PDA

View Full Version : Muslims Murder U.S. Soldiers Again


Pages : 1 [2]

bjkeefe
11-08-2009, 11:13 PM
I want to call that a fact... not a theory.

Nice.

kezboard
11-09-2009, 01:52 AM
I think the question is less "Did Hasan kill because of his religious beliefs?" and more "Should we look at what happened at Fort Hood in the context of Nidal Hasan's life -- i.e., how did he come to be so evil/crazy -- or in the context of current politics/the War On Terror/relations between Islam and the US -- i.e., why did a Muslim American soldier kill his fellow soldiers"? That is, is it more meaningful to look at this as one guy killing other people, or as a Muslim killing members of the American military on an army base?

Obviously, if you actually want to put this into some sort of context that sheds any sort of light on what happened and what it meant, you have to look at both angles. What I find offensive is that I got the feeling from many commentators on the right, and from Lyle's post, that people aren't interested in actually doing this. They're just interested in pushing the War on Islamofascism narrative, which is offensive because it's facile, bigoted, and the exact opposite of productive. The view of the Islamofascism people (you all know the faction I'm talking about, the people who are all about throwing around that word, but unfortunately there's no short word ending in "ist" to describe it -- clash-of-civilizationist? Islamofascismist? Malkinist?) essentially says to Islamic radicalism "You're right. Islam is incompatible with democracy. But you guys are wrong -- it's us who are morally superior to you and it's us who will defeat you." Whether or not you postulate two cultures, Western and Islamic, which are separate and incompatible, whether or not you think the two cultures are destined to wage some sort of cold war, whether or not you think Islamic extremism is the "totalitarianism" of our age, whatever -- tactically, it's a bad move. These tactics are so obviously stolen from the rhetoric of the Cold War, too, which makes it even worse, because the Cold War was a struggle between two fairly well-defined political ideologies and states, and this is supposedly one between civilizations. When "Soviet totalitarianism" fell, the citizens of the Eastern Bloc were able to keep their national and civic identities more-or-less intact -- Germans and Czechs and Hungarians and Russians were still Germans and Czechs and Hungarians and Russians -- and even then the new order caused all kinds of existential angst for lots of people. What about when the Berlin Wall of Islamofascism falls? What's going to be left? If Daniel Pipes et al. think that Islam is extremism, what's going to happen when Islamic extremism is defeated? Also, this sort of titanic struggle with evil ideology didn't even work during the Cold War, regardless of myths about Ronald Reagan saying "Tear down this wall" and then Gorbachev did.

I don't make any excuses for Islamic extremism. I'm a non-heterosexual woman who likes to wear pants and make fun of religion. I'll gladly concede that it seems like Muslims are doing an awful lot of flogging, crucifying, beheading, etc., for their religion lately, and that their scriptures have a lot of warlike stuff in them. But I've read too much history and too much of the Bible to say that this is something unique to Islam -- I mean, come on. I belong to the Bob Wright school of thought with regard to religion being warlike and war being caused by religion. What offends me is that Lyle is pushing this ideology with just a few sentences and then turning around and claiming to be innocent when anyone calls him on it. I'm totally confident that if I, or anyone else in this thread, could have an honest debate with someone over the validity of an ideology that says "What's really important about this incident is how it shows that America is under attack by Islamofascism" -- essentially what Lyle said in this first post -- we would show that it's a hundred percent crap in five minutes. Smarter people than I am have done exactly this.

*with apologies to Hannah Arendt, I hate hate hate this word and can only use it in scare quotes

Lyle
11-09-2009, 08:40 AM
I watched them to, and nobody wants to be called a racist. Mostly they all just spoke a bunch of nonsense about PTSD.

However, I agree with all the comments about reminding people that American Muslims have died for this country and continue to serve it with honor. That is exactly right. Unfortunately, that still doesn't change our reality, which is that their are extremist Muslims in America and around the world who continue to lash out violently thanks to an extremist ideology or extremist religious views peculiar to the Muslim community.

Lyle
11-09-2009, 08:44 AM
Nobody has claimed America is under attack by Islamofascism. Extremist Muslims continue to carry out violence in the name of their extreme religious views, however. How is this deniable?

Lets have that conversation kezboard.

And you can start by explaining how it isn't the Muslim community's problem to solve?

Lyle
11-09-2009, 08:46 AM
I wanted to add that all across the Muslim world there is violence due to Muslim extremism. From the Philippines to Nigeria, you've got extremist Muslim violence happening.

So clearly you're ignorant about what is really going on in the world.

Lyle
11-09-2009, 08:53 AM
Yes, but by the time I started this thread journalists were already asking the question "is he a Muslim". And they were starting to say he was, even if not 100% certain.

The other reason the thread was started was to show that if it is okay to show prejudice to one group it's okay to show prejudice toward all groups. bh.tv is full of prejudicial progressives who are constantly spewing nonsense out about all the people they hate. So why not show them how it can work both ways? Oh my God, people hate Muslim extremists. Oh! My! God! No kidding it will prejudice them towards Muslims to verying degrees.

Nonetheless, despite jumping the gun by a couple of hours, ultimately I was right.

bjkeefe
11-09-2009, 04:37 PM
Roy Edroso gathers up rightblogger reaction to the Ft. Hood shootings. Intro here (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-voice-column-up-about-rightblogger.html), full column here (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/11/rightbloggers_d_3.php).

Some of it sounds just like what's been posted elsewhere in this thread.

bjkeefe
11-09-2009, 05:16 PM
Roy Edroso gathers up rightblogger reaction to the Ft. Hood shootings. Intro here (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-voice-column-up-about-rightblogger.html), full column here (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/11/rightbloggers_d_3.php).

Some of it sounds just like what's been posted elsewhere in this thread.

Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2009/11/religious-bigotry-not-in-response-to.html) follows up, focusing on one fairly prominent blog, American Power.

Baltimoron
11-09-2009, 05:57 PM
Unfortunately, that still doesn't change our reality, which is that their are extremist Muslims in America and around the world who continue to lash out violently thanks to an extremist ideology or extremist religious views peculiar to the Muslim community.

It's called religious fundamentalism, whatever the sect, be it Christianity or Islam. Both seem to generate their own fair share of nonsense.

popcorn_karate
11-09-2009, 06:01 PM
(2) "At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings ... including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades."


hard to see this as a warning sign, except as a warning that we are living in a surveillance state where making reasonable, and logical comparisons can get you watched by the authorities.

Baltimoron
11-09-2009, 06:04 PM
A member of another board (http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,23970.0.html) offered compassion fatigue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) as a form of PTSD unrelated to direct experience of combat

bjkeefe
11-09-2009, 06:16 PM
Conservative Christian Group Calls for "No More Muslims" In Military

Coverage from Nick Baumann (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/conservative-christian-group-calls-no-more-muslims-military).

(h/t: David Corn via Adam Serwer (http://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/5567292985))

Lyle
11-09-2009, 06:24 PM
Sure and fundimentalist Muslims who go violent or preach violence can be called extremist Muslims.

By the way, how often are Christians highjacking airplanes, blowing up trains, or suicide bombing themselves... especially compared to Muslims?

Lyle
11-09-2009, 06:27 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?_r=1&hp

Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings. But federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages warranted no further action, government officials said on Monday. Major Hasan’s exchanges with the cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Major Hasan worshipped, indicate that the authorities were aware of Major Hasan before last Thursday’s deadly rampage, but did nothing.

popcorn_karate
11-09-2009, 06:27 PM
start by explaining how it isn't the Muslim community's problem to solve?

you never responded to me before. what community is responsible for you, lyle.

is it the "christian" community. the "american" community. the "louisiana" community? the dipshit community?

come on, lets have the conversation.

Lyle
11-09-2009, 06:32 PM
Recent, past news, but new story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6529436/British-spies-help-prevent-al-Qaeda-inspired-attack-on-New-York-subway.html

The plan, which reportedly would have been the biggest attack on America since 9/11, was uncovered after Scotland Yard intercepted an email.

The force alerted the FBI, who launched an operation which led to airport shuttle bus driver Najibullah Zazi, 24, being charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction.

Lyle
11-09-2009, 06:35 PM
I told you (did you not read my response?), the same community that's responsible for you. That would mean the American community.

I don't reside in Louisiana, and I'm not part of any religious community.

What community are you a part of? Are you evangelical Christian? Mormon? KKK?

popcorn_karate
11-09-2009, 06:43 PM
I told you (did you not read my response?), the same community that's responsible for you. So, yes, the American community.


excellent.

and was nidal hasan an american? (yes is the answer)

so shouldn't you be saying that the american community is responsible for him? like its responsible for you?

Lyle
11-09-2009, 07:00 PM
Yeah, he is an American, and his American community is responsible for him as well, and that's why he's going to be prosecuted under Federal law for what he did. Just like you would be if you killed your neighbor for sleeping with your wife.

However, he is also a Muslim American and so the Muslim community is also responsible for him, particularly since that is where his extremism originates.

Lyle
11-09-2009, 07:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_go_ot/us_fort_hood_muslims

A radical American imam on Yemen's most wanted militant list who had contact with two 9/11 hijackers praised alleged Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a hero on his personal Web site Monday.

The posting on the Web site for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the attacks on the Texas military base last week are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.

popcorn_karate
11-09-2009, 08:19 PM
Yeah, he is an American, and his American community is responsible for him as well, and that's why he's going to be prosecuted under Federal law for what he did. Just like you would be if you killed your neighbor for sleeping with your wife.

However, he is also a Muslim American and so the Muslim community is also responsible for him, particularly since that is where his extremism originates.

so a muslim in, say, indonesia is more responsible for him than americans are?

that is your statement?

TwinSwords
11-09-2009, 08:38 PM
so a muslim in, say, indonesia is more responsible for him than americans are?

that is your statement?

Nice line of questions, p_k.

Baltimoron
11-09-2009, 08:39 PM
What this thread needs is a good Venn diagram!

TwinSwords
11-09-2009, 08:41 PM
A member of another board (http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,23970.0.html) offered compassion fatigue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) as a form of PTSD unrelated to direct experience of combat

I heard on the news Sunday that Hasan was counseling a constant parade of horribly disfigured soldiers, including several whose faces appeared "melted," and whose injuries were fresh from combat, everything from missing limbs to missing eyes and jaws and parts of their heads and just every awful thing you can imagine. He's been counseling one after another of these poor victims of Bush, Cheney, and the American voter for years now.

TwinSwords
11-09-2009, 08:44 PM
Roy Edroso gathers up rightblogger reaction to the Ft. Hood shootings. Intro here (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-voice-column-up-about-rightblogger.html), full column here (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/11/rightbloggers_d_3.php).

Some of it sounds just like what's been posted elsewhere in this thread.

Thanks for passing this along.

Baltimoron
11-09-2009, 08:46 PM
I'm freaked and enraged just thinking about the image of "melting" limbs and faces.

TwinSwords
11-09-2009, 08:49 PM
I'm freaked and enraged just thinking about the image of "melting" limbs and faces.

I know it. It's so sad. I can barely stand to watch when the news does one of those occasional stories about horribly disfigured soldiers. I can't imagine sitting in room talking to these poor people, week after week, year after year, trying to help them "readjust to a normal life after combat."

What traumatizes many combat soldiers/marines is exposure to death and gore. I don't think what Army psychiatrists are exposed to could possibly be any less traumatic -- and maybe it's more traumatic, since they are exposed to more of it over a longer period.

kezboard
11-09-2009, 08:54 PM
Extremist Muslims continue to carry out violence in the name of their extreme religious views, however. How is this deniable?

You're putting Nidal Hasan, an American soldier and psychiatrist, in the same bucket with Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, the extremist cleric in Yemen, and basically every other Muslim who's saying or doing crazy stuff right now. I don't think they are. I think their motivations are all over the place. A member of an Islamic fundamentalist group in, say, Gaza is motivated by something different than is a member of an Islamic fundamentalist group in Afghanistan, and an American-born man who expresses Islamic fundamentalist beliefs is motivated by something different again. I think that suggesting, as you have, that they're all coming from the same place is essentially pushing an "America is under attack by Islamofascism" ideology that I think is horse crap.

TwinSwords
11-09-2009, 08:58 PM
Excellent essay, kez.

claymisher
11-09-2009, 09:36 PM
I'm impressed by a lot of the posts here. I wouldn't have imagined that blatant flamebait could inspire so many thoughtful replies.

I'm not going to argue against the "this is just a random act" view because I think it's mostly right, and I'm too lazy to work out how to make a convincing argument either way. But I don't think it's 100% totally random. Iraq probably has something to do with it.

Martin van Creveld on Moshe Dayan in Vietnam:
The third of Dayan’s observations, and the most relevant to a comparison with the current war in Iraq, is that the Americans found themselves in the unfortunate position of beating down the weak. As Dayan wrote, “Any comparison between the two armies was astonishing. On the one hand there was the American army, complete with helicopters, an air force, armor, electronic communications, artillery, and mind-boggling riches; to say nothing of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, and equipment of all kinds. On the other there were the [North Vietnamese troops], who had been walking on foot for four months, carrying some artillery rounds on their backs and using a tin spoon to eat a little ground rice from a tin plate.”

That, of course, was precisely the problem. In private life, an adult who keeps beating down a five-year-old—even one who had originally attacked him with a knife—will be accused of committing a crime; he will lose the support of bystanders and end up being arrested, tried, and convicted. On the world stage, an armed force that keeps beating down a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. ...

In other words, he who fights against the weak—note, in this connection, that the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed—and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins, also loses. To kill a much weaker opponent is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force, however rich, however powerful, however advanced, or however well motivated, is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat; if American troops in Iraq have not yet started fragging their officers, the suicide rate among them is already exceptionally high. http://bostonreview.net/BR30.1/vancreveld.php

Lyle
11-09-2009, 09:43 PM
Nidal Hasan never fought in battle and was never even deployed abroad. So what in God's name are you talking about?

Whatfur
11-09-2009, 09:47 PM
And it is the "horse crap" that you are advocating that created "the wall" in the 90s. Its exactly your kind of thinking that cause people to look the other way when there are obvious warning signs that should have be acted upon. The result...this freak killed and/or maimed 40 some innocent people. I know the military personal cannot sue but there were a couple civilians here and they should sue the government for all they can for ignoring these signs. This is like an airline fudging maintenance reports to keep a faulty plane in the air.

I suggest the book "Willfull Blindness" by Andrew McCarthy to open your eyes or go at least read as much as you can about Steven Coughlin. We should be brainstorming all the possible reasons...not trying to make excuses in the realm of political correctness.

Lyle
11-09-2009, 10:01 PM
Part I.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/national/69500262.html

Danquah assumed the military’s chain of command knew about Hasan’s doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates in a graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.

Part II.

Let us invite some Muslim guy to our event. Yay, we're not racists. Yay.

http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.pdf

Baltimoron
11-10-2009, 12:04 AM
I'm relieved! What has this to do with Hasan? or, are you just throwig anything against the wall that might stick.

Baltimoron
11-10-2009, 12:06 AM
I point out to you that the crime of conspiracy - since you have elected yourself his judge - is very difficult to prove, and that there's no attempt counterpart as with many crimes.

Baltimoron
11-10-2009, 12:29 AM
That's becoming a talking point for you - Hasan not going to war. You can't prove conspiracy, even with the newspaper accounts. There's compassion fatigue, and the effect of 9/11 on a Muslim who has access to radical Muslim literature. Proving intent for most crimes is very hard, too. All you have is coincidence and circumstance.

bjkeefe
11-10-2009, 12:52 AM
A toxic new phrase (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-is-going-to-be-really-really-toxic.html) gains legs in the wingnutosphere.

Whatfur
11-10-2009, 07:12 AM
That's becoming a talking point for you - Hasan not going to war. You can't prove conspiracy, even with the newspaper accounts. There's compassion fatigue, and the effect of 9/11 on a Muslim who has access to radical Muslim literature. Proving intent for most crimes is very hard, too. All you have is coincidence and circumstance.

Proof? Intent? PTSD?
WTF are you talking about? This particular jackass is toast.

How we use the information that surrounded his situation may save lives in the future. Listening to you I think I am coming down with a case of "compassion fatigue". Hasan is lucky to have so many mommys.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 08:05 AM
It has nothing to do with Hasan, but it has a lot to do with Muslim extremists. And this isn't mud being thrown around, but truth. You act like I"m making this stuff up.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 08:09 AM
Conspiracy? Who has mentioned the crime of conspiracy? The article simply addresses the fact that this Yemeni imam has spoken up in Hasan's defense. Perhaps he knew Hasan and Hasan likely has hear him preach before, but that is not a conspiracy, but just religious and ideological support. The imam would have had to have acted along with Hasan to some degree for it to have been a conspiracy, like forwarding him money to buy the guns or something. There is no evidence of such.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 08:14 AM
Who is trying to prove a conspiracy? Where do I say there is conspiracy? I have accused no one of any kind of conspiracy. I just keep posting news reports coming out about him that further prove Hasan is a extremist Muslim.

And claymisher's post talks about soldiers who have actually experience being deployed and fighting the so-called weak. Hasan had yet to ever raise a hand against the so-called weak. His post doesn't comport with Hasan's history at all.

Baltimoron
11-10-2009, 08:58 AM
No, you're not making it up. You're not doing anything that Senator Joe Lieberman hasn't done. But, Marc Lynch dares you to up your game (http://radicalcontra.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/acts-worse-than-terrorism/)!

Lyle
11-10-2009, 09:18 AM
Gen. Casey isn't wrong to hope that our military's Muslim soldiers do not lose the respect and love of their colleagues. Conversely though, it makes situations like Maj. Hasan all the more possible where people don't want to be seen as racist or bigoted for calling out a Muslim colleagues extremism, if they were in fact extremists. It's a catch 22 of sorts.

That doesn't change the fact that there are extremist Muslims in this world and they believe in killing the infidel, and they do in fact act on their beliefs from time to time, either alone or with help. There's nothing wrong in talking about this and being totally honest about it. How else is it going to eventually pass on but through acknowleging people do these things?

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 12:19 PM
... there are extremist Muslims in this world and they believe in killing the infidel, and they do in fact act on their beliefs from time to time, either alone or with help.
Lyle,
Of the people with whom you have been debating in this thread, what percent do you think would disagree with the statement above? Or, if you prefer, can you name the names of the people in this thread who you think would disagree with your statement above?



There's nothing wrong in talking about this and being totally honest about it.
Again: What percentage of the people who've commented in this thread do you suppose disagree with the statement above? Do you think there is anyone here who does not agree that we should be "totally honest about" Islamic extremism?


What you've done in these two quotes is you've constructed a couple of straw men, pretending that it's only you and your ultraconservative friends who are courageous or wise enough to recognize the existence of Islamic extremism and have a willingness to discuss it. So, what I'd like to know from you is whether you (a) admit to having constructed these straw men, or (b) if you really believe that there are people in this forum who don't think Islamic extremism exists and that we should talk about it honestly.

What you're doing is you're running away from your original sweeping indictment of all Muslims by pretending we're discussing something else, e.g., the existence of Islamic extremism.

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 12:26 PM
just keep posting news reports coming out about him that further prove Hasan is a extremist Muslim.
As if that will exonerate you? If I start by saying blacks are stupid and lazy, and then latter post links that show one particular black person is stupid and lazy, would those links exonerate me of my original sweeping indictment?

I would like to say "no," but apparently there are people who fall for that kind of bullshit.



And claymisher's post talks about soldiers who have actually experience being deployed and fighting the so-called weak. Hasan had yet to ever raise a hand against the so-called weak. His post doesn't comport with Hasan's history at all.
You should read it again. You totally missed the point of the article.

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 12:33 PM
A toxic new phrase (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-is-going-to-be-really-really-toxic.html) gains legs in the wingnutosphere.

Disgusting.

This will be like "illegal alien." Wingnuts, lunatics, and Republicans use "illegal alien" precisely because they know how much it irritates liberals. As soon as they hear a liberal object, they make a mental note: "Use that term more often!"

It will be the same with "going Muslim," I'm afraid.* The more we react against it, the more it will encourage wingnuts to use it.



*Maybe not, though, since it's so clearly an indefensible form of bigotry; hopefully some decency will prevail. It would take a lot of nerve to use "going Muslim," especially when we're supposed to be building a lasting partnership with the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The virulent hatred for Muslims among base conservatives does not mesh very well with the geopolitical ambitions of the neoconservatives.

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Let us invite some Muslim guy to our event. Yay, we're not racists. Yay.

http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.pdf

Lyle,
Can you explain what you mean by "Let us invite some Muslim guy to our event." Are you suggesting they didn't really want him there, and only invited him because they needed a Muslim?

And what do you mean with your mocking "Yay, we're not racists. Yay."? Are you trying to imply that they only reason this group would have invited Hasan was to feel good about themselves? To prove to themselves how nice and liberal and tolerant they are?

Lyle
11-10-2009, 12:46 PM
You're the guy with the strawman, not me. I didn't indict all Muslims. The title can be read more than one way, and the way I wrote it refers to the multiple attacks by Muslims on U.S. soldiers (two within the past 12 months). I further let this be known in the thread itself. Have you not been reading my posts?

... and with regards to the rest of your post, I don't care. People have gone out of their way to refute this guy's extremism and that that could possibly be a cause of his actions. If they recognize that extremist Muslims can be violent and that extremists make up a part of the Muslim community, than they should actually say that, instead of arguing otherwise.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 12:52 PM
Yeah, that's definitely why he was invited... to have a succesful Muslim-American from the military there. He would add perspective and diversity. And perhaps address the security concerns of the Muslim-American community.

Its not the institute's fault for not knowing he was an extremist. He was a major in the military (captain at least), so who would have thought otherwise?

Somebody, somewhere dropped the ball though on Maj, Hasan and didn't yell "extremist Muslim" loud enough.

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 12:54 PM
I didn't indict all Muslims.
Sure you did. You said in your first post, "Come on Religion of Peace, get your act together," which places the blame on the religion. And since the religion does not and cannot exist separate from its followers, you placed the blame for the actions of one person at Fort Hood squarely on the shoulders of all Muslims. You further reinforced this later when you said that all Muslims should feel shame for Hasan's actions. Elsewhere, you have repeatedly stated that it is the entire Muslim community that is responsible for the existence of extremists like Hasan, in keeping with a longstanding approach taken by conservatives to generalize blame from individuals to the entire Islamic community.

You know all of this, I know all of it, and so does everyone reading here. Your denials only serve to further undermine your credibility. I will note something else everyone is aware of: your special fixation with anything that can be used to show blacks or Muslims in a bad light. As a white boy from the 3rd most racist state in the union, as a white Republican who has proclaimed your belief that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, I must say it's awful generous of you to take such a special interest in the lower races to help them improve their lot in life.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-10-2009, 12:54 PM
If they recognize that extremist Muslims can be violent and that extremists make up a part of the Muslim community, than they should actually say that, instead of arguing otherwise.

This is where the posters on this thread break with you, Lyle. We assume that intelligent people know the above, and therefore that it is unnecessarily inflammatory to simply state it for its own sake. To state a religious generalization for its own sake is the definition of prejudice.

If you have something more constructive to say, like showing that the religion of the suspect was key in this particular case, or an argument to make about what we should DO about Islamic extremism, then obviously you might need to make the above statement in the process of making those broader arguments.

But what you appear to be doing on this thread is simply stating the above and then being unwilling to engage with substantive critiques of the relevance of the above fact to this particular case. Instead, you suggest that any such critique is an invalidation/denial of the above fact, when, as Twin is trying to point out to you, we mean no such thing.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 12:59 PM
No, I haven't blamed all Muslims for the Ft. Hood massacre. Do I think the Muslim community is responsible for making sure extremist Muslim ideology goes away, yes, but are all Muslims responsible for the Ft. Hood murder, no. Should we treat Muslims like they are all responsible? No. Should we be dissapointed in the Muslim community that these guys are still finding ideological and religious succor in certain mosques? Yes.

Not too difficult to understand.

AemJeff
11-10-2009, 01:00 PM
Sure you did. You said in your first post, "Come on Religion of Peace, get your act together," which places the blame on the religion. And since the religion does not and cannot exist separate from its followers, you placed the blame for the actions of one person at Fort Hood squarely on the shoulders of all Muslims. You further reinforced this later when you said that all Muslims should feel shame for Hasan's actions. Elsewhere, you have repeatedly stated that it is the entire Muslim community that is responsible for the existence of extremists like Hasan, in keeping with a longstanding approach taken by conservatives to generalize blame from individuals to the entire Islamic community.

You know all of this, I know all of it, and so does everyone reading here. Your denials only serve to further undermine your credibility. I will note something else everyone is aware of: your special fixation with anything that can be used to show blacks or Muslims in a bad light. As a white boy from the 3rd most racist state in the union, as a white Republican who has proclaimed your belief that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, I must say it's awful generous of you to take such a special interest in the lower races to help them improve their lot in life.

It seems pretty evident, to me at any rate, that regardless of what he knows, or doesn't - as long as it serves as a source of attention getting he'll happily say black is white as often as anybody wants to point out that black is, in fact, black. It's hard to argue with someone if their motives have to do with something other than the content of the debate.

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 01:04 PM
Yeah, that's definitely why he was invited...
Just to confirm your answer, because after saying "yeah, ... definitely," above, you got off on a bunch of other stuff that wasn't directly responsive to my questions. (Which is perfectly okay, however I'm still wondering about your answer to the question.)

So - to confirm, when you say "yeah definitely" in reference to the following statements ....

— The people holding the event at GWU didn't really want Hasan there, and only invited him because they needed a Muslim.

— The only reason this group invited Hasan was to feel good about themselves and show how nice and liberal and tolerant they are.

... was it your intent to express your agreement with both of those statements? I only ask because they seem like the only clear interpretation of your initial mocking statement, "Let us invite some Muslim guy to our event. Yay, we're not racists. Yay."

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 01:10 PM
No, I haven't blamed all Muslims for the Ft. Hood massacre.

Then what did you mean when you said "religion of peace," (mocking the notion that Islam is a religion of peace, as conservatives love to do), "get your act together," which is a flat and unambiguous claim that Islam's act is "not together," as proven by the event at Fort Hood.

What did you mean by saying that all Muslims bear shame because of Fort Hood?

You can lie about it now, Lyle, but you can't escape the plain meaning of your own words.



Should we be dissapointed in the Muslim community that these guys are still finding ideological and religious succor in certain mosques? Yes.
Bingo! You just did it again.



Not too difficult to understand.
Yes, that's what I've been telling you all along. The meaning of your words is plain.

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 01:12 PM
It seems pretty evident, to me at any rate, that regardless of what he knows, or doesn't - as long as it serves as a source of attention getting he'll happily say black is white as often as anybody wants to point out that black is, in fact, black. It's hard to argue with someone if their motives have to do with something other than the content of the debate.

LOL! So true. Except, it's not just mindless contrarianism; it's contrarianism that elevates the white race over blacks or Muslims. (I can't recall, offhand, any other groups that come in for sweeping indictment from Lyle.)

But, I take your point. Hey, it's my lunch hour. I have some time to kill and it's this or computer Solitare. ;-D

Lyle
11-10-2009, 01:13 PM
Preppy, you're too kind to some of the commenters here. You can't take for granted that some of these people are intelligent enough to understand that comment.

What of substance would you like to talk about? I mean I have been talking substance or linking substance. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say I haven't been. You and I had a thoughtful exchange, did we not?

As far as solutions, you probably know better than me because I'm not a Muslim or have Muslim family (not sure if you are a practicing Muslim or of some other religion, or a nonbeliever). The same problem that existed on 9/11 still exists to some degree within the Islamic community: that of it being okay to kill innocents because of a belligerent reading of the Koran. Lots of imams preach this Islam still. How are Muslims to reform their community and their religion? I do not know. It's up to them to pick a course and go for it. Perhaps it will be a violent road, much like the Christian Reformation was. However, I'm not going to be blind to what is going on and that Islam is not yet reformed or modernized (whatever you want to call it). As long as it is going on and events like the Ft. Hood massacre happen, I'm going to call it what it is and properly label the participants.

Bobby G
11-10-2009, 01:24 PM
This is where the posters on this thread break with you, Lyle. We assume that intelligent people know the above, and therefore that it is unnecessarily inflammatory to simply state it for its own sake. To state a religious generalization for its own sake is the definition of prejudice.

Preppy, there was this exchange between me and nikkibong above.

I wrote, "I think that it *might* have been fair to write, 'Man kills US soldiers, probably because of his Islamic religious beliefs'."

In response to this, nikkibong said, "Bobby G, I think it's still too strong to say that Hasan killed BECAUSE of his religious beliefs.

"He killed BECAUSE he is a deeply disturbed individual.

"His religious bliefs may have been a contributing factor (or at least a way for him to channel his deeply agressive, disturbing behavior), but, at the center, the killings are are a result of Hasan's particular pathologies."

Against this, I said, "I don't know that we can say that he killed because he was a deeply disturbed individual. Do you think, for example, that all members of Al Queda who kill people kill because they are deeply disturbed individuals?

"More interestingly, do you think anyone ever kills because of his Christian, Islamic, or Jewish religious beliefs?"

Nikkibong's response was, "You are asking a very difficult and complex question, but it seems to me that religious faith is seldom the only (or main) reason for mass violence. People who engage in mass murder are - definitionally, I would argue -deeply disturbed, for reasons that extend far beyond their particular religious dogma. In Arab societies, for example, the propensity for 'religiously' inspired violence seems more a result of poverty, repression, misogony, and deeply entrenched conservatism. (Which I take to be intertwined with, but not a result of, Islam.) It seems that to me that violence that appears at least to be superficially a result of 'religious' belief is actually about something else. Religion is a mask."

I think, then, that Lyle's constant reminders could, arguably, be seen in this light: no matter the circumstances, when a Muslim kills someone, his killing can never be explained as a result of his having a defensible interpretation of his religion, and his carrying out what he thinks his religion says. That is, it seems that people are operating with the following beliefs:

(1) Islam, when properly interpreted, almost never councils violence, and when it does council violence, it does so for largely defensible reasons.
(2) People who kill supposedly in the name of Islam aren't really killing in the name of Islam--they are killing because of their economic circumstances, or because of their personality defects, or because their cause is just.

I myself don't know enough about Islam to say that (1) is true. Similarly, while (2) could be true, it could also be that certain personality types are drawn to Islam precisely because it meshes with how they think the world should be. I just don't know enough to reach any conclusion on the matter.

However, I should say I am somewhat suspicious of the conservative take on Islam, just because I'm used to atheists telling me how to properly interpret Christianity and finding their interpretations to be significantly less than ideal. That said, I have no brief for Islam or religion in general, and as I've said before, I see little reason to think that all religions would recommend the same behavior. So I wouldn't be surprised if Islam turned out to encourage significantly more violence than other religions.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 01:34 PM
— The people holding the event at GWU didn't really want Hasan there, and only invited him because they needed a Muslim.

No, of course they wanted him there and they wanted him there because he was a succesful Muslim in the U.S. military.


— The only reason this group invited Hasan was to feel good about themselves and show how nice and liberal and tolerant they are.

No, I don't think that was the only reason. I imagine that is how some of the participants and organizers probably felt, but someone needed to represent the Muslim community, they just unfortunately invited Maj. Hasan.

... was it your intent to express your agreement with both of those statements? I only ask because they seem like the only clear interpretation of your initial mocking statement, "Let us invite some Muslim guy to our event. Yay, we're not racists. Yay."

I think a lot of people, left and right, don't truly care about ethnic or religious minorities, and only include them in whatever they're doing for superficial reasons.

The point of posting about this program is not to really fault the program or the policy institute (although I mock the attitude some of the organizers probably had, which was the "we need Muslims and any will do" attitude. They didn't know who the guy was. No one from the military said, "hey, he's an extremist Muslim... don't invite him to this. Go get someone else." They're not to blame for having an extremist Muslim participate in a Homeland Security program. Someone though, throughout Maj. Hasan's career, was afraid to speak up about him or too afraid to do anything about his being in the military and being an extremist Muslim. The point is to show how out of hand it had gotten and how blase we've gotten about extremist Muslims.

It's akin to a Black Panther being asked to attend something similar back in the 60's or 70's simply because they're black.

AemJeff
11-10-2009, 01:37 PM
...

Hey, it's my lunch hour. I have some time to kill and it's this or computer Solitare. ;-D

Heh!

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-10-2009, 01:39 PM
Preppy, you're too kind to some of the commenters here. You can't take for granted that some of these people are intelligent enough to understand that comment.

I'm arguing that civilized discourse requires you to assume people know that, unless someone says otherwise.

What of substance would you like to talk about? I mean I have been talking substance or linking substance. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say I haven't been. You and I had a thoughtful exchange, did we not?

We did, about the question of political correctness and what constitutes biased speech. Not, as I recall, about the substance of Islamic extremism, because, as I said in that exchange, I didn't think at the time based on what we knew that it was relevant to the case, or appropriate to speculate about factors whose relevancy we could not prove.

As far as solutions, you probably know better than me because I'm not a Muslim or have Muslim family (not sure if you are a practicing Muslim or of some other religion, or a nonbeliever). The same problem that existed on 9/11 still exists to some degree within the Islamic community: that of it being okay to kill innocents because of a belligerent reading of the Koran. Lots of imams preach this Islam still. How are Muslims to reform their community and their religion? I do not know. It's up to them to pick a course and go for it. Perhaps it will be a violent road, much like the Christian Reformation was. However, I'm not going to be blind to what is going on and that Islam is not yet reformed or modernized (whatever you want to call it). As long as it is going on and events like the Ft. Hood massacre happen, I'm going to call it what it is and properly label the participants.

I was raised semi-religiously but am non-practicing.

Reform inside Islam could never follow the path of reform inside Christianity--there won't be formal reform of the faith or formal rejection of extremist doctrine. Islam has no central authority in the way that Christianity had at the time when various groups of Protestants broke off. So there are hundreds of forms and versions of Islam already being practiced, and the religion was to some degree established with that structure. There's no way for liberal Muslims to banish extremists because there is no official Islam to banish them from. That's why most liberal Muslims find it offensive when they are asked to account for or disown extremist Muslims.

I believe the nature and structure of Islam is such that to deal with this problem you have to deal with it outside the faith--you have to deal with the material conditions that give rise to violence, and through the legal system, with the perpetrators of violence, and have confidence that the ideas will conform to changes in material circumstance. In other words, as those material conditions change, the extremist forms of Islam will die out.

However, my point about this thread is that it would have been fine for you to address a note to me saying, "Hey Maha, do you have any thoughts on the problem of Islamic extremism?" That is not the same thing as responding to a specific incident where, at the time of your response, there was no evidence of extremism as a factor, with "Hey, Religion of Peace, this is your problem to solve." Because in the latter statement, you are making a generalization about Islam and Muslims; in the former statement, you are asking a question about Islam and Muslims. The latter is prejudical; the former is controversial but earnest.

Moreover, we on this board are arguing that since many of us don't see religious extremism as the prime factor in this case, we should not need to pass a litmus test of saying "yes, we know there is such a thing as Islamic extremism" before having a discussion about entirely separate subjects--like compassion fatigue--that we believe to be relevant to this case.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 01:44 PM
Where do I say all Muslims bear blame or should be shamed? I never wrote such.

Look, you obviously don't understand that extremists Muslims are Muslims and therefore a part of the Muslim community. If an extremist Muslim commits a violent act in the name of Islam the Muslim community is responsible, not for the act, but for doing something about the extremism that caused the act. Do you get that now?

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-10-2009, 01:53 PM
Thanks, Bobby. I'm inclined to think that all religions do counsel different things, but that religions in general are sufficiently vague that any religion can be manipulated to counsel violence if that is the intention or mindset of an individual or group. So like Nikkibong, I'm inclined to think Islam is a contributing factor, but not the prime factor in what we refer to as Islamic extremism. Moreover, I'm inclined to think that unless we can prove how Islam played a role in a particular incidence of violence, our discourse should center on the other prime factors Nikki lays out and leave religion off the table until we have something constructive to say about its role.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-10-2009, 01:54 PM
If an extremist Muslim commits a violent act in the name of Islam the Muslim community is responsible, not for the act, but for doing something about the extremism that caused the act. Do you get that now?

We understand that statement, Lyle, but we disagree with it. Do you get that?

Lyle
11-10-2009, 02:30 PM
I can't believe you really think "compassion fatigue" is relevant (how often do people with it start shooting people?). But if you do, I guess that makes my speculation on him being an extremist Muslim just as apt. No? Cause "compassion fatigue" is pure speculation... although, my speculation (okay, I didn't speculate, I pronounced) lasted about 2 hours before it was confirmed.

I also never assumed you were ignorant of extremist Muslims. You never wrote anything that suggested such, others have though. I mean, if all people are going to do is try and argue for anything, but his religious views, they don't arguably appreciate Muslim extremism for what it is. So I wasn't talking about you when I made that particular comment about people acknowledging Muslim extremism.

As I told you before it was inappropriate to jump the gun on Maj. Hasan's religion. I was like a journalist rushing to the punch before having all the facts in even though the facts strongly suggested I'd be right. I mean the first time I heard about the massacre, saw his name, and saw reports suggesting he converted to Islam... I thought, huh, I bet that guy is a extremist Muslim. Prejudice to think that? I don't really think so in light of the world we live in today.

... about a solution. Of course the reformation, modernization, if it comes, won't go down like the Christian Reformation. Like you said, Islam is just different. I meant to speak broadly of whatever the change will be and that the Christian reformation is really the only example of a similar kind of religion having gone through a process where it seemingly got over the rhetoric of killing all nonbelievers. Now the most extreme Christianity is is that the nonbelievers will all just go to hell (of course individuals still act out from time murdering abortion doctors). In fact many of these kind of Christians have been labeled Christianists, as in to compare them with Islamists, as you know.

Also what do you mean by material conditions? The conditions of despotism? Ignorance? Poverty? I definitely think the lack of democracy and strong economies plays a large role in putting a lot of young Muslim men on a path towards nihilism (a path on which they're usually guided by a imam though). Even though a lot of Saudis are rich, they don't work, as you know, at all for their wealth. The state gives them their wealth due to oil revenues. Literally, others are brought in to do whatever work needs to be done in the Gulf states. This leads a lot of young men to seek fulfilment of their time in other ways, and one path is the extremist Muslim path.

So I don't mean to say that I've been arguing that it is only about religion. It isn't, but religion is fundimental to the problem along with the lack of employment, poverty or whatever else.

... and for moderate Muslims who don't like to feel burdened by their fundimentalist brethren, well that's their burden. Just like Christians have to defend their own faith when it comes under attack from the actions of evangelicals, Mormons, pedophile priests or whomever from the Christian community. To them I say: tough.

kezboard
11-10-2009, 02:59 PM
And it is the "horse crap" that you are advocating that created "the wall" in the 90s.

In the 90s? Which wall?

I don't need my eyes opened, Whatfur. I understand what people like Stephen Coughlin have been saying. Had you actually read what I wrote, you'd know that I'm not trying to make excuses in the name of "political correctness" -- why would I want to excuse militant religious nuts for anything? I just think that Stephen Coughlin is wrong. I'm not a Pentagon analyst or anything, but as far as I know, neither are you.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 03:10 PM
Nidal Hasan does come from the same bucket (broadly being similar to). I think that is pretty evident now. He tried to contact al Qaeda. He was a big fan of this extremist Yemeni cleric. He espoused extremist rhetoric online. He is a straight up extremist Muslim, from what I can tell.

And about "coming from the same place" (being specifically like such in such actors). I've never argued such. Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah aren't all the same. Like you say, they all have different rationals for their killing... but, they all are linked to Islam, even if one guy's rational is poverty, Israel, or whatever. They all have some imam preaching to them kill, kill, kill. Right?

Lyle
11-10-2009, 03:24 PM
Was that comment directed towards you Preppy? I don't think so.

Starwatcher162536
11-10-2009, 04:35 PM
Lyle, if Islam were to not exist, do you believe the Fort Hood incident would have been less likely to happen?

I myself do not believe it would be have been less likely, as I am not the type to blame the world's ills on peoples religiosity. There will always be crazy people in the world, and those people will always find some ideology to distort to justify their madness.

So if you believe Islam is to blame for Fort Hood, I hope you also believe that Christianity is to blame many times a christian does some evil act.

Starwatcher162536
11-10-2009, 04:40 PM
I have noticed that many are blaming political correctness as one of the causes for Fort Hood.

I have to admit I find it funny that so many are blaming political correctness as the reason the army is so tolerant of such extreme views, without even mentioning that with the current state of the world, the army is most likely extremely hard up for recruits, and would be facing manpower shortages as a result.

Nope, nothing to see here folks, must be those damn liberals fault.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 04:52 PM
Yes, I think the Ft. Hood incident would be less likely to have happened if Islam didn't exist.

Of course Christianity has a violent past and some adherents still commit acts in the name of God, notably the latest abortion doctor murderer. Who denys this? I even already said as much in this thread... which you should read perhaps. Many people refer to the abortion doctor murderer as a Christianist in fact... to compare him to Islamists or extremist Muslims.

That Christians have been violent and continue to be violent in some regards has nothing to do with extremist Muslims though. Extremist Muslims are a separate problem to be dealt with, and as far as I'm concerned, in our lifetime, are a much greater problem than violent Christians. I mean how many Christians go around blowing up trains or highjacking planes in the name of Jesus Christ these days? No too many.

stephanie
11-10-2009, 04:55 PM
You're the guy with the strawman, not me. I didn't indict all Muslims. The title can be read more than one way, and the way I wrote it refers to the multiple attacks by Muslims on U.S. soldiers (two within the past 12 months). I further let this be known in the thread itself. Have you not been reading my posts?


I suspect the reason people are seeing your efforts to explain away the title in this thread as disingenuous rather than meaningful is, in fact, that the title cannot be read in the way you are now claiming you intended it.

"Muslims" did not kill anyone at Ft Hood unless there were people involved about whom there have been no reports. Thus, the title either implies that Muslims as a group are responsible (as people were initially reading it and as other of your comments have suggested, even though you keep backing down from saying that directly) or that Hasan was part of a Muslim conspiracy of some sort (the army under attack by Islamofascists thing, as I guess the suggestion that you found meaning in the 9/11 mosque connection would support).

As much as you argue that you just meant that other Muslims had killed other US soldiers, that's not what you said and not a proper way under the rules and usage of the English language to interpret your title. To say that, you simply would have said something like "another Muslim kills US soldiers" or "Muslim kills US soldiers again." The "another" or "again" says what you claim to have been going for, making Muslim plural refers only to the current attack in the sentence as it reads. Thus, the response.

You have a habit of this kind of approach, saying something and then denying you said it or trying to change the terms of the discussion. You say that your concern is that people here supposedly dispute that there are extremist Muslims or some such -- why not ask the question or make that claim directly? I find it quite implausible, but maybe I'm wrong.

You also say that extremist Muslims are something you want Muslims generally to feel guilty about and take responsibility for, and that might be interesting to explore, as I'm not sure why or what you mean, stated so broadly. Probably we simply disagree in a way on which no common ground is possible, but I do find the line of discussion which kezboard, especially, has started interesting.

I can say that as a Christian, I certainly feel resistant to the idea that because someone else has a nutty (and to my mind complete incorrect) understanding of Christianity, that that is somehow my fault. I used to post at a site where such claims were made at times, and I always argued against them. Why would some moderate Muslim feminist, for example, be any more responsible for the actions of this shooter, let alone the Taliban's actions, than I would for some abuse committed by a self-identified Christian in, say, Africa, or than I do for Dr. Tiller's shooter?

Lyle
11-10-2009, 04:57 PM
What exactly are you talking about? There are only like 3,000 - 4,000 Muslim personnel in the U.S. armed forces. Most of them aren't even extremists. So how would denying a handful of people entry into the military make the military more hard up than it already is?

And if Obama would only allow gays in the military the handful of extremist Muslims dropped would not be missed.

claymisher
11-10-2009, 06:01 PM
TAMPA, Fla. — A Marine reservist was charged with attacking a Greek Orthodox priest he said he thought was a terrorist.

Jasen D. Bruce allegedly hit 29-year-old Alexios Marakis over the head with a tire iron and chased him for three blocks Monday evening before Tampa police officers intervened.

Marakis, a Greek Orthodox priest visiting from Crete, told police he had stopped to ask the 28-year-old reservist for help after getting lost in downtown Tampa. He had just performed a blessing of another priest and accidentally got off the highway.

Marakis approached Bruce as he was unloading his dry-cleaning, police said.

"Please, please help," Marakis said to Bruce in his limited English.

Bruce pulled out a tire iron and attacked the priest, police said. He then called 911 as he chased Marakis, saying an Arab man was trying to rob him. When officers arrived, Bruce told them the man was a terrorist.

Bruce also told police he heard Marakis yell, "Allahu akbar!" – Arabic for "God is great," according to Tampa police spokeswoman Laura McElroy.

Marakis, however, does not speak Arabic, McElroy said. He speaks Greek.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091110/us-priest-attacked/

I'm too lazy to make up a joke about this, so have at it guys.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 06:08 PM
Yeah, there's going to be some blow back or retaliation as they say. Extremist Muslims love that particular rational themselves. It doesn't make it right though and asinine acts like these must be decried. We must take responsibility for our community.

This reminds me of the poor Sikh fellow who was murdered the day after 9/11 or maybe even on 9/11 because someone thought he was Muslim. A truly awful event and we have to speak out against such nonsense.

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 06:08 PM
I suspect the reason people are seeing your efforts to explain away the title in this thread as disingenuous rather than meaningful is, in fact, that the title cannot be read in the way you are now claiming you intended it.

"Muslims" did not kill anyone at Ft Hood unless there were people involved about whom there have been no reports. Thus, the title either implies that Muslims as a group are responsible (as people were initially reading it and as other of your comments have suggested, even though you keep backing down from saying that directly) or that Hasan was part of a Muslim conspiracy of some sort (the army under attack by Islamofascists thing, as I guess the suggestion that you found meaning in the 9/11 mosque connection would support).

As much as you argue that you just meant that other Muslims had killed other US soldiers, that's not what you said and not a proper way under the rules and usage of the English language to interpret your title. To say that, you simply would have said something like "another Muslim kills US soldiers" or "Muslim kills US soldiers again." The "another" or "again" says what you claim to have been going for, making Muslim plural refers only to the current attack in the sentence as it reads. Thus, the response.

You have a habit of this kind of approach, saying something and then denying you said it or trying to change the terms of the discussion. You say that your concern is that people here supposedly dispute that there are extremist Muslims or some such -- why not ask the question or make that claim directly? I find it quite implausible, but maybe I'm wrong.

You also say that extremist Muslims are something you want Muslims generally to feel guilty about and take responsibility for, and that might be interesting to explore, as I'm not sure why or what you mean, stated so broadly. Probably we simply disagree in a way on which no common ground is possible, but I do find the line of discussion which kezboard, especially, has started interesting.

I can say that as a Christian, I certainly feel resistant to the idea that because someone else has a nutty (and to my mind complete incorrect) understanding of Christianity, that that is somehow my fault. I used to post at a site where such claims were made at times, and I always argued against them. Why would some moderate Muslim feminist, for example, be any more responsible for the actions of this shooter, let alone the Taliban's actions, than I would for some abuse committed by a self-identified Christian in, say, Africa, or than I do for Dr. Tiller's shooter?

Outstanding post. (Along with several by Preppy, too.)

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 06:32 PM
I mean how many Christians go around blowing up trains or highjacking planes in the name of Jesus Christ these days? No too many.
And how many Muslims do these things? Not too many. If you discount the incidents happening in war zones (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, the occupied territories), there are a vanishingly small number of incidents. The incidents in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the occupied territories can be understood in the context of the wars happening in those places and are no more caused by Islam than the US or Israeli actions in those places are caused by Christianity or Judaism. Furthermore, many of the incidents that happen elsewhere in the world can be understood in terms that have nothing to do with Islam specifically, but rather with the geopolitical concerns of various militant groups, e.g., al Qaeda.

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 06:36 PM
Yes, I think the Ft. Hood incident would be less likely to have happened if Islam didn't exist.
As long as we're getting all theoretical here, do you think the Fort Hood incident would have happened if the US had not been at war for the last several years in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you think those conflicts were in any way contributing factors to the madness that drove Major Hasan to his murderous rampage?

Lyle
11-10-2009, 06:38 PM
First off, who says you should take the blame for Dr. Tiller's murder if you're a Christian? I haven't argued this. As a Christian do you have a responsibility to speak against or disagree with his murder? I think you do. That's not the same thing as feeling like you were responsible for the murder. The same holds for the Muslim community and the Ft. Hood massacre. And just like Christian leaders spoke out against Dr. Tiller's murder, Muslim leaders have spoken out against the Ft. Hood massacre.

Second, where are you getting islamofascism from? Where have I argued this? I posted links to news stories that show he tried to contact al Qaeda. They were posted to further buttress my claim that he is an extremist Muslim. I've never called him an Islamofascist. That is kezboard's word if I'm not mistake, and I've not used it. Please take note... although you probably need to go back and read through the entire thread though.

Lastly, perhaps my English is improper. You're the first one to suggest this though. More important, to me, is what I meant and that was that another Muslim (since extremist Muslims are Muslim) murdered U.S. soldiers, notably in Arkansas and Kuwait.

Just to be fair and for the sake of specificity, I'll change the title of the thread.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 07:03 PM
Why are you bringing up events I wasn't talking about? I said blowing up trains and highjacking airplanes. What do trains and planes have to do with Iraq or Afghanistan?

Name equivalent acts that Christians have carried out in the last few decades that mirror the 1993 WTC bombing, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, 9/11, that resort in Indonesia, Madrid, and London. What have Christian extremists done in your lifetime that is comparable to all that?

Suicide bombers yes, but they mostly aim these attacks against fellow Muslims and not U.S. or allied soldiers. Still nothing comparable in modern Christian extremism. I mean why aren't Chinese Christians blowing up people in China to express their outrage at being oppressed in China?

Lyle
11-10-2009, 07:15 PM
Of course it could have happened without us being at war in Iraq or Afghanistan, just like the first WTC bombing, Kenya, Tanzania, the USS Cole, and 9/11 happened without us needing to be in Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't doubt in Hasan's particular case they were though, but extremist Muslims didn't need us to actually be at war with them for them to lash out violently before.

kezboard
11-10-2009, 07:16 PM
Nidal Hasan does come from the same bucket (broadly being similar to). I think that is pretty evident now. He tried to contact al Qaeda. He was a big fan of this extremist Yemeni cleric. He espoused extremist rhetoric online. He is a straight up extremist Muslim, from what I can tell.

Listen, what I'm trying to say is that I just don't think he was convinced to kill anyone by al Qaeda, and that I don't think there's a lot of evidence that al Qaeda is convincing American Muslims to do much of anything. I think there are people who have been convinced to kill others by al Qaeda, or Hamas, or whoever, and that's obviously a problem. But the guy doesn't seem to have been part of a larger movement. To take another Western example, he's not like the British-born guys who blew up the London tube in 2005; this incident doesn't seem to be the work of a network of terrorists. Whether or not he was inspired by some imam is relevant, but it seems wrong to me to say "The 9/11 hijackers listened to radical imams; Nidal Hasan listened to radical imams; therefore 9/11 and Fort Hood are pretty much the same thing".

Lyle
11-10-2009, 07:17 PM
By the way, do you believe Maj. Hasan's action were justified or understandable in light of his country being at war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

kezboard
11-10-2009, 07:23 PM
I'm pretty sure Starwatcher was not saying "The military really needs extremist Muslims!" I think he* meant that while conservatives from here to Timbuktu are saying that the reason the army didn't kick out Hasan for being so obviously a Muslim extremist is because they didn't want to be politically incorrect, it's probably more likely that they either didn't notice or didn't pay too much attention to the stuff he was saying because the army is under so much pressure.

*I think you're a he, right? If you're not, I'm sorry

Lyle
11-10-2009, 07:37 PM
Yeah, I'm a Chippendale kezboard. The ladies love me. So if you ever forget what sex I am... just think Chippendale. :)

I know what Starwatcher meant, but I went with what he wrote. Kind of like how people have been responding to me apparently. I definitely didn't think he was saying the military needed more extremist Muslims though. I think he meant to suggest the military might not have let him go because they simply need whoever they can get. And that is perhaps the case, although one or two guys likely wouldn't be missed (which was my point).

stephanie
11-10-2009, 07:39 PM
First off, who says you should take the blame for Dr. Tiller's murder if you're a Christian? I haven't argued this.

Well, that's what your "the community is responsible" seems to suggest to me. In fact, I don't see the Dr. Tiller shooter as part of any community I'm in, really, and to the extent he is, I think "Christian" is far too broad (and same with the Muslims are responsible stuff), but setting that aside for now, I think you have to be aware of what claiming that the community is responsible suggests to people, and that's that they are to blame for the acts in question, in your accusation.

(And in fact I have had people say that directly. I thought it was wrong, as mentioned, and intended really to express dislike of Christians. While the latter doesn't really concern me in the US, I do think it's more of a concern when not directed at a majority group.)

As a Christian do you have a responsibility to speak against or disagree with his murder? I think you do.

I think I do as a human. I also think I do as someone who is to some degree sympathetic to anti-abortion arguments. But as a Christian? That seems way too broad to me, basically like saying someone does as an American or a guy or as a member of whatever ethnicity he was or someone from the same city. I mean, lots of Christian denominations are officially pro-choice, why would they bear some responsibility? Lots of Christians (most non-extremists, I'd imagine) aren't considered real Christians by the extremists -- are they somehow responsible for how those who seek to define Christianity in their own way define it? And I certainly feel at least more embarassed, at least, by what people of my specific Christian sect do (which gives me more than enough to contend with, trust me) than what someone of an entirely different group does, and even within that group there are a variety of subgroups and so on, involved in an argument with each other. Given that Islam is just as diverse, I again am not getting the responsibility argument.

Plus, of course, there's always some kind of dialogue within a religion (or community, I suppose, depending on how you are using the term) on what it means to be part of that community and how to interpret the teachings of the religion and so on. I don't think you can assume from the fact that people say that it's not "Muslims" who are doing an act and get offended that others would see them as responsible that they are not participating in this discussion. Again, I don't feel remotely responsible for the Tiller shooter, but I talk about what I think Christianity means and requires and so on in a way that would make it clear that I think his act was gravely wrong all the time, generally in appropriate forums and, given that I'm not that interesting, not on TV. Again, I think you can analogize all this to the discussion of the so-called "Muslim community."

Second, where are you getting islamofascism from? Where have I argued this?

It was just one of two possible interpretations of the thread title that came to mind, first, and, second, from the attempted link to 9/11 through the mosque.

Lastly, perhaps my English is improper. You're the first one to suggest this though.... Just to be fair and for the sake of specificity, I'll change the title of the thread.

I'm not the first, I just may have been more specific in saying what others were suggesting (I'm not even sure about that). Thanks for acknowledging that you understand at least that aspect.

kezboard
11-10-2009, 07:46 PM
I wasn't asking if you were a guy, I was asking if Starwatcher was.

I don't get it, though -- how are people misreading you? I think they're reading you correctly. You're using all this loaded language, implying all these things, and then claiming innocence when anyone calls you on it. It's very Glenn Becky. "I never called Obama a Nazi, I just said that Hitler wanted universal health care, played stock footage of Hitler Youth saluting, and claimed that the country was on the road to totalitarianism". You write "come on Religion of Peace, get your act together", and then reply "I never said that" when people tell you that they read that statement as essentially saying "Haha, this just proves that Islam's a religion of war", putting all the blame for Nidal Hasan's act on his religion, and calling us all "politically correct" when we say that it might actually be a little more complicated.

It's annoying.

TwinSwords
11-10-2009, 07:50 PM
By the way, do you believe Maj. Hasan's action were justified or understandable in light of his country being at war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Of course not. Supremely stupid question.

stephanie
11-10-2009, 07:50 PM
You know, I am interested just generally in this whole community responsibility bit. Who am I responsible for just because we share certain characteristics? Religion we've talked about some. How about:

Women?

Americans?

People in my state?

People in my city?

People in my neighborhood?

People who root for the same sports teams I do?

People of the various ethnicities of which I am part? Can I avoid responsibility if less than, say, half or a quarter whatever?

People who went to the college I did?

People of my profession? (God, I hope not.)

Democrats? If I change my registration to Independent, would I be responsible for Independents? What if no such official registration is permitted?

Members of my family? How closely related?

So on.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 07:51 PM
Haha... I blew that one. Starwatcher is a Chippendale too. :)

And my god, now your projecting Glenn Beck on to me. Now you've got me calling Obama Hitler and a Nazi, Jesus Christ. Yes, some of you guys don't read what other people write very closely. I do it myself sometimes too. It's no big deal, but Glenn Beck... come on.

claymisher
11-10-2009, 07:51 PM
You know, I am interested just generally in this whole community responsibility bit. Who am I responsible for just because we share certain characteristics? Religion we've talked about some. How about:

I blame all left-handed people for the actions of individual southpaws.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 07:55 PM
Haha. You ask a lot questions just like that one. Just wanted to make sure. I felt like you were about to give a Bush-Cheney war rant.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 08:15 PM
I think we'll just have to disagree on the Christian and Muslim communities taking responsibility. I think it would have been really odd if all the different Christian denominations remained silent after the Dr. Tiller murder... which is why few, if any did. Muslim groups haven't remained silent about Ft. Hood either, but have spoken out. This is what I'm getting at.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 08:25 PM
Yeah, you could be part of any of these communities depending on the issues.

I think I used the Jim Crow South as an earlier example of white southerners having to take responsibility for it. Who else was responsible for Jim Crow but the white South?

You're against homophobia probably. Who's responsible for confronting homophobia in America? Whatever state you're from? Whatever city you live in?

This is what I mean by a community taking responsibility for whatever it is they're responsible for (by choice or not).

Whatfur
11-10-2009, 08:30 PM
You're right, I did misread your post. Sorry.

Although in re-reading it there still seems to be an attempt to paint Lyle into a corner and unfortunately...he ain't standin there.

Your points at the same time when not used as if they are counter arguments are not false however either.

I think you are wrong though about Coughlin ...there is a mosaic of information that helps pinpoint this stuff., and if there is anything to carry away from my ill-conceived original retort to you ;o) would be that all information on these murders needs to be looked at now and included in how intelligence deals with similar cases in the future. If we hurt some feelings in doing so...oh well.

bjkeefe
11-10-2009, 09:03 PM
Jim Newell reacts (http://wonkette.com/412118/pat-robertson-just-doesnt-want-to-sound-politically-correct-thats-all) to another bed-wetting loudmouthed bigot:

Here’s an interesting wingnut concept: if you claim to be rejecting “political correctness,” then whatever you’re saying must be the truth, as they are opposites. For example: Pat Robertson rejects political correctness w/r/t the Ft. Hood killings. All clear! Therefore the truth must be this: Islam is “not a religion,” but “a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination.” Oh right! Like those “caliphates” Mitt Romney (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/romey_versus_the_jihadists.php) used to teach us about.

That is the ultimate aim. And they talk about infidels and all this, but the truth is that’s what the game is. So you are dealing with not a religion. You’re dealing with a political system. And I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherences as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group.

Fundies in any religion are all terrible and insane and violent. Why can’t we all just agree on this? Because, because, because… Mah jeebus es better den yr jeebus. Says so in da Bubble.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 09:15 PM
You're not getting it kezboard. I'm not defending what other people are arguing out in the world, I'm defending what I've been saying. Lets stick to what I've brought up. Whatever rhetoric you've picked up elsewhere in the world, you've got to put away for a moment.

I haven't argued Hasan is a part of al Qaeda or that he was convinced by al Qaeda to go postal. I've explicity said, very early on in the thread, that there's no evidence that he's a terrorist. I posted a link to an ABC news story that reports he tried to contact al Qaeda. The story is what it is. It's not an argument for, he's a terrorist. It's an argument for, he tried to contact al Qaeda. To me it further buttresses the argument that he is an extremist Muslim cause he's perhaps sympathetic to their ideas (not in cahoots with them).

Muslim extremism goes beyond al Qaeda, Hamas, and all the other groups. Radicalized Muslims don't have to be a part of any terrorist group to commit a terrorist act. The murder of a French Jew in Paris a couple years ago is a good example. Another one was the attack at Glasgow's airport last year or the year before which involved a British Pakistani doctor. He wasn't connected to any one group really, but he was sympathetic ideologically. So al Qaeda and like groups aren't the beginning and the end of the extremist Muslim problem, unfortunately. These guys are everywhere, by their lonesome or not. See also the recent arrests in Denver, Chicago and Boston of extremist Muslims plotting to blow up the NY Subway, and kill the Danish papermen who published the funny cartoons of Muhammad.

kezboard
11-10-2009, 09:40 PM
Dude, I'm not projecting Beck or Beck's views onto you. I'm saying that you're engaging in the same debating technique as he does. There are plenty of people who do this, it's just that Beck was the first one that came to mind.

Lyle
11-10-2009, 10:08 PM
Well, heck, you're debating style reminds me of Himmler's. Just kidding dude. :)

Starwatcher162536
11-10-2009, 11:38 PM
Don't be jealous, it's not my fault that I happen to be a superior breed. :D

bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 12:00 AM
David Brooks tries a kinder, gentler Lyle style, but Doghouse Riley is having none of it (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2009/11/and-this-guy-writes-for-times-vol.html).

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-11-2009, 01:15 AM
Outstanding post. (Along with several by Preppy, too.)

Thanks Twin.

kezboard
11-11-2009, 03:33 AM
I didn't know that saying someone's arguments reminded me of Glenn Beck's was the new argumentum ad Hitlerum, but I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Baltimoron
11-11-2009, 03:39 AM
It's just one small part of tht bag of tricks called misdirection charlatans have used for lifetimes to distract people from their deceits.

bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 04:13 AM
I didn't know that saying someone's arguments reminded me of Glenn Beck's was the new argumentum ad Hitlerum, but I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Funny, I would have thought being compared to Glenn Beck is something Lyle would have taken as (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=125249#post125249) a compliment (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=113560#post113560).

bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 05:43 AM
From Thoreau, over at UO (http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2009/11/10/10215):

Help me figure this out

On the one hand, every now and then a Muslim in America kills a bunch of people. On the other hand, the vast majority of American Muslims don’t do this, and in fact condemn the few who do.

So I see two possible explanations for this:

1) Islam is a very dangerous religion and those Muslims who condemn these killings simply don’t understand Islam as well as non-Muslims commenting on the internet.

2) Mass murderers are batshit insane.

Can somebody offer some insight on how to choose between these explanations?

Lyle
11-11-2009, 09:39 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1

The conversation in the first few days after the massacre was well intentioned, but it suggested a willful flight from reality. It ignored the fact that the war narrative of the struggle against Islam is the central feature of American foreign policy. It ignored the fact that this narrative can be embraced by a self-radicalizing individual in the U.S. as much as by groups in Tehran, Gaza or Kandahar.

It denied, before the evidence was in, the possibility of evil. It sought to reduce a heinous act to social maladjustment. It wasn’t the reaction of a morally or politically serious nation.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 09:41 AM
That was a joke kezboard. Next time I'll add a smiley (ooh... I did add a smiley). It's good to see you know how to count in German though. :)

Lyle
11-11-2009, 09:45 AM
So having defended him against false accusations means I like him or want to be compared with him? How does that work?

AemJeff
11-11-2009, 09:47 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1

Misattributed to the Times. It's a Brooks op-ed.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 09:50 AM
IN THE NEW YORK TIMES!!! Haha.

bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 10:10 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1

You must have overlooked this (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=137465#post137465).

Lyle
11-11-2009, 10:42 AM
Yeah, I haven't read any of your anti-Lylisms. I guess it is a compliment to me that you've come up with Lylism. Haha.

I've been gentle too though.

TwinSwords
11-11-2009, 11:14 AM
So having defended him against false accusations means I like him or want to be compared with him? How does that work?

This is hilarious:

Glen Beck, like Bill O'Reilly, gets an unwarranted bad rap. They're far more civil, honest, and diligent than Olbermann.

To which Beavis, er, Lyle replies:

I concur. Beck and O'Reilly are actually pretty good, and oft middle of the road because they're not out and out partisans like Hannity. Hannity is the worse offender in my opinion. He's disgustingly partisan and is stuck in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan.

Beck and O'Reilly also seem to better understand America and Americans than Limbaugh and Hannity. Beck and O'Reilly are not the monsters they're made out to be. Usually the people who go off on them haven't spent more than a minute watching them, from what I can tell... but the Left need their enemies as much as the Right needs theirs.

Beck is middle of the road? It's worth noting that Lyle himself claims to be a moderate. Now I understand why. Ultraconservative is his idea of "moderate."

bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 11:48 AM
Yeah, I haven't read any of your anti-Lylisms.

There's some of that open-mindedness you're so well-known for.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 12:56 PM
Yeah, he was (closer to the center), when he was on Headline News. He's gone further to the right on FOX. Is that that hard to understand?

And yes, I'm a moderate or centrist. I've never been registered as anything but an Independent. I support gay marriage. I vote both Democrat and Republican (I'm currently supporting Democrat Bill White's campaign to be the next Senator of Texas -- replacing K.B. Hutchinson). I support a number of aspects of health care reform. I'm pro-amnesty on immigration. I'm conservative on the economy and in foreign policy (could also be neo-liberal which are some of the hawkish Democrats). I also firmly abhor both the extreme left and right, which puts me floating around somewhere in the middle, I'd say.

By the way, when did standing up to extremist Muslims become only a Republican or conservative thing? Are they not the enemy of progressive America as well? I mean, they aren't exactly a progressive kind of people are they? It's amazing the Left doesn't give them the KKK treatment.

nikkibong
11-11-2009, 12:58 PM
Yeah, he was (closer to the center), when he was on Headline News. He's gone further to the right on FOX. Is that that hard to understand?

Not hard to understand. Of course, also not true.

Beck has not gone further to the "right" since joining FOX. He's gone further down...off the deep end.

stephanie
11-11-2009, 01:08 PM
Yeah, you could be part of any of these communities depending on the issues.

I'm part of those groups, but you seem to be drawing vague implications from that which make no sense. There's no explanation as to why I'm responsible for what other people who are in those groups do, and, in fact, people in all those groups have done dreadful things, I'm sure, and I neither feel responsible or, for the most part, have people claiming I should.

I think I used the Jim Crow South as an earlier example of white southerners having to take responsibility for it. Who else was responsible for Jim Crow but the white South?

All who caused it to be, all who could have done something but didn't, I suppose.

But that's a good example because responsibility there doesn't come from some vague membership in a "community." It comes from the fact that one benefits from laws and has a say in what those laws are. I certainly do agree that as an American I'm responsible for the laws of our country, even if I oppose them. I don't agree that I'm responsible for a bad act committed by a woman, even if she claims that she did it because she's an extremist and believes that women should declare war on men or some such, and, similarly, I don't believe I'm to blame because some lawyer decides to act unethically and I don't really think the KKK is my fault either, although as a human being I certainly have a responsibility to condemn racism. That doesn't mean I have some special ability to determine what other white people do, and "white people" is not a community in the US, in any meaningful way.

You're against homophobia probably. Who's responsible for confronting homophobia in America?

Human beings. Not the "community of heterosexuals" or some such nonsense.

This is what I mean by a community taking responsibility for whatever it is they're responsible for (by choice or not).

What is what you mean? What's your point? I'm not even sure that it's clear to you.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 01:09 PM
That too, perhaps that too. I just know he doesn't promote violence, which isn't saying a whole lot, but he can't honestly be blamed for advocating violence, which he oft gets criticized for, which I think is unfair.

homaw6503
11-11-2009, 01:09 PM
Yes so sad too. Why so vilolent ? I hope in the futuire will peace all time no violent. Maybe it's take a bout more than 500 years from now.

stephanie
11-11-2009, 01:12 PM
By the way, when did standing up to extremist Muslims become only a Republican or conservative thing?

When did this become what the discussion was about? Oh, right, it's not.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 01:15 PM
Stephanie, I never said such communities could not be vague, they very much can be. There's definitely nothing static about them (people can move in and out of them) and there is objectivity and subjectivity to it.

Really, white people in the South didn't stand up to Jim Crow and do something about it? What? If the white South really wanted to maintain segregation, they would have, but they didn't. Blacks didn't change the South alone Stephanie. I should know, because my white parents literally helped to integrate the South as did many others, along with blacks and everyone else that helped. White people were also most definitely a distinct group in the segregated South... especially since that was the whole point of segregation. And white Americans can be said to have constructed de facto segregation elsewhere in America as well. Notably in schooling and professional work.

... and who said anything about a "community of heterosexuals". I didn't know you were heterosexual Stephanie. Maybe you like girls. Standing up to homophobia, from I can tell, has nothing to do with being heteorsexual, but simply not wanting gays to be descriminated against for being gay. So gays can be a part of this community of people as well.

I'm not the one struggling to understand my point, you are. You're too focused on your individual perspective and failing to recognize you're a member of society and many other societies simply by being who you are, and where you happen to be.

Perhaps society is a better word than community though.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 01:18 PM
Oh, but it has Stephanie... when progressives rush to blame everything but what is, and then call anyone (which Twinswords did, pay attention) who calls it by its true name, racist.

stephanie
11-11-2009, 01:33 PM
God, Lyle, it would help if you'd read the posts you respond to.

Stephanie, I never said such communities could not be vague, they very much can be.

That is precisely my point. When a communal entity is clear and has laws and such, it's easy to say that the people in the community have some responsibility (how much depends on various factors) for determining what those laws are and what the entity does. But you seem to be talking about something far broader, "communities" that aren't really even communities in many or most cases. That's why I'm bringing up how vague they are.

I think you need to flesh out what you mean by communal responsibility and what you are claiming brings it about.

Really, white people in the South didn't stand up to Jim Crow and do something about it?

I didn't say anything about this topic one way or another.

If the white South really wanted to maintain segregation, they would have, but they didn't.

Factually untrue, but also unrelated to anything I said, so I am mystified what you think you are responding to.

Obviously, some Southern whites (and Northern whites) among various other groups accepted their responsibility for the laws in the US and acted to change them. I'm (again) unclear on why you think I said otherwise.

(Just like obviously I disapprove of killing people in the name of Islam.)

Or are you just trying to change the subject by arguing against a strawman?

stephanie
11-11-2009, 01:37 PM
Oh, but it has Stephanie... when progressives rush to blame everything but what is, and then call anyone (which Twinswords did, pay attention) who calls it by its true name, racist.

It has what?

You are either disingenuously misinterpreting what people have said or, perhaps, are really confused and frustrated due to your lack of understanding.

Perhaps you'd be less upset and frustrated by liberals' (or bloggingheads forum members') odd love for, say, fundamentalist interpretations of the Qu'ran if you'd actually ask us what we thought about that topic instead of jumping to odd assumptions based on the fact that people get offended or irritated when you post about what "Muslims," generally, are supposedly doing or responsible for.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 01:44 PM
I haven't jumped to assumptions about you Stephanie. You act like I'm attacking you personally. I just said Twinswords called me a racist. So, yes, I do have his comments to gone on... that's where "pay attention" comes into play for you.

And yes, the political Left, has been slow in figuring out why Maj. Hasan did what he did (just like David Brooks and others have argued, not just me). If you fit into the political Left category so be it. I don't care if you do or don't Stephanie. But if you do, tough.

claymisher
11-11-2009, 01:45 PM
It has what?

You are either disingenuously misinterpreting what people have said or, perhaps, are really confused and frustrated due to your lack of understanding.

Perhaps you'd be less upset and frustrated by liberals' (or bloggingheads forum member's) odd love for, say, fundamentalist interpretations of the Qu'ran if you'd actually ask us what we thought about that topic instead of jumping to odd assumptions based on the fact that people get offended or irritated when you post about what "Muslims," generally, are supposedly doing or responsible for.

Naw, it's easier to make shit up and argue against that. Those strawmen ain't going to fight themselves.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 01:48 PM
Hopefully one day we will all live in peace.

Bobby G
11-11-2009, 02:02 PM
Hi Stephanie,

What do you make of the claim that Muslims have a special obligation to speak out against fellow Muslims because many Americans fear that outbursts of violence by Muslims have to do with their religion?

Do you think pro-lifers have a special responsibility to make public that they eschew violence whenever one of their brethren murders someone?

Obviously, you could, without contradicting yourself, maintain that the answer to the first question is "no", and the answer to the second is "yes". I just wonder what your answers are.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 03:03 PM
Oh, you got me, I don't read anything that you write... haha.

You've totally missed what I'm trying to say. You want me to go with whatever it is inside your head, when I'm describing how I view things. We disagree with on another, no biggie.

... and yes, the white South maintained segregation for nearly a century because that is exactly what it wanted. By the 50s and 60s opinion was shifting dramatically though. And if this wasn't the case, why did segregation last as long as it did, if it wasn't up to the white South to maintain it?

Whatfur
11-11-2009, 03:18 PM
Death toll now at 14. (http://themoderatevoice.com/52547/14-killed-at-fort-hood-not-13-as-reported-why/)

Lyle
11-11-2009, 03:28 PM
Yes, very sad.

bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 03:31 PM
Death toll now at 14. (http://themoderatevoice.com/52547/14-killed-at-fort-hood-not-13-as-reported-why/)

No one could have predicted that wingnuts would shamelessly use this tragedy to try to move other political footballs farther down the field.

Whatfur
11-11-2009, 03:57 PM
No one could have predicted that wingnuts would shamelessly use this tragedy to try to move other political footballs farther down the field.

No one could have predicted that assholes would choose to sweep under the rug that one of those killed was not only a woman but a pregnant woman.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 03:59 PM
That's your first response to someone losing their baby, their niece, and their grandkid?

stephanie
11-11-2009, 04:02 PM
Hi Stephanie,

What do you make of the claim that Muslims have a special obligation to speak out against fellow Muslims because many Americans fear that outbursts of violence by Muslims have to do with their religion?

I don't agree, at least not stated like that. I do think that if some Muslims claim that Islam supports killing infidels or women who don't wear headscarfs or some such, that Muslims who disagree have an interest in (and to some extent a responsibility to) participating in the discussion about what Islam really says. I don't assume that one's participation has to take the form of public statements to non-Muslims, however, although some might choose to take that path.

I also think that if one is truly part of a particular community in which violence is a part -- one attends a mosque at which particular interpretations of the Qu'ran are common or live in a community where it's an issue or so on, one should take a stand the other way. But I think the idea that Muslims generally is such a community is silly.

Do you think pro-lifers have a special responsibility to make public that they eschew violence whenever one of their brethren murders someone?

Pretty consistent answer, I think -- if we are talking about pro-life individuals, no, I don't. (If we are talking about groups, then sure, I think part of being a public group is taking on the role of public discourse.) I don't think there is evidence sufficient to say that the burden of proof is on a pro-lifer to publicly denounce acts whenever they happen or be suspected of supporting them or supporting violence. (Same, in case it's not clear, for Muslims. I think US Muslims, for example, can be assumed to oppose murders as much as I do, and don't have to speak out and reassure people that they do before that suspicion is waived. Were I a Muslim, I'd be rather annoyed and offended if people felt it necessary to ask me if I disapproved of murder, much as I would be if someone assumed that I might approve of murdering Tiller simply because I hadn't felt like commenting on it to that person.)

On the other hand, I do think that when extremists make arguments which they claim justify, under the principles of pro-life views or Christianity specifically, killing Tiller, I think there's a certain responsibility that falls on other pro-lifers who disagree to respond to these arguments. And, if one is in some community with such people -- a more radical anti abortion organization, say, or a particular church that seems to encourage it, then one has a more pressing obligation to speak loudly against it.

But again, the idea that all Christians or even all pro-lifers form such a community is silly (and the Muslim case is more like the Christian case -- particularly absurd given the extreme diversity of those who fall under the label).

stephanie
11-11-2009, 04:08 PM
Oh, you got me, I don't read anything that you write... haha.

Well, what am I supposed to think when your responses bear no resemblance to what I actually said.

You've totally missed what I'm trying to say.

Among other things, I asked for clarification about this communal responsibility notion, so feel free to answer the question.

bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 04:14 PM
No one could have predicted that assholes would choose to sweep under the rug that one of those killed was not only a woman but a pregnant woman.

I guess "assholes" might have swept under the rug the fact that one of those killed was a pregnant woman, but certainly the media did not fail to report it, nor did the president fail to note it in his remarks at the Ft. Hood memorial ceremony (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/11/president-obama-at-fort-hood.html). I've known that fact about as long as I've known anything about the event.

However, if this is the first time you're hearing about this woman having been pregnant, maybe it's you who's getting his information from "assholes," hmmm?

BTW, you sure are using that word a (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=137563#post137563) lot (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=137572#post137572) today, 'fur. Not that you've ever shown an ability to insult above the grade-school level, but you've usually managed to mix it up at least a little beyond being a one-note Johnny.

bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 04:14 PM
That's your first response to someone losing their baby, their niece, and their grandkid?

Nope. That's my first response to a wingnut trying to make unrelated political hay.

kezboard
11-11-2009, 04:35 PM
I know it was a joke, that's why I added the silly subject line. Jeez, I'm not that humorless.

I did take a year of college German, but I gave up on it once I actually went to Germany and found that every time I tried to speak their language the Germans would roll their eyes at me and start going on in English. That was not very encouraging.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 04:38 PM
Wasn't that what your response was though, unrelated political hay? Perhaps better said in one of your political hay threads. Get along Old McDonald, get along.

kezboard
11-11-2009, 04:49 PM
Oh, I get it now.
The real strategy is this: post something politically inflammatory relating to horrible event, watch as commenters react to politically inflammatory nature of your comments, then jump on them for making "political hay" out of horrible event and not just posting something along the lines of "What a sad day for America".

AemJeff
11-11-2009, 04:51 PM
Oh, I get it now.
The real strategy is this: post something politically inflammatory relating to horrible event, watch as commenters react to politically inflammatory nature of your comments, then jump on them for making "political hay" out of horrible event and not just posting something along the lines of "What a sad day for America".

That's this whole thread in a nutshell. And most of the rest of his posting history.

bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 05:02 PM
Oh, I get it now.
The real strategy is this: post something politically inflammatory relating to horrible event, watch as commenters react to politically inflammatory nature of your comments, then jump on them for making "political hay" out of horrible event and not just posting something along the lines of "What a sad day for America".

As you may have also noticed, Lyle is also in the habit of trying to lead people off on unrelated tangents, once it finally becomes clear, even to him, how tasteless his original theme was.

Whatfur
11-11-2009, 05:25 PM
Oh, I get it now.
The real strategy is this: post something politically inflammatory relating to horrible event, watch as commenters react to politically inflammatory nature of your comments, then jump on them for making "political hay" out of horrible event and not just posting something along the lines of "What a sad day for America".

Sorry kez, the reality is I just came across the article, found it to be newsworthy here. Would you rather to not have known about it? Not really sure how anything can seem more inflammatory than the event itself.

claymisher
11-11-2009, 05:25 PM
Oh, I get it now.
The real strategy is this: post something politically inflammatory relating to horrible event, watch as commenters react to politically inflammatory nature of your comments, then jump on them for making "political hay" out of horrible event and not just posting something along the lines of "What a sad day for America".

That's the "more in sorrow than in anger" play.

A: Outrage!
B: Counter-outrage!
A: Too much outrage. Tsk-tsk.

End scene.

Lyle
11-11-2009, 07:30 PM
What exactly is political about the thread title or the first post? It's about another extremist Muslim murdering people. Where's the politics?

America is at war with extremist Muslims, if you didn't know (of course you do). So an extremist Muslim massacring Americans kind of made it more than just a sad day, it also made it another extremist Muslim killing Americans day. Kind of an important point, don't you think?

Lyle
11-11-2009, 07:43 PM
How is it tasteless to call an extremist Muslim a Muslim? Oh no, extremist Muslims are in fact Muslims. Oh no. And they really do murder people. Oh no.

He is a Muslim. He is a Muslim. He is a Muslim.

TwinSwords
11-11-2009, 07:54 PM
Oh, I get it now.
The real strategy is this: post something politically inflammatory relating to horrible event, watch as commenters react to politically inflammatory nature of your comments, then jump on them for making "political hay" out of horrible event and not just posting something along the lines of "What a sad day for America".

Perfectly summarized.

TwinSwords
11-11-2009, 08:16 PM
How is it tasteless to call an extremist Muslim a Muslim? Oh no, extremist Muslims are in fact Muslims. Oh no. And they really do murder people. Oh no.

He is a Muslim. He is a Muslim. He is a Muslim.

ROFL.

I love seeing you (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Beavisprofile.jpg) reduced to mindless chanting.

kezboard
11-11-2009, 11:17 PM
I don't believe it was you I was snarking at.

kezboard
11-11-2009, 11:18 PM
I disagree with your whole premise, Lyle, & I've said so multiple times. I don't think we're at war with "Islamic extremism", and thank god for that, since Islamic extremists have existed ever since Islam has, just as Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. extremists have existed ever since those religions have. I think we're engaged in a protracted struggle to prevent what happened on 9/11 from happening again. Unfortunately, some people, including the previous president and his administration, have turned that into a struggle against some monolithic entity called "Islamic extremism", which I think has shown to be remarkably counterproductive, particularly about five or six years ago when they decided that a particular Middle Eastern regime was a manifestation of Islamic extremism and that they had to take it out, facts be damned. Now, I'm not blaming you for the Iraq war -- although if I remember correctly you're the one who said that someday there would be a George W. Bush street in Baghdad -- I'm just saying that this particular interpretation of world politics has led us to bark up some unfortunate trees.

Lyle
11-12-2009, 01:08 AM
I think we're engaged in a protracted struggle to prevent what happened on 9/11 from happening again.

That means we are at war with Islamic, Muslim extremism!!! Who did 9/11 for Christ's sake? Who? Just some dudes? Was it the fucking Jews? Was it Bush? Huh?

It didn't even start with 9/11 sweetheart. Learn some goddamn history. Was it the boogieman who bombed the USS Cole? Was it the boogieman who tried to knock down the WTC in '93? Was it Pygmies who blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Did trolls blow up the trains in Madrid? Did Paddington Bear blow up the busses and trains in London? Huh? Huh?

Educate yourself kezboard. Educate yourself.

Baltimoron
11-12-2009, 02:02 AM
bhTV alumnus Andrew J. Bacevich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich) hs argued that the US is in the midst of a great power conflict over the resources of Eurasia and control for shipping and access.

TwinSwords
11-12-2009, 03:51 AM
That means we are at war with Islamic, Muslim extremism!!! Who did 9/11 for Christ's sake? Who? Just some dudes? Was it the fucking Jews? Was it Bush? Huh?

It didn't even start with 9/11 sweetheart. Learn some goddamn history. Was it the boogieman who bomb the USS Cole? Was it the boogieman who tried to knock down the WTC in '93? Was it Pygmies who blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Did trolls blow up the trains in Madrid? Did Paddington Bear blow up the busses and trains in London? Huh? Huh?

Educate yourself kezboard. Educate yourself.

Shorter Lyle: http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/frustrated.gif

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-12-2009, 03:56 AM
Did Paddington Bear blow up the busses and trains in London?

If so, would you have us make war on Darkest Peru? [Must admit, despite my forceful disagreement with what you've argued on this thread, memories of the marmalade-eating, spectacled bear made me smile.]

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-12-2009, 04:28 AM
(okay, I didn't speculate, I pronounced)

Right, and we already established in our earlier exchange that I think it's not okay to pronounce, even as a private citizen in an online forum, when it comes to subjects like religion, race, or gender.

I also never assumed you were ignorant of extremist Muslims. You never wrote anything that suggested such, others have though.

Maybe others have. But I'm arguing that what is appropriate in public discourse is that IF in the course of already discussing the attacks, someone says something that suggests, 'whoa, this person really doesn't take fanatacism seriously' then you would have license to respond, 'hey, do you even take fanaticism seriously or acknowledge it as a factor here?' and to be fair, that person might well respond 'No.' Kez for example, makes the argument elsewhere on this thread that it's not quite the beast we think it is; I may not agree completely, but that's a valid disagreement/debate two people can have.

What I don't think is appropriate is for you to START a discussion of an event/incident (in this case, the attack) with an assumption that religious extremism is the major factor, and then put the onus on others to first acknowledge the significance of your point before you are willing to entertain their suggestions of alternative motives/factors involved. I think that's pre-judicial in the most literal sense of the term.

I mean the first time I heard about the massacre, saw his name, and saw reports suggesting he converted to Islam... I thought, huh, I bet that guy is a extremist Muslim. Prejudice to think that? I don't really think so in light of the world we live in today.

I think prejudice isn't defined by circumstance. In other words, any time, in any situation, you assume and pronounce anything based on generalities/correlations without knowing the facts/causes, it's prejudicial. And I think that kind of thing shouldn't be part of respectable discourse. No, one can't ban people like yourself from saying these things--so don't throw the censorship card at me--but one can protest, critique and attempt to persuade them to behave in a different manner.

Also what do you mean by material conditions? The conditions of despotism? Ignorance? Poverty? I definitely think the lack of democracy and strong economies plays a large role in putting a lot of young Muslim men on a path towards nihilism (a path on which they're usually guided by a imam though). Even though a lot of Saudis are rich, they don't work, as you know, at all for their wealth. The state gives them their wealth due to oil revenues. Literally, others are brought in to do whatever work needs to be done in the Gulf states. This leads a lot of young men to seek fulfilment of their time in other ways, and one path is the extremist Muslim path.

Right--these are more or less the types of causes I see as the PRIME motivators here, more essential to the problem than religious ideology. In other words, I think if you have all of these other factors sans hostile ideology, you'd still have systemic violence. But if you had hostile religious ideology without those other factors, I think you probably wouldn't.

... and for moderate Muslims who don't like to feel burdened by their fundimentalist brethren, well that's their burden. Just like Christians have to defend their own faith when it comes under attack from the actions of evangelicals, Mormons, pedophile priests or whomever from the Christian community. To them I say: tough.

I think that's a prejudicial view to take--to make a judgment about a person's moral responsibility for another person or event based on a general correlation of race or religion without knowing facts that prove or support that link. That is not to say that moderate Muslims shouldn't worry about this problem; rather that you should not demand that they do as a kind of public litmus test/burden.

Whatfur
11-12-2009, 07:56 AM
I don't believe it was you I was snarking at.

Then I believe your snarkiness should have been placed at the feet of BJKeefe and then at the perpetual pile-ons of people like AemJeff, and Claymisher with help from YOU. I post a simple link about a disturbing and sad story that was news to me...Lyle posts a response echoing the same saddness I felt when I first read it...and then WHO turns it political?.. well you can go pick it up from there.

Lyle
11-12-2009, 09:47 AM
Ha ha, it made me smile too. Yeah, whoever thought Paddington Bear was a radical? Apparently he turned when some Americans took all his marmalade. The little bastard is still on the loose, but we sure have bombed the heck out of where he came from.

popcorn_karate
11-12-2009, 01:08 PM
And yes, I'm a moderate or centrist. I've never been registered as anything but an Independent.

ok - this proves (ok - supports) my thesis that "independents" are largely to the right of the GOP and any attempt by democrats to pander to these "middle of the road independents" is a fools errand that will alienate their base and never satisfy "independents" like glen Beck and Lyle.

stephanie
11-12-2009, 01:44 PM
That means we are at war with Islamic, Muslim extremism!!!

In your opinion. We haven't declared war on "Muslim extremism." Even the vague "war on terror" isn't that vague.

Who did 9/11 for Christ's sake?

As everyone knows, al Qaeda. Who are, of course, reasonably described as Islamic extremists, among other things, but certainly don't represent all people who could be described as extremist Muslims.

Who? Just some dudes? Was it the fucking Jews? Was it Bush? Huh?

See, this is either disingenuous or a weird misunderstanding. Just because one does not believe that the US is involved in a full-scale war against the vague opponent "extreme Muslims," does not mean either (a) that one does not know or questions who did 9/11, or (b) that one disagrees about whether al Qaeda can be properly described as extreme Muslims. It is obvious that there are plenty of people properly described or reasonably described as extremist Muslims who we are not at war with and are apparently perfectly willing to be friends with if they will be friends with us. Saudi Arabia and its government comes to mind, as does Iran, which we may not be friendly with, but with we are not conducting a war with. So on.

Learn some goddamn history.

Why should she? She seems to have a pretty good grasp of history. You are the one who seems to be in denial about all of the extremist Muslims who the US has been happy to do business with and considers not to be at war with.

stephanie
11-12-2009, 01:46 PM
I'll also note again that as a defense of this thread the alleged war against extremist Muslims (that not even Bush is likely to agree with) is pretty weak, as the thread title refers to "Muslims" generally. No "extremist" modifier.

Extremist is also, of course, a very vague term and a relative one.

bjkeefe
11-12-2009, 02:54 PM
Then I believe your snarkiness should have been placed at the feet of BJKeefe and then at the perpetual pile-ons of people like AemJeff, and Claymisher with help from YOU. I post a simple link about a disturbing and sad story that was news to me...Lyle posts a response echoing the same saddness I felt when I first read it...and then WHO turns it political?.. well you can go pick it up from there.

That wasn't news. The news is one sentence long: "One of the victims of the Ft. Hood shootings was pregnant."

What you linked to was a mawkish op-ed designed to play on heartstrings, to further the agenda of the militantly anti-choice crowd. The morsel of news it contained was something that everyone else seems to have learned days before you did.

Recall how you labeled your link:

Death toll now at 14. (http://themoderatevoice.com/52547/14-killed-at-fort-hood-not-13-as-reported-why/)

Whether you're one of those nuts who insists on calling a nine-week-old fetus a "person" matters not at all. The point is, you tried to make some political noise about an irrelevant issue, thereby trivializing how much you actually think the shooting spree was a tragedy. And now you're sputtering because you can't admit we saw what you tried to do.

Take some responsibility when you get called on your bullshit, Vic. Your motives aren't as well hidden as you think they are.

Lyle
11-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Ha ha. Supporting gay marriage is to the right of the GOP? Ha ha.

kezboard
11-12-2009, 04:38 PM
Thanks, Stephanie -- this is exactly what I meant.
Most of the examples of attacks by Islamic extremists you gave were ones perpetrated by al-Qaeda. Everyone knows that we're at war (for lack of a better word) with al-Qaeda. But everyone also knows that al-Qaeda isn't the beginning and end of Islamic extremism. I certainly believe that their kind of Islamic extremism is a threat to the US, but not all kinds of Islamic extremism are and that we can't be "at war" with Islamic extremism in general because much of it has nothing to do with us.

None of this had anything to do with Hasan, who was certainly a threat to the people around him, as are all crazy people with access to guns.

Lyle
11-12-2009, 04:41 PM
I know my history very well Stephanie. al Qaeda isn't the only group we've been fighting since 9/11. There hasn't ever been just one group of bad Muslims who has been out to hurt us. As David Brooks eloquently wrote, we've yet to come to grips with the fact that radicalize Muslims exist pretty much everywhere and do not have to be a part of al Qaeda's chain of command to do us harm. The London bombing is a great example of this. None of the bombers were in al Qaeda. They were, however, all radicalized Muslims who formed their own particular extremist cell or extremist cluster to do harm.

The "War on Terror" is actually synonymous with a "war on extremist Islam or Muslim terrorists", whatever you want to call it. The phrase was coined the "War on Terror" precisely to avoid mentioning Muslims or Islam so not to alienate more Muslims than we would already be doing once we invaded in and occupied Afghanistan and started killing Muslims.

Furthermore, although a country like Saudi Arabia is the epicenter for Wahabbism (sic?), the Saudi government itself isn't really extremist. A lot of Saudi leadership is westernized or secularized. They don't support violent extremism, is what I'm really getting at. The same is also true for the families and people that run Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the U.A.E. These people do business with Israelis even. bin Laden couldn't remain in Saudi Arabia, because they would have killed him. bin Laden and al Qaeda hate the Saudi royal family, and the Saudi royal family is constantly defending itself and its interests against the likes of al Qaeda. The Saudis capture and kill radicalized anti-royals routinely. Saudi Arabia is a complicated mess without a doubt, but they're actually fighting al Qaeda and other radicals alongside of us ironically, just not all that publically (like not on the battlefield).

We can't fight extremist Muslims everywhere and when I mean fight, it might mean domestic security measures tailored towards them, and not necessarily an armed conflict. Something more akin to the Cold War. We're only in Afghanistan because of 9/11 and in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein (not an extremist but was known to give to succor to pan-Arab terrorists). Other countries simply can't be attacked because we have less of a legal justification to do so, and/or those particular government's interests do not lie with the likes of al Qaeda, or they happen to be our close allies (like Saudi Arabia).

So in the case of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, why pick an actual fight with them when we can just work with them diplomatically and have them go after the radicals in their own countries, which is what they do?

handle
11-12-2009, 05:38 PM
That's this whole thread in a nutshell. And most of the rest of his posting history.

Right, and if you notice, he only implies what he is obviously driving at, while avoiding indefensible statements. Then when his post is refuted on it's obvious intent, he can always defend by pointing out that he worded it in a way that was not a literal expression of his implication.

Then, I suspect, he sits back and congratulates himself for showing how the stupid kneejerk liberals assumed he meant X equals Y when he actually said X might equal Y, or that math itself isn't bad, but mathematicians should be held responsible for policing those who would use it for evil.

Analogy time: A little boy thinks bees are stupid, so he consistently walks a few inches from an underground hive. This riles the bees and he gets swarmed. Even if he gets stung, he is pleased with himself because he has proved that the bees are stupid, since he can always point to the fact that he didn't actually step on the hive.

But the shortest way to put it is Lyle is not just a troll, he is a psychotic troll, because he thinks that anyone calling him out for intent rather than content is a fool, and he probably finds this perversely amusing.

Lyle:
Sorry, I'll not be your huckleberry, because this game is useless.

But I will submit an example of something creepy in intent, but not directly stated in the content so you can not technically refute it, as it is not expressed as fact:

Perhaps those on your side of the ideological fence should get their act together, because the last attempt at a mass shooting was from the radical right. Luckily, there was a hero on duty at the holocaust museum to stop him, while making the ultimate sacrifice.

See? I didn't blame the right directly. I didn't say there was anything wrong with the "conservative" ideology, or the kind of fascist christian splinter groups that are buoyed by the right wing media, but I bet you think you know how I really feel about those groups.

Baltimoron
11-12-2009, 08:51 PM
At the risk of sending this thread into ever lower levels of lunacy, I thought this science and pro-gun blogger had something useful to add about the pistols Nidal Malik Hasan bought (http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/11/re_nidal_hasans_weapons.php):

It is to say that a matter of empirical fact the weapons he carried were relatively ordinary, and that the weapon he actually used was in fact among the least effective weapons he could possibly have picked - certainly orders of magnitude less dangerous than a standard combat rifle.

The comments section is also mostly helpful. I would gather from this, that Hasan had no special knowledge of weaponry, either of his own or gained from "conspirators". It would follow he bought these weapons without much consideration for what he was purportedly so cold-bloodily planning to do.

Whatfur
11-12-2009, 08:56 PM
At the risk of sending this thread into ever lower levels of lunacy, I thought this science and pro-gun blogger had something useful to add about the pistols Nidal Malik Hasan bought (http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/11/re_nidal_hasans_weapons.php):



The comments section is also mostly helpful. I would gather from this, that Hasan had no special knowledge of weaponry, either of his own or gained from "conspirators". It would follow he bought these weapons without much consideration for what he was purportedly so cold-bloodily planning to do.

Conclusion long jumping? Yes, a lower level of lunacy.

The guy was a social worker, a gun was probably a gun to him. Did it or did it not kill 14 humans and injure over 40? He was obviously looking to make a statement and did so with the hardware available to him.

Whatfur
11-12-2009, 08:59 PM
Project away, Vic! You always sputter so when hit with the truth. It is not very becoming.

Baltimoron
11-12-2009, 09:09 PM
The guy was a social worker, a gun was probably a gun to him. Did it or did it not kill 14 humans and injure over 40? He was obviously looking to make a statement and did so with the hardware available to him.

Duh! And, the blog author admits as much. That's not the point. A terrorist with any knowledge of guns, or access to expert knowledge from his fellow conspirators, and the intent to maximize terror and death would not have chosen the weapons Hasan did. The guns actually frustrate the purpose: the bullets are too light, are not hollow-pointed, and the weapons recoil too much to maximize optimal aiming and firng. They also cannot be modified to fire automatically. Instead, this information confirms that Hasan was not acting reasonably and with haste. This points to insanity, not the cold-blooded ratiocination of a committed terrorist.

Baltimoron
11-12-2009, 09:24 PM
The Economist's characterization of Nidal Malik Hasan (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=14845113) threads the needle: "signs of mental disturbance and a turn to religious extremism"

Former colleagues said that Major Hasan was vigorously opposed to the war on terror, which he considered a war on Islam. In 2007, according to the Washington Post, he gave a lecture to colleagues in which he warned them of “adverse events” from Muslim soldiers agonising about their jobs. He also made contact with a radical cleric. Anwar al-Awlaki was an imam at a mosque in suburban Virginia where the gunman worshipped; before that he was an imam at a mosque in San Diego, where two of the September 11th hijackers sometimes worshipped—a connection that has set alarm bells ringing in some quarters.

In 2002 the cleric left America. He now lives in Yemen, where he runs a website preaching jihad against America. Last year, while investigating Mr al-Awlaki, federal agents came across Major Hasan’s messages to the cleric, but decided not to probe further. The FBI said the messages could be explained by Major Hasan’s psychiatric research, “and nothing else derogatory was found.” In a blog after the attacks, Mr al-Awlaki called Major Hasan a hero.

Previously, and apparently separately, Major Hasan had come to the attention of investigators after writing some internet posts of his own, in which he praised suicide-bombers. That investigation, too, was dismissed. This summer, when Major Hasan went to buy one of his weapons, none of the investigations appeared on his background check. With the benefit of hindsight, all this looks like sloppiness on the part of America’s security apparatus.

Barack Obama was one of many to counsel against Islamophobia. “No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts,” he said. And the chances of a backlash against Muslims as a group are mercifully small. Most Americans seem to be perfectly capable of understanding that deranged, isolated extremists do not act on behalf of the whole religion, just as most understand the difference between people who oppose abortion and people who attack abortion clinics. And Major Hasan does appear to be in the deranged category. The details of his life that have emerged so far suggest a lonely, loveless and circumscribed existence: no wife, no close friends, a cheap apartment. There was no significant backlash against Muslims after the September 11th attacks, and Major Hasan, unlike the hijackers, can expect a trial and, if convicted, the death penalty.

A subsidiary question is why Major Hasan’s unhappiness raised no alarms. Colonel Kimberly Kesling, deputy commander of clinical services for the medical centre at Fort Hood, said that she had never had any indication that he dreaded his planned deployment to Afghanistan later this month. If he had come forward, she said, they would have tried to help.

Perhaps. But thousands of soldiers are in Afghanistan and Iraq against their will. Major Hasan may be an aberration. But his outrages are also a reminder that the strain of America’s long war on terror is starting to tell; and a warning that psychotic jihadism is not confined to far-off lands.

No special license for anti-Muslim bigotry or conspiracy spinning here!

Whatfur
11-12-2009, 10:03 PM
Duh! And, the blog author admits as much. That's not the point. A terrorist with any knowledge of guns, or access to expert knowledge from his fellow conspirators, and the intent to maximize terror and death would not have chosen the weapons Hasan did. The guns actually frustrate the purpose: the bullets are too light, are not hollow-pointed, and the weapons recoil too much to maximize optimal aiming and firng. They also cannot be modified to fire automatically. Instead, this information confirms that Hasan was not acting reasonably and with haste. This points to insanity, not the cold-blooded ratiocination of a committed terrorist.

It confirms nothing. However I don't doubt there is some insanity involved.

Baltimoron
11-12-2009, 10:13 PM
However I don't doubt there is some insanity involved.

Hasan's defense attorney can thank you for exculpating him of any criminal intent.

Whatfur
11-12-2009, 10:15 PM
Hasan's defense attorney can thank you for exculpating him of any criminal intent.

I'm a nice guy. I actually would do the same thing for you.

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 09:08 AM
[..]

I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible for you to come up with any other retort when you get called on your shit besides "YORE PROJEKTING!!!1!"

Well, type what you like, over and over again, if it helps you to ignore the worries you have about yourself.

Whatfur
11-13-2009, 11:44 AM
I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible for you to come up with any other retort when you get called on your shit besides "YORE PROJEKTING!!!1!"

Well, type what you like, over and over again, if it helps you to ignore the worries you have about yourself.

There are two things that I find absolutely hilarious about you. One IS your constant projection of your OWN shortcomings on others and the other is your ability to be a hypocrite, not just from one day to another but sometimes within the same thread.

Stop doing those things and you will find others will stop referencing them.

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 12:11 PM
I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible for you to come up with any other retort when you get called on your shit besides "YORE PROJEKTING!!!1!"

... projection ...

Noted.

Lyle
11-13-2009, 02:15 PM
This argument makes no sense. It doesn't follow that because he used a certain kind of weaponry that he couldn't be a terrorist. Weapons don't make a terrorist, an act and intent do.

I don't think he is a terrorist per se, as I've said before, but he could have used a butter knife and still be a terrorist.

Lyle
11-13-2009, 02:20 PM
Does the article not call him a Muslim and a jihadist though? I think it does.

graz
11-13-2009, 02:28 PM
This argument makes no sense. It doesn't follow that because he used a certain kind of weaponry that he couldn't be a terrorist. Weapons don't make a terrorist, an act and intent do.


http://www.roadkilltshirts.com/images/products/KILL-PEOPLE.gif

Mohammed Atta, being an architect, considered as his first choice, building a poorly constructed and unsightly structure in N.Y. Then he figured that airplanes would be more effective as a terrorist tool.

Lyle
11-13-2009, 03:13 PM
Yeah, exactly, butterknives to airplanes, it don't matter.

Baltimoron
11-13-2009, 08:07 PM
Hasan did not commit a crime, because he was psychotic. "Jihad" is a red herring: even Buddhism has a defense for war, and Christianity has its "holy war" tradition. The issue now moves to the courts, where the prosecution has to prove both that Hasan committed criminal acts, and that he did them with criminal intent. The intent part in criminal law id very difficult, and there's good material for an insanity defense. The issue of Hasan's state of mind when he bought the guns is also relevant. Islam is only an issue so much as it can explain Hasan's specific mental state. It's not on trial here.

The US military doesn't have to conduct a witch hunt against Muslims. It needs to do more to keep its personnel sane, and to give each one the proper care he/she deserves. The true "crime" is the lack of funds and the bean counters who use paper work and procedure to limit access to health care programs the US military has in abundance. The other "crime" is retention, in which America is fighting in two places, draining its reserves, reducing its recruitment standards, and all for a dependence on energy we Americans still cannot overcome.

Amidst all these calls against Islam, the irony is, that America does a better job integrating Muslim immigrants into its society than the EU. What paleocons object to is not the lack of safety in the US military. Paleocons and neocons have already demonstrated that they would rather sacrifice young men and women to Eurasia than change their profligate habits. It's that one day a Muslim could have a fair chance at competing with them for a job, and might one day marry their sons and daughters. Just admit your lasciviousness and bigotry!

Whatfur
11-13-2009, 11:26 PM
Thought this was pretty good. (http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/11/a-writing-exercise/)

Whatfur
11-14-2009, 07:58 PM
"Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "God is great") before shooting his fellow service members at Fort Hood, Tex., woke up in his hospital bed with the presence of mind to suspend his personal jihad long enough to get lawyered up. No fool he. "


Read the rest. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111303587_2.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns&sid=ST2009111303593)

Lyle
11-16-2009, 03:41 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111503160_pf.html

Aulaqi said Hasan's alleged shooting spree was allowed under Islam because it was a form of jihad. "There are some people in the United States who said this shooting has nothing to do with Islam, that it was not permissible under Islam," he said, according to Shaea. "But I would say it is permissible. . . . America was the one who first brought the battle to Muslim countries."

The cleric also denounced what he described as contradictory behavior by Muslims who condemned Hasan's actions and "let him down." According to Shaea, he said: "They say American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should be killed, so how can they say the American soldier should not be killed at the moment they are going to Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Lyle
11-16-2009, 06:36 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2235760/pagenum/all/#p2

Real the whole thing.

Lyle
12-26-2009, 09:54 AM
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon1222jg.html

kezboard
12-27-2009, 07:02 PM
To recognize the evil of Nidal Hasan and his ideology, to admit the existence of pernicious enemies, is to concede that there are societies, cultures, and systems that are much more unjust than ours. This is an untenable step for leftists to take, because it means acknowledging that there is something superior about our civilization that’s worth saving and defending.

The notion that his own society is evil and unjust is the bedrock of the leftist’s vision. Wicked capitalists trample on the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden; the leftist appoints himself to rescue these victims. He is a self-styled social redeemer, leading a movement to liberate the masses, even if it results in the destruction of his own society. This political mission provides him with immense moral indignation and, therefore, moral superiority, dispositions from which, in turn, he derives emotional self-gratification. His whole belief system provides him with a sense of belonging; he joins other social redeemers, as well as the victims, real or imagined, who wait for him to break their chains.

Thus, the leftist’s political disposition is a faith that reinforces his personal identity and sense of belonging. Admitting that Hasan is a jihadist would undermine that faith. It would also expose the leftist to potential excommunication from his social community. He’d become politically suspect to his peers, perhaps even accused of becoming a reactionary right-winger. That’s why we will continue to witness more Fort Hood denial from the Left, with all of its irrationality and disregard for human life.

LOL

Lyle
12-27-2009, 09:31 PM
LOL! :)

kezboard
12-28-2009, 04:36 AM
The characterization of 'leftists' in that magazine reveals one of two things:

1. The writer is a moron
2. The writer thinks all his newspaper's readers are morons

It's funny.

Lyle
12-28-2009, 04:50 AM
I disagree. He's got certain leftists pegged for sure.

Lyle
01-20-2010, 03:34 PM
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954960,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+ Top+Stories%29

But without a motive, there would have been no murder. Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. "The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam," says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. "Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for."

Lyle
01-22-2010, 12:32 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22littlerock.html?hp

A Tennessee man accused of killing a soldier outside a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station last year has asked a judge to change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda.

In a letter to the judge presiding over his case, the accused killer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, calls himself a soldier in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and calls the shooting “a Jihadi Attack” in retribution for the killing of Muslims by American troops.

“I wasn’t insane or post traumatic nor was I forced to do this Act,” Mr. Muhammad said in a two-page, hand-printed note in pencil. The attack, which he said did not go as planned, was “justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad — to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims.”

It remains unclear whether Mr. Muhammad really has ties to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which President Obama has said is behind the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an American plane by a Nigerian man.

But if evidence emerges that his claim is true, it will give the June 1, 2009, shooting in Little Rock new significance at a time when Yemen is being more closely scrutinized as a source of terrorist plots against the United States.

Mr. Muhammad, 24, a Muslim convert from Memphis, spent about 16 months in Yemen starting in the fall of 2007, ostensibly teaching English and learning Arabic. During that time, he married a woman from south Yemen. But he was also imprisoned for several months because he overstayed his visa and was holding a fraudulent Somali passport, the Yemen government said.

Under pressure from the United States government, Yemen deported Mr. Muhammad in late January 2009. But just four months after his return, Mr. Muhammad used a semiautomatic rifle to gun down two soldiers — Pvt. William A. Long and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula — while they were standing outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, killing Private Long and wounding Private Ezeagwula.

After the shooting, Mr. Muhammad pleaded not guilty, but also took responsibility for the shootings in interviews with The Associated Press. But he did not acknowledge being part of an extremist group and some terrorism experts came to view him as a self-radicalized, lone actor.

In his letter to Herb Wright Jr., a Pulaski County circuit judge, Mr. Muhammad calls himself a member of “Abu Basir’s Army,” an apparent reference to Naser Abdel-Karim al-Wahishi, the Yemen group’s leader, who also goes by the name Abu Basir.

Lyle
01-22-2010, 02:26 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2010/01/21/srm.cafferty.pentagon.cnn