challenge to both sides of this debate: What are you going to do about it? The right is correct in arguing that Islam is a danger. Fine, now what? The left is correct in arguing that there is moral equivalence. Fine, now what? Neither side, as far as I can see, is putting forward any sort of plan of action.
I don't know if I'm included in this challenge. In brief, while I agree with the right that Islam is a danger, I don't think that it is a significant enough danger to us as North Americans to spend much time on it as opposed to all the other problems we face. I also think the left is correct in asserting some level of moral equivalence.
That said, I don't necessarily think that we as North Americans need a plan of action, rather we need a plan of inaction. I suspect that our half-hearted attempts at "helping" things in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around Israel are rather making things worse, if only by putting North Americans directly in harms way and radicalizing our own Muslim populations.
Other jurisdictions may need other strategies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Human nature inclines us to do something, to resolve situations. Often, what we do to resolve a situation is worse than leaving the situation unresolved.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, the first step in any plan I think would have to be removing the half-hearted qualifier from any efforts.
Half-hearted is exactly the kind of thing that's gotten us into so much long-term trouble. If we weren't so committed to half-assing it in Afghanistan, I'd be much less uncomfortable with future prospects in that area. And coming from that area.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
As an aside, KoM, I'm interested in when and why you started saying "Moslem" as opposed to "Muslim." I have been assuming you were doing it as a tongue-in-cheek crack at hillbilly crackers who talk about "A-rabs," or maybe 19th century English writers who called them "Muhammadans," or some variant. My dictionary sites "Moslem" as a mere variant spelling, and not a derogatory one, but I had been under the impression that it was considered passé.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Truly, I have no idea. I think in fact I use the two spellings interchangeably. It's not a conscious device, just a habit.
ETA: The Norwegian spelling is "muslim", uncapitalised, but the pronunciation is quite different, roughly "mush-leem". Perhaps I'm subconsciously spelling it differently because I'm thinking in English and thus internally pronouncing it rather differently from what I associate with 'muslim'?
[ November 17, 2009, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Muslim sounds too much like Muslin, a kind of fabric.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[/QB]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)