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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ya, its not a terrorist attack if it was a deliberate military target.
IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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)?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
