PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2

Lyle
11-05-2009, 07:15 PM
Sad, very sad (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938). Come on Religion of Peace, get your act together.

The incidents in Kuwait, Little Rock, and now Killeen. Truly awful.

Baltimoron
11-05-2009, 07:34 PM
Come on Religion of Peace, get your act together.

The incidents in Kuwait, Little Rock, and now Killeen. Truly awful.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, told Fox News that military sources informed her that the gunman was about to be deployed to Iraq.

The shooter was killed and two other suspects, who are also soldiers, have been apprehended, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone said.


Damn these token good Muslims! Not only didn't they jump high, but they shoot low! In my day, we were just glad to get a government paycheck, health care, access to choice meat - it's an integrated army, yeah! - and really safe shopping malls on every camp. These grunts today, they're so temperamental! They are refusing to be billboards!

I'm not condoning this atrocity. It's deplorable. But, it's the first of a small taste of what's coming. Chicken hawks, Dem and GOP, wrecked the machine. As the resentments and ailments are exposed, deficit hawks I'm sure will refuse to help the soldiers they have wronged.

Lyle
11-05-2009, 07:44 PM
First, small taste of what is coming? Widespread mutiny you mean? I doubt it... since the armed services are all volunteer.

Baltimoron
11-05-2009, 07:53 PM
Widespread mutiny you mean? I doubt it... since the armed services are all volunteer.

Not numbers, intensity. Soldiers being volunteers and careerists will only cause whatever - for lack of the right scientific term because I don't know why this soldier snapped - "demons" to explode on a personal scale that will make Vietnam's denouement seem like a temper tantrum. And, I fear, how all these personal explosions affect families will provide grist for indie authors and film-makers and no one else.

I'm jumping out on a limb, of course. But, in the Army emotional outbursts are like flame-outs on this Board, except that sergeants don't really mind as much as they see it as a waste of efficiency. Turn that snarl outward, soldier, and kill that enemy! Those soldiers angry and clever enough to sleep with their rifles are the Army's wet dream! I'm conjecturing these soldiers lost the ability to play the game and are speaking out with bullets. Again, I'm not condoning their actions.

TwinSwords
11-05-2009, 08:25 PM
Lyle,
How do you imagine Muslims feeling when they see your post title, and read your post?

AemJeff
11-05-2009, 08:28 PM
Lyle,
How do you imagine Muslims feeling when they see your post title, and read your post?

Why would you care about how a Muslim feels?

TwinSwords
11-05-2009, 08:34 PM
Why would you care about how a Muslim feels?

That's what I'm wondering. There must be something wrong with me.

Lyle
11-05-2009, 08:43 PM
Hopefully ashamed of their fellow Muslims. Are we supposed to pretend they weren't practicing Muslims?

Lyle
11-05-2009, 08:46 PM
I agree we should all have sympathy for people who lose it and act out (I think that is a point you're trying to make). Normal, productive human beings lose it at times and they didn't do whatever they did because they were evil or some such. If that's the case, so be it. We don't really know yet though.

Wonderment
11-05-2009, 08:50 PM
Lyle, When Timothy McVeigh hit the US Fed. Building in Oklahoma City, did you post "Christians murder innocent civilians again"?

Lyle
11-05-2009, 08:52 PM
Did he murder in the name of God though? Do you deny Muslim extremists invoke their religion when they carry out their acts?

Come on Wonderment, you're much smarter than this.

edit: and aren't people starting to call violent evangelicals Christianists? Doesn't their faith get called out when they murder abortion doctors? I think it does. Didn't Mormons get picked on in California after the gay marriage proposition failed? Bad Mormons, bad.

AemJeff
11-05-2009, 08:55 PM
Did he murder in the name of God though? Do you deny Muslim extremists invoke their religion when they carry out their acts?

Come on Wonderment, you're much smarter than this.

Did you read the minds of the perpetrators here? Come on Lyle, oh wait...

Baltimoron
11-05-2009, 08:57 PM
Normal, productive human beings lose it at times and they didn't do whatever they did because they were evil or some such. If that's the case, so be it. We don't really know yet though.

Yes, and we were warned. I hope we are happy with what the Army did, because it might be a while before it can do it again.

Lyle
11-05-2009, 08:58 PM
We don't know, but the man was a Muslim and he murdered U.S. soldiers today, just like the Muslim resident did so in Little Rock and just like the Muslim, U.S. soldier did so in Kuwait.

No?

AemJeff
11-05-2009, 09:01 PM
We don't know, but the man was a Muslim and he murdered U.S. soldiers today, just like the Muslim resident did so in Little Rock and just like the Muslim, U.S. soldier did so in Kuwait.

No?

What does that have to do with mind-reading?

Lyle
11-05-2009, 09:05 PM
Ah... that we don't know why he did this? How did you fail to understand that?

bjkeefe
11-05-2009, 09:52 PM
... Jim Newell (http://wonkette.com/412035/412035) knows his Lyles. (I refer to the update at the end of the post.)

kezboard
11-05-2009, 10:12 PM
Watch me, I'm throwing my hands up in the air right now. I can't deny it anymore! Islam is a terrible religion and all Muslims should be looked on with suspicion, whether they're Army psychiatrists, dentists, janitors, schoolchildren, or interns on Capitol Hill. I give up! You were right about black people, too -- it's true, I didn't actually care about the lives of black children in poor neighborhoods, I'm just interested in being politically correct and denying the obvious fact that the Bell Curve guys were right and blacks are just more violent than whites!

Seriously, Lyle, come on. This is pure trollery, just like your Chicago post -- bringing up a current event with a sensationalistic title so that you can implicitly publicly confirm your already-existing biases while disavowing them and saying "What? This is a legitimate news story, I'm just using my common sense". All you're trying to do is smear Muslims, dude. As of right now we don't know whether his identity as a Muslim (or just a guy with a Muslim-sounding name) has anything more to do with this than his identity as a psychiatrist. It's possible it does. Even then, it doesn't mean anything about Islam being really a "religion of peace" or not. (That debate I will happily sideline myself for, since I thought that phrase was a dumb one from the get go.)

Baltimoron
11-05-2009, 10:22 PM
I don't usually praise the AP, but at least it knows a man named "Hasan" isn't necessarily a Muslim (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2009/11/05/shootings_occurred_in_one_area.html).

Officials says it was not clear what Hasan’s religion was, the AP said, but investigators are trying to determine if Hasan was his birth name or if he may have changed his name and converted to the Islamic faith at some point.

It looks like Hasan hit the promotion ceiling - although o-4 Captain is the usual rank when marginal officers are trimmed..

Jeff Sadosky, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, said the senator had been told that Hasan was upset about his upcoming deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

An AP source said Hasan had received a poor performance evaluation for Army hospital work. Hasan had been a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six years before being transferred to Fort Hood in July, the Associated Press said, citing military officials in Washington.

The suspect, McCaul said, “took a lot of advanced training in shooting.”

McCaul said he also has been told that Hasan had undergone alcohol counseling.

The title of this thread is not only possibly wrong, but is bigoted. Just call Hasan a bad officer.

Baltimoron
11-05-2009, 10:34 PM
A Search for Answers Following Fort Hood Attack (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=5112009&seg=1)

There's also this Twitter feed (http://twitter.com/FtHoodShootings).

TwinSwords
11-05-2009, 11:28 PM
Thanks for taking on Lyle. I appreciate your efforts, and would engage him myself, but to be honest my skin crawls when I think about what I might say to him. My single post earlier is the absolute most I can stomach.

It's not just the fact that he's a racist; it's how proud of it he is. In a way, it's as horrifying to contemplate a world with remorseless haters like Lyle as it is to contemplate remorseless killers like Jeffery Dahmer; the difference is only one of degree. Mass murder is surely worse than mass hate, but the reaction to both is the same: visceral revulsion. And attitudes like Lyle's open the door to the very violence Lyle purports to condemn with his broadbrush attack on the moral integrity of over 1 billion Muslims.

Lyle
11-05-2009, 11:34 PM
Trollery? A Muslim, U.S. soldier killed U.S. soldiers once before. A Muslim resident murdered an army recruiter in Little Rock, Arkansas... and now this. There's a pattern perhaps, no?

Trolling, what the hell does that even mean (as Bob Wright himself said)? This murderer was a practicing Muslim. If you can't handle that, so what!

Lyle
11-05-2009, 11:35 PM
How is it bigoted? He was a Muslim.

Lyle
11-05-2009, 11:36 PM
What have I said that is racist? Muslim groups (groups made up of people who practice Islam) are rushing to condemn the atrocity that has taken place. Good for them. They're doing the right thing and recognize how a lot of people will have questions with regards to this man's motives... since we are fighting Muslim terrorists abroad and Muslims have murdered U.S. soldiers before, most recently in Little Rock, Arkansas.

What is racist or bigotted about articulating the truth?

TwinSwords
11-05-2009, 11:37 PM
How is it bigoted? He was a Muslim.

http://www.funnyforumpics.com//forums/STFU/3/stfu-cup-of.jpg

AemJeff
11-05-2009, 11:39 PM
Trollery? A Muslim, U.S. soldier killed U.S. soldiers once before. A Muslim resident murdered an army recruiter in Little Rock, Arkansas... and now this. There's a pattern perhaps, no?

Trolling, what the hell does that even mean (as Bob Wright himself said)? This murderer was a practicing Muslim. If you can't handle that, so what!

Logic just isn't your first language, is it? Personally I think it was baldness that drove him to it; and, it's no coincidence that Mickey Kaus is losing his hair, too! There's definitely a male pattern there, anyway!

Lyle
11-05-2009, 11:41 PM
What's wrong with being Muslim? He was a Muslim, what's so hard to understand about that?

TwinSwords
11-05-2009, 11:42 PM
What have I said that is racist?

Start here:

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1807/lyletheracist.png

Baltimoron
11-05-2009, 11:45 PM
This murderer was a practicing Muslim. If you can't handle that, so what!

That's not confirmed yet, either that he was a Muslim, or an active practitioner. All we know is that Hasan was a troubled Army officer who has received orders for deployment to Iraq. Whether he's an animist, Christian, or a Momma's boy, the salient fact is, that some trauma caused Hasan to fire at his fellow soldiers. You want to believe Islam is inherently violent or is the necessary cause of this incident, but that opinion is centuries too late.

Lyle
11-05-2009, 11:46 PM
Who said Islam was a terrible religion or that all Muslims should be looked on with suspicion? Having actually lived in a predominantly Muslim community before I know that the vast majority of Muslims are decent folk like everyone else in the world. Some of them are terrorists though and continue to commit atrocity after atrocity, and it has to do with their religious or cultural background. All I want is for the violence to stop. Not too much to want is it?

Muslims even know they have problems in their community. So what is the big deal about being honest about it?

Lyle
11-05-2009, 11:49 PM
Where have I said that Islam is inherently violent? It's not.

I also read somewhere that he was a convert to Islam. If that is inaccurate, it's inaccurate and I'll stop referring to him as a Muslim.

Baltimoron
11-05-2009, 11:50 PM
Muslims even know they have problems in their community. So what is the big deal about being honest about it?

Excuse me if i don't take your word about what "Muslims" know. And, again, if "Muslims" have problems, it's not as a stereotype, but as individuals.

Baltimoron
11-05-2009, 11:51 PM
I also read somewhere that he was a convert to Islam.

Link?

Lyle
11-05-2009, 11:53 PM
Oooh... that's some answer. Yep, I'm a racist cause I don't have a problem accepting the fact that some Muslims have murdered people in the name of Allah or out of bigotted reasons stimming from the fact they're Muslim and think they're at war with America or the West.

I'm a racist! I'm a racist! Muslims are a race! Muslims are a race! What color they are, I don't know... but they're a race of people! A race of people, I tell you!

Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar! That's some racial or political statement!

Lyle
11-05-2009, 11:56 PM
You're entirely right, except that they also participate in groups like Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al Qaeda. So no, they don't always act as individuals, but as part of movements within the Islamic community.

edit: 9/11, for example, was carried out by four groups of Arab Muslim men.

Baltimoron
11-06-2009, 12:02 AM
Oooh... that's some answer. Yep, I'm a racist cause I don't have a problem accepting the fact that some Muslims have murdered people in the name of Allah or out of bigotted reasons stimming from the fact they're Muslim and think they're at war with America or the West.

Hasan hasn't been in custody for a day, and you're spinning with a virility worthy of Fox! A man documented for alcohol counseling doesn't sound like a practicing Muslim, for starters. Possible motivations for this incident are numerous: suicide by soldier, any number of non-psychotic disorders; a misguided attempt to save fellow soldiers from a deployment. The trigger is most likely not Islam.

Baltimoron
11-06-2009, 12:06 AM
You're entirely right, except that they also participate in groups like Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al Qaeda. So no, they don't always act as individuals, but as part of movements within the Islamic community.

There are absolutely no grounds for those suppositions.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 12:11 AM
What's wrong with being Muslim? He was a Muslim, what's so hard to understand about that?

We don't know yet that he was a Muslim.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 12:11 AM
Oh, you would be wrong apparently. Also, what vitriol have I been spouting off. I've only said that a Muslim man killed U.S. soldiers today. I haven't said he is an awful person. I've described the act as awful, but not the man. I pity him, just like I pity the 9/11 bombers and all other Muslim terrorists who fight us out of ignorance (because we really don't hate them).

U.S. born Muslim (http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6511746/Fort-Hood-shooting-suspect-wounded-but-alive.html)

edit: this is the correct link (http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6511591/Fort-Hood-shooting-Nidal-Malik-Hasan-said-Muslims-should-rise-up.html)

Lyle
11-06-2009, 12:12 AM
Actually we do. (http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6511746/Fort-Hood-shooting-suspect-wounded-but-alive.html)

edit: this is the correct link (http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6511591/Fort-Hood-shooting-Nidal-Malik-Hasan-said-Muslims-should-rise-up.html)

Baltimoron
11-06-2009, 12:16 AM
The link is busted...twice.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 12:17 AM
Actually we do. (http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6511746/Fort-Hood-shooting-suspect-wounded-but-alive.html)

edit: this is the correct link (http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6511591/Fort-Hood-shooting-Nidal-Malik-Hasan-said-Muslims-should-rise-up.html)

Ok. But we didn't at the time you started this thread. So the protestations from those who felt you were jumping to conclusions are justified. Moreover, it's still unclear whether that is ultimately what motivated his actions--doubtful, in my view--or just panic and insanity over his deployment.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 12:18 AM
The 9/11, Madrid, and London bombings were carried out by a single individual?

None of the Muslim terrorist groups I've mentioned above aren't Muslim? There aren't extremist mosques around the world?

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 12:20 AM
those links don't work for me

Baltimoron
11-06-2009, 12:24 AM
You keep spinning his background when you know nothing about it! Every one of your bigoted suppositions tars this man with enough sectarian motivations and questionable associations to get him the most unfair trial in the land. As Preppy tries to tell you, he could be motivated by other triggers. It's possible for instance, that he wanted to commit suicide.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 12:24 AM
Did you read the article all the way through? He was a ranting Muslim extremist. Come on Preppy. I grant the deployment probably played a major part in it, but he was a Muslim extremist, and our government apparently was aware of it (oh oh).

And I'm not going to apologize for not being stupid. :) But yes, I presumed he was a practicing Muslim (although I did read or hear on the news that he was possibly a convert to Islam... although we now know he was raised Muslim).

Lyle
11-06-2009, 12:26 AM
Try this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6511591/Fort-Hood-shooting-Nidal-Malik-Hasan-said-Muslims-should-rise-up.html

If that doesn't work, go to where Preppy responds to me above. I linked it there as well and apparently she was able to view the article.

Baltimoron
11-06-2009, 12:33 AM
I agree with Preppy. And, your statements about Islam are prejudicial. But, based on hearsay, Hasan does seem to have had a psychotic break. At the least, Hasan cannot reconcile two loyalties, his oath to the Army and his allegiance to Islam. That's not the same as being a terrorist.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 12:35 AM
Did you read the article all the way through? He was a ranting Muslim extremist. Come on Preppy. I grant the deployment probably played a major part in it, but he was a Muslim extremist, and our government apparently was aware of it (oh oh).

And I'm not going to apologize for not being stupid. :) But yes, I presumed he was a practicing Muslim (although I did read or hear on the news that he was possibly a convert to Islam... although we now know he raised a Muslim).

Yes, I did read the piece. It's one article which only cites one source for the claim regarding his beliefs, and that source (Col. Lee) is reporting what he heard from others. That's shoddy journalism and not sufficient for me to have an opinion about why he did it. I'll wait till we've heard more from others at the base or in his personal life.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 12:43 AM
I haven't called him a terrorist, although the shooting is probably a terrorist act under Texas State law and Federal law. I've only referred to him as a Muslim and have suggested the Muslim community still has much work to do with regards to guys like Mr. Hasan (thank God it wasn't Hussein, no?).

So how have I prejudiced Muslims? Are my views on Muslims even any different from your views? There are Muslim terrorists who are out to kill non-Muslims around the world, however. Are you unaware of what happened on 9/11, or in Madrid, or in London? Was al Qaeda not in Iraq killing American soldiers? Didn't Arab Muslims try and blow up the the WTC in 1993? Didn't a Muslim resident kill an American soldier in Little Rock recently?

That ain't even hardly the beginning of the murders and atrocities carried out in the name of Allah around the world for the last half-century. The list goes on and on. Trying to pretend it hasn't happened, isn't happening, or won't happen in the future is plain ignorance and will not help to stop it.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 12:46 AM
Perhaps and I admit that could be true, but he did espouse extremist Muslim views, and he carried out what he espoused. Hmmm.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 12:48 AM
True, true... but they did also quote his cousin which is how we know he was raised Muslim.

claymisher
11-06-2009, 12:57 AM
October 16, 1991: A 35-year-old civilian drives a pickup truck into a Fort Hood cafeteria and fatally shoots 23 people wounding 20 more before killing himself. It was the deadliest shooting rampage in American history until the Virginia Tech Massacre.

July 18, 2009: Thirty-year-old soldier from Wisconsin is shot and killed by a bullet fired during a party at Fort Hood. A fellow soldier is charged with the murder.

Sept. 8, 2008; A 1st Lieutenant goes looking for missing military equipment at an apartment near Fort Hood is shot and killed by a solider from Alabama, who then turns the gun on himself.


-- http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/11/omg-its-jihad-muslims-eeeeeeeek.html

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 12:59 AM
Right. No dispute on his upbringing. Just that there's only one source saying he expressed his religion in this particular extreme way, so not enough basis to suggest that religion is the root of his violence.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 01:00 AM
... except this guy espoused extremist Muslim views. Haha. Good try though claymisher. Good try.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 01:05 AM
Oh... I thought I read that the FBI or some intelligence agency had been alerted to his extremist rhetoric. Maybe that wasn't reported in that article, or came from the same man and was. I'll have to check.

Here's the WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110505216.html?hpid=dynamiclead&sid=ST2009110504565) story running tomorrow, I guess. Interestingly it was going to be his first deployment.

WaPo mentions that authorities were aware of his extremist rhetoric:

Hasan attracted the attention of law enforcement authorities in recent months after an Internet posting under the screen name "NidalHasan" compared Islamic suicide bombers to Japanese kamikaze pilots.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 01:40 AM
It's mentioned in the Telegraph story too, but they say it's not yet clear those posts were his. Even if they were, however, haven't seen the posts, so not dispositive. I'm just generally inclined in all cases of murder to say 'we don't know why he did it,' right up until the moment when we do.

I'd further argue that even if you're more confident of your instincts than I am, in cases where those instincts involve such data points as the suspect's ethnicity or race, you should err on the side of caution too.

Baltimoron
11-06-2009, 01:54 AM
I'm also not convinced the officers aren't circling the wagons. It wouldn't be the first time officers lied to protect the Corps.

I'm not condoning Hasan's actions, but I don't classify him as a terrorist, merely a man who allegedly committed a terrorist act. It might be a quibble, but I think the distinction is important.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 02:00 AM
I don't classify him as a terrorist, merely a man who allegedly committed a terrorist act. It might be a quibble, but I think the distinction is important.

A military lawyer who was speaking on the news (it was either MSNBC or CNN, can't recall as I was switching between 'em) tonight said the same.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 02:04 AM
Look, I don't disagree with you Preppy, and if I were a professional journalist, in law enforcement, or part of the justice system actually dealing with this event I wouldn't be so liberated in my thinking or speech. I'm not professionally involved in it, so I can be a little risque here.

What I find so interesting is you have people here who have no problem whatsoever going off on so-called wingnuts, the nutty right, or Christianists, Mormons, or whomever they don't like and yet when an apparent extremist Muslim (I pity him and what he thought about America and his military) kills a whole bunch of innocent people I'm a bigot for calling this guy (who has actually killed people) out for being Muslim. Woe is me!

Something is wrong with progressive America Preppy, something is very wrong. I know you see it too. Centrism baby, centrism! ;)

By the way, tell all your Pakistani family, friends, and colleagues that we are not against them and certainly not against their particular faith or culture (unless it is something criminal of course like stoning their daughter or something... probably not your people though). We want them to live long, happy lives in prosperity, as we hope for ourselves.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 02:07 AM
I would agree. The act was a terrorist act, but he doesn't seem to be a terrorist per se.

JonIrenicus
11-06-2009, 02:22 AM
I agree with Preppy. And, your statements about Islam are prejudicial. But, based on hearsay, Hasan does seem to have had a psychotic break. At the least, Hasan cannot reconcile two loyalties, his oath to the Army and his allegiance to Islam. That's not the same as being a terrorist.

The guy was clearly deranged. But I would bet he would not have acted out in this way if he was a Jain. Just saying.


Stereotypes have an aspect no one likes to acknowledge. Sometimes, there is some truth to them. I don't know exactly why this nut did what he did, but odds are he sampled the fertile fields of Islamic teachings to draw out inspiration. Not all fields are so... giving.

In a way I am glad he survived. Not only will his death be more cathartic after facing a trial, in theory, we get to hear the actual rationale.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 02:38 AM
Allah Akbar to that man!

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 02:40 AM
I'm not professionally involved in it, so I can be a little risque here.

I guess the disagreement is whether you can. Some here seem to be arguing that you can't be risque about race, even if you're just Lyle, ordinary citizen, commenting on BHTV. That said, I think it's true that those calling you out are inclined to jump to conclusions sometimes too about other groups. I call them out too, when given the chance.

Something is wrong with progressive America Preppy, something is very wrong. I know you see it too. Centrism baby, centrism! ;)

That something is wrong with both poles of American politics is indisputable. Mostly, I think it's a matter of the broad coalitions on both sides breaking down: fiscal conservatives don't have much in common with social conservatives; cultural liberals don't have much in common with economic liberals. The expansion of the center at the moment reflects a lot of people trying to mix and match--fiscal conservatism with cultural liberalism (see: Brink Lindsey) or social conservatism with economic liberalism (see: Ross Douthat). Expect partisan realignment sometime around 2050.

By the way, tell all your Pakistani family, friends, and colleagues that we are not against them and certainly not against their particular faith or culture (unless it is something criminal of course like stoning their daughter or something... probably not your people though). We want them to live long, happy lives in prosperity, as we hope for ourselves.

They don't think you are against them, until the moment when you add the caveats about stoning their daughters. We in the States feel compelled to add the caveats about extremism when we refer, in general, to Muslims, that we don't add with the same frequency when we refer to other groups. And since 90% of the time, you're talking to someone for whom stoning of their daughter is as far from the mind as it is for you or I, it grates a bit.

I should say that, even as an American raised in a vaguely Muslim home, I add the same caveats. So I'm not accusing you, but rather pointing out that it's a mistake we make generally and it's right to correct others around you when you see it and expect that they will do the same for you.

That said, most Pakistanis I know aren't very concerned about what America thinks at all these days; at the moment, the major concerns are the impending economic and political disasters internally. Which are linked to our broader counterterrorism agenda, but in the eyes of most Pakistanis, it's the local, not the global, significance that is paramount.

kezboard
11-06-2009, 03:29 AM
What I find so interesting is you have people here who have no problem whatsoever going off on so-called wingnuts, the nutty right, or Christianists, Mormons, or whomever they don't like and yet when an apparent extremist Muslim (I pity him and what he thought about America and his military) kills a whole bunch of innocent people I'm a bigot for calling this guy (who has actually killed people) out for being Muslim. Woe is me! Something is wrong with progressive America Preppy, something is very wrong.

Lyle, seriously, you can't see the difference between calling someone who's arguably acting nutty a nut and implying that all Muslims are dangerous and it's a terrible religion? I have no problem calling the murderer from Fort Hood a nut, an extremist, possibly crazy, evil, etc., and neither I, nor anyone I've seen on these boards, have made the same trollish generalizations about Republicans or Americans* or Christians that you made about Muslims in this post and about black people in the Chicago post.

*well, except for possibly Francoamerican

kezboard
11-06-2009, 03:38 AM
A Muslim resident murdered an army recruiter in Little Rock, Arkansas... and now this. There's a pattern perhaps, no? Trolling, what the hell does that even mean (as Bob Wright himself said)? This murderer was a practicing Muslim. If you can't handle that, so what!

What do you mean, I can't "handle that"? Like my little brain can't compute that a Muslim could possibly be a murderer? I don't find that particularly difficult. This is what I mean by trolling: you're insinuating that there's a pattern, and that this means something about Muslims or Islam, but you're not willing to actually say what you mean, and when I or anyone else asks you exactly what you're saying, you shoot back with "What? He was a Muslim, that's all I'm saying".

What does it mean, Lyle? Do you think this guy was part of al-Qaeda or something? Do you think the military is infiltrated by terrorist groups? Do you think American Muslims are untrustworthy? You titled this post "Muslim murders US soldiers again", not "Soldier murders other soldiers at army base again", "Army psychiatrist kills soldiers", "Virginian kills Texans again", for a reason, didn't you? So what are you trying to say?

Lyle
11-06-2009, 03:40 AM
On your last point... I get that. When I lived in a Muslim neighborhood in Germany as an exchange student I didn't oft bring up the stoning of young girls, instead I would talk about how men treated women in America or my experiences with them. I wasn't even critical or confrontational about the Muslim world's problems. Once they realized I respected them for who they were they tended to speak freely about their country's problems or their personal lives and beliefs. So I understand that sensitivity. I've seen it. It's something a lot foreigners have around Americans. I'm usually never as sensitive about what they think about America as they are about my thoughts on their country or continent, and normally it is a one way conversation of criticism directed towards America or some aspect of it.

However bh.tv is not a dorm room deep inside a Muslim neighborhood in Europe... it's an online forum populated mostly by Americans, and left-of-center ones at that. The kind of people who have a hard time criticizing anybody who isn't white and doesn't live below the Mason-Dixon line.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 03:45 AM
Where do I imply or say Islam is a dangerous religion or that all Muslims are nutty? I've explicity said it isn't and they're not. I haven't even called Maj. Hasan a nut. You should read through the entire thread to see all of my thoughts on Islam, Muslims, and this one particular Muslim man who killed his fellow Americans yesterday.

I'm not really bothered if you don't like my broadly worded thread title.

bjkeefe
11-06-2009, 03:54 AM
Forget it, kez. It's Lyle.

Wonderment
11-06-2009, 04:05 AM
To send women and men to war is to terrorize them as well as to terrorize the victim populations they wage war against.

The environment of warfare is rife with hellish mental disease. The post-traumatic/between-deployment world is fraught with violence turned inward and outward. Few escape with their minds intact. Ask them, if you don't believe me.

War drives people crazy because war is a crazed proposition. Even bearing witness to the horrors of war can poison the soul.

If you are really surprised when soldiers lose their minds, you haven't been paying attention.

A murder-suicide rampage is just one of many ways to go insane from war. Stop the wars; heal the soldiers.

JonIrenicus
11-06-2009, 04:17 AM
To send women and men to war is to terrorize them as well as to terrorize the victim populations they wage war against.

The environment of warfare is rife with hellish mental disease. The post-traumatic/between-deployment world is fraught with violence turned inward and outward. Few escape with their minds intact. Ask them, if you don't believe me.

War drives people crazy because war is a crazed proposition. Even bearing witness to the horrors of war can poison the soul.

If you are really surprised when soldiers lose their minds, you haven't been paying attention.

A murder-suicide rampage is just one of many ways to go insane from war. Stop the wars; heal the soldiers.


This reminds me of one of those stories about a dog that mauls a child for getting too close, and people showing up with tears in their eyes that the dog was later put down.

kid may as well have been an insect for all he was worth.


Sometimes the self caricature is so over the top nothing else needs to be said.


The mind of a pacifist. Own your fellow travelers anti war folk. Incidentally, this is another example for a tangential point. This statement is nearly as deranged as what the murderer believed in a negative way. But the deranged beliefs of a pacifist, while nutty, are essentially harmless. Not the case when the fuel is a more volatile set of beliefs and actions.

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 04:33 AM
That's what I heard Maddow say tonight. Over and over. She kept on saying "the female first responder who shot Hasan". I had no idea why she said "female first responder", other than to counteract the stereotype that women aren't as capable as men. Is there some other reason that she would have said that?

Regardless, Lyle, here's one reason why I don't think it's relevant to bring up the fact that he was a Muslim, even if it is true, as appears to be the case, that he is a Muslim: because we have no evidence yet that his being a Muslim had anything to do with why he decided to kill those people. It could end up being the case that he killed people because of his religious beliefs, but we just don't know it yet. From what I know about the case--which I don't trust very much yet--he was critical of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and he found out he was going to be deployed into war zones the day before his murder spree. Moreover, he was counseling patients with PTSD. These to me seem more relevant to explaining why he went on his rampage.

Of course, in response to this, you could say that the only reason I see these as more relevant factors than his religion is that I don't take seriously the possibility that Islam makes people more violent. That could be, but if you say that, then it makes it harder for you to say that you weren't implying that Islam is a violent religion.

In any case, here's an example to make you question why people might think it's inapposite for you to bring up Hasan's Islam. Imagine if Hasan were a conservative; and people constantly mentioned that whenever they mentioned that he killed people. Surely that would make you think that they mentioned that because they wanted to discredit conservatism? Wouldn't yoiu at least want them to wait to see if there was any connection between his conservatism and his killing spree?

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 04:38 AM
Obviously war has negative effects on people. But from I understand, he hadn't been deployed yet; is that false?

Regardless, the vast, vast majority of people who are deployed don't go on killing sprees when they get back. You cannot fully negate the shooter's responsibility for this action.

Also, your subject-line, "The shooter was THE victim" (caps mine), implies, by normal conversational implicature, that the ONLY victim of, or the person MOST victimized by, all this was the shooter himself, rather than the people he murdered and injured. But that's a very difficult-to-defend conclusion.

Wonderment
11-06-2009, 05:06 AM
You cannot fully negate the shooter's responsibility for this action.

I don't.

Also, your subject-line, "The shooter was THE victim" (caps mine), implies, by normal conversational implicature, that the ONLY victim of, or the person MOST victimized by, all this was the shooter himself, rather than the people he murdered and injured. But that's a very difficult-to-defend conclusion.

Good point. I've edited that to more clearly reflect my views.

TwinSwords
11-06-2009, 07:53 AM
Sad, very sad (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938). Come on Religion of Peace, get your act together.

The incidents in Kuwait, Little Rock, and now Killeen. Truly awful.

"Come on, religion of peace."

No one is falling for Lyle's attempts to obfuscate his intent in starting this thread, but let's just recall for a moment his first post: He explicitly ties the tragedy at Fort Hood to the entire religion of Islam, in effect blaming over a billion people for the actions of a single disturbed individual.

TwinSwords
11-06-2009, 08:21 AM
That's what I heard Maddow say tonight. Over and over. She kept on saying "the female first responder who shot Hasan". I had no idea why she said "female first responder", other than to counteract the stereotype that women aren't as capable as men. Is there some other reason that she would have said that?
Yesterday I watched a little bit of CNN and a little bit of MSNBC's Hardball. This morning I'm listening to MSNBC's conservative Morning Joe. All of the above are emphasizing (indeed, celebrating) the gender of the first responder. I didn't see Maddow; maybe she did emphasize the first responder's gender more than the other programs as you seem to be implying. Why does it bother you that she, or they, highlight this fact? (I'll grant I'm assuming your state of mind from your post; forgive me if I've mischaracterized it.)

Personally, when I heard that the first responder was a woman, I thought it was kind of cool, and did help to shatter the old stereotypes. Now, I'm not sure how much persistence the old stereotypes about women have any more; maybe they do among old people and really dumb people. But for the most part I think the stereotypes of women as weak and needing protection were shattered long ago, and continue to be shattered every day by the work women do in countless professions. But still, I'm curious why it seems to be an irritant to you that Maddow would emphasize the responder's gender. Isn't the notice being paid to gender in this case an unambiguously good thing, i.e., reinforcement for a positive trend?

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s-1960s, which was primarily directed at ending discrimination against blacks and women, seems to have been a smashing success where women are concerned — far more of a success than it has been with respect to blacks. (Maybe this is because almost everyone has daughters or sisters or nieces, while not everyone has a black child or sibling, so it's more difficult to achieve universal committment to racial equality.)

I'm not a woman, so my perspective may be severely skewed, and I'd like to be corrected or offered counterexamples if they exist, but it's my feeling that women are well on their way to achieving total equality. The lagging indicator, of course, is equal numerical representation in various roles, but it's my feeling that this is not due to lingering sexism as much as the simple fact that it takes time for women to rise through the organizational ranks and catch up in terms of the raw numbers. The process is well under way, and whatever obstacles once existed have, I believe, been almost entirely removed.

Given all of this, I thnk the worst you can say about the media's emphasis on the responder's gender is that they are flogging a dead horse.

Baltimoron
11-06-2009, 08:29 AM
I agree both with you and Bobby G. It's oddly complimentary, but in his responses to me, Lyle tended not to emphasize Islam as a motivating factor. I reacted strongly to Lyle's use of "Muslim", because I just don't see it as relevant. Even when responding to Preppy, Lyle made some questionable comments about Islam. Perhaps because of the situation, I slipped into a legalistic perspective. But, generally, I view any statement of religion as nonsensical. It might be important for another reason, but someone might as well talk about plaid giraffes. I also tried to apply my experience with the Army. Lyle is right to distinguish between wingnuts and Hasan, though. There's a difference between gullibility, spin, and a breakdown.

TwinSwords
11-06-2009, 08:42 AM
Oh... I thought I read that the FBI or some intelligence agency had been alerted to his extremist rhetoric. Maybe that wasn't reported in that article, or came from the same man and was. I'll have to check.

Here's the WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110505216.html?hpid=dynamiclead&sid=ST2009110504565) story running tomorrow, I guess. Interestingly it was going to be his first deployment.

WaPo mentions that authorities were aware of his extremist rhetoric:

I haven't read all of the sources, but I'm going to go out a limb here and say that what you have evidence for is not a religious motivation for the crime, but a cultural affinity for the victims of the wars in Iraq and Afghanstan. In other words, the "rhetoric" being cited (and which I have only briefly perused) implies to me that the killer identified with the people of Iraq and was taking revenge on their behalf.

NOTE: This interpretation should in no way be construed as a defense for or justification of the horrific crime.

So, unless I am missing the explicit religious angle, the killer's religion is largely irrelevant. Perhaps you have already posted evidence that religion itself was the driving factor for the violence, but if you have, I haven't seen it.

I would note that cultural affinity is quite frequently the motive for violence. When we responded to 9/11 by invading Iraq and slaughtering tens of thousands of women and children, it was done not for reasons of our religion, but because of a common cultural bond Americans had to the victims. When we shrug our shoulders and disregard the genocide in Darfur or Rwanda, it is because of a lack of cultural affinity for the victims.

TwinSwords
11-06-2009, 08:51 AM
The expansion of the center at the moment
What's your evidence that the center is expanding? I think you are conflating the increase in independents with the growth of the ideological center. I believe the growth of independents can be more easily explained as the migration by many conservatives, including many ultraconservative extremists, out of the Republican Party. The teabaggers in NY-23 were independents to the right of the Republican Party. The Bush years saw the collapse (albeit temporary) of the conservative movement. When Bush's approval numbers plummeted to 25%, it's not because 75% of the country became liberal or Democratic, but because half of Republicans and conservatives were upset with the direction of the Republican party. Listen to what these people say; they were not upset because of the drastic shift to the right reflected by Bush and Cheney, but by the fact that they didn't shift far enough to the right. The real trend in American politics is the continued rapid shift from the right to the far right. And the political parties are not characterized by "hard left" and "hard right," (D and R), but by "soft right," "hard right," and "neo-fascist," or Democrats, Republicans, and Ron Paul-type extremists.



Expect partisan realignment sometime around 2050.
Also, expect significant advances in science and technology by 2054.

If there was not significant political realigniment over a 41 years span, it would be a remarkable thing. I doubt whether there has been any 41 year span in American history that did not see some kind of significant political realignment.

popcorn_karate
11-06-2009, 01:31 PM
if only U.S. soldiers would stop murdering U.S. Soldiers.

maybe we can some canadians down here, they don't seem to kill each other.

popcorn_karate
11-06-2009, 01:32 PM
yep - he supported the FLAT TAX!!!! and opposes gay marriage!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Al_Assad

popcorn_karate
11-06-2009, 01:34 PM
he loves beef - especially steaks.

how many murderers are carnivores? shouldn't we do something about these meat-eating freaks?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Al_Assad

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 01:47 PM
However bh.tv is not a dorm room deep inside a Muslim neighborhood in Europe... it's an online forum populated mostly by Americans, and left-of-center ones at that. The kind of people who have a hard time criticizing anybody who isn't white and doesn't live below the Mason-Dixon line.

Maybe. But the nature of an online forum is that what you say there is never solely for the consumption of forum members--everything online is public, linkable etc. I'm pretty strict with myself on this--there's nothing I've written here, or on Facebook or Twitter or on any other social media platform I inhabit, that I wouldn't get up and read on national television.

You said earlier that if you were a journalist or public official, you'd approach this topic differently. I'm suggesting that the nature of an online forum is such that the distinction between public Lyle and private Lyle evaporates, so you should be cautious with your language regardless. And I'd apply that to the rest of the BHTV forum members too.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 02:02 PM
Agreed that the people leaving the GOP aren't moderates nor people who see themselves as ideological centrists. What I'm suggesting is that centrism is an approach, not a policy platform. And it's an approach that is not the same thing as moderation. Moderation implies watering down liberal or conservative proposals. Centrism implies taking bits of hard left and hard right and combining them as they are.

And there are some voters, who see themselves ideologically as hard left or hard right, but who are in conflict with members of their own party because the party espouses other ideas which don't fit their [the voters'] definition of what 'hard left' or 'hard right' ought to be. And in the process of trying to form platforms around their definitions of 'true conservatism' or 'true liberalism', those folks are drawing ideas from the extreme positions of the other party, and that's what I call centrism.

So, in the case of the GOP, I'd suggest that social conservatives who ditched Scozzafava for Hoffman are hard right-ists but that fiscal conservatives are hard-rightists too. In other words, they are two, separate, hard right groups who define conservatism in different ways. And for roughly a quarter-century, they have lived under the delusion that they have a lot in common. But actually, they don't. So you have fiscal conservatives winding up in the independent pool and being attracted to some hard left ideas about social liberties.

Meanwhile, there are a number of folks on the left who don't worry much about social liberties but care a helluva lot about economic populism--think of the Hillary Clinton constituency in the waning days of the 2008 Democratic primary. They're not "less left" than the social and cultural liberals who dominate liberal discourse today, but they define "left" differently and they are increasingly drawn to some ideas on the hard right--strong defense and social conservatism--to help flesh out a populist, communitarian view of the world.

Obviously, it's inevitable that there will be partisan realignment every generation; I'm simply positing that it will be along these lines.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 02:13 PM
You might be right Preppy. You make a sensible point... I just don't think my language is that bad. I enjoy being uncouth around those who are quick to yell racist, racist!

Lyle
11-06-2009, 02:19 PM
We now know Hasan was a Muslim extremist so it is all a mute point. Even if he killed all those people because he was in love with someone, it would still be relevant to bring up his religion in light of his extremism and because of past events.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 02:27 PM
The whole of the Islamic community is not to blame for this murderous rampage, but much like the white South was responsible for ending Jim Crow and the worst of its manifestations so to is the Muslim community responsible for ending the worst of its members actions.

You disagree?

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 02:38 PM
Wait...so even if his Muslim extremism had nothing whatsoever to do with why he killed people, we should bring it up? I don't get it. Surely you're saying that his Muslim extremism DID have something to do with why he killed people and that's why you're bringing it up?

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 02:40 PM
We're on the same page, then.

Jyminee
11-06-2009, 02:44 PM
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-shooting-reported-downtown-orlando-20091106,0,7958763.story

A former employee of a business located in a downtown Orlando building where a deadly mass shooting took place today is suspected in the attack.

Two people are dead and at least 17 were shot in the incident, which took place about noon today.

The suspect, Jason Rodriguez, 40, is believed to be driving a silver, 2002 Nissan SUV with tag number D11UXR, Orlando Police spokeswoman Sgt. Barbara Jones.

No information as of yet on whether the suspect is a Muslim convert.

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 02:49 PM
Thanks for your response, Twin. The reason I brought it up is not that I disagree with the notion that women can also kill bad guys; it's that Maddow et al is doing something similar (but not identical) to what I take Lyle to be doing.

The fact that she's a woman has nothing to do with her ability to have shot Hasan.
Similarly, the fact that Hasan was a Muslim--or a Muslim extremist, assuming that's true--also had nothing to do (so far as we know) with why he shot so many people.

Maddow brought it up because it helps her political agenda: she thinks that not enough people see women as the combat equivalent of men, so she brings it up in this case to hammer the point home.
Lyle brought it up because it helps his political agenda: he thinks that not enough people see Muslims--or at least Muslims who take their religion seriously--as more prone to violence than non-Muslims, so he brings it up to hammer his point home.

However, the jury is still out, as far as I know, regarding whether Hasan's religion had anything to do with his shooting people--it could still be relevant, given the info we have. But it's hard to imagine how the first responder's sex could be relevant.

One last thing: most people agree with Maddow's agenda, whereas most people here don't agree with Lyle's agenda. But structurally, it seems what they're doing is the same: bringing up irrelevant details to manipulate people into thinking what they want.

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 02:52 PM
I see what you're doing, but it's kind of insensitive to make the first mention of it jokey.

claymisher
11-06-2009, 02:54 PM
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-shooting-reported-downtown-orlando-20091106,0,7958763.story



No information as of yet on whether the suspect is a Muslim convert.

Are we sure that Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim? John Wilkes Booth? Guy Fawkes? It would be irresponsible not to speculate!

Lyle
11-06-2009, 02:56 PM
So a Muslim extremist shoots 40 something people at a U.S. military base and you wouldn't point out the fact that he's a Muslim extremist? What?

To point out that he's a Muslim or a Muslim extremist, he only needs to be a Muslim or a Muslim extremist. What are you failing to grasp here?

graz
11-06-2009, 03:02 PM
Are we sure that Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim? John Wilkes Booth? Guy Fawkes? It would be irresponsible not to speculate!

Perhaps they're all Guy Fawkers. (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/255184/november-05-2009/guy-fawkers)

popcorn_karate
11-06-2009, 03:04 PM
Thanks for your response, Twin. The reason I brought it up is not that I disagree with the notion that women can also kill bad guys; it's that Maddow et al is doing something similar (but not identical) to what I take Lyle to be doing.

The fact that she's a woman has nothing to do with her ability to have shot Hasan.
Similarly, the fact that Hasan was a Muslim--or a Muslim extremist, assuming that's true--also had nothing to do (so far as we know) with why he shot so many people.

Maddow brought it up because it helps her political agenda: she thinks that not enough people see women as the combat equivalent of men, so she brings it up in this case to hammer the point home.
Lyle brought it up because it helps his political agenda: he thinks that not enough people see Muslims--or at least Muslims who take their religion seriously--as more prone to violence than non-Muslims, so he brings it up to hammer his point home.

However, the jury is still out, as far as I know, regarding whether Hasan's religion had anything to do with his shooting people--it could still be relevant, given the info we have. But it's hard to imagine how the first responder's sex could be relevant.

One last thing: most people agree with Maddow's agenda, whereas most people here don't agree with Lyle's agenda. But structurally, it seems what they're doing is the same: bringing up irrelevant details to manipulate people into thinking what they want.

seems pretty valid to me.

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 03:11 PM
I would point out he's a Muslim extremist if his Muslim extremism had anything to do with why he killed people. If it didn't have anything to do with why he killed people I wouldn't bring it up.

Let me ask you a question: do you think his being a Muslim extremist had anything to do with why he killed people? If not, then why bring it up? Just because it's true of him? But that can't be why--there are lots of things true of him that you haven't brought up; for instance, his height, his baldness, etc.

popcorn_karate
11-06-2009, 03:11 PM
so to is the Muslim community responsible for ending the worst of its members actions.


so which community is responsible for you?

or do you think <radical notion alert!> that you are responsible for your own actions?

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 03:13 PM
I just don't think my language is that bad. I enjoy being uncouth around those who are quick to yell racist, racist!

We just disagree on whether being uncouth about race constitutes bad language. I'm saying it does. I realize 90% of people, on this site or elsewhere, don't agree, but I'll keep saying it regardless.

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 03:13 PM
Also, I'm not ruling out that his Muslim extremism might have had something to do with his shooting people. For instance, he's alleged to have yelled "God is great" before shooting:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1511803.php/US-Army-shooter-likely-shouted-Allah-Akbar-death-toll-rises-Extra#ixzz0W5IvdCMP

But that to me is not yet evidence that his religious beliefs had anything to do with why he shot people, though it is suggestive.

Ocean
11-06-2009, 03:18 PM
Maddow is emphasizing what I'll assume is a 'good' quality about women in order to make a political/feminist point. Lyle is emphasizing a religion, which in this specific context would have negative implications. Are those two equivalent?

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 03:25 PM
Maddow is emphasizing what I'll assume is a 'good' quality about women in order to make a political/feminist point. Lyle is emphasizing a religion, which in this specific context would have negative implications. Are those two equivalent?

Yes. Bobby is arguing (and I'd agree) that it is bad to bring up irrelevant information or make specious links between facts EVEN IF the ends are positive/honorable.

Ocean
11-06-2009, 03:34 PM
Yes. Bobby is arguing (and I'd agree) that it is bad to bring up irrelevant information or make specious links between facts EVEN IF the ends are positive/honorable.

Yes, I understand that point. I think I moved one step and looked at the differences between the two kinds of statements to assess how 'bad' each one would be in its implications. They are the same (in their badness according to you) in that they bring in an irrelevant quality in order to introduce a colateral political statement. Beyond that, one is a political statement that praises a group (women), the other is a political statement that intends to create animosity against a religious group (Muslims).

look
11-06-2009, 03:36 PM
But that to me is not yet evidence that his religious beliefs had anything to do with why he shot people, though it is suggestive.No more WWE for you.

JonIrenicus
11-06-2009, 03:58 PM
Are we sure that Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim? John Wilkes Booth? Guy Fawkes? It would be irresponsible not to speculate!

It is amusing watching the liberal psyche bend itself into pretzels to mention anything but the relationship of ones muslim beliefs to hostile actions. Such restraint is not granted to christians, or virtually any other group. Actually, that is not right, all groups under the "oppressed" aegis sort of fit the bill to a degree.


Let me state something VERY clearly to those who refuse to yield to the obvious. In modern times, the chances that one would use Islamic teachings as inspiration for acts of violence is far greater than any other major religion.


That is a fact. The examples of christians or jews doing the same are more cases of man bites dog than an honest accounting of the FAR greater degree of dysfunction that exists by too many practitioners of Islam.


There is a stigma attached to a certain strain of Islam, and that stigma is earned and deserved. Want it removed? Then lets see this kind of thing happen less.


Ideas are not nothing people, and alot of their ideas are still backwards. Will that change? Probably, but you do it no favors by denying any issues within the muslim population, or shielding muslims from hearing that they have issues within their ranks or among their fellow practitioners.


This is NOT a reasonable strategy when dealing with the relationship of muslims using their religion to justify violence.

http://msa4.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/035ostrich-head-in-sand_468x538.jpg

Francoamerican
11-06-2009, 04:07 PM
Perhaps they're all Guy Fawkers. (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/255184/november-05-2009/guy-fawkers)

Funny....especially the Colbert.

But what is it about the US and people who go berserk? Other countries have an occasional lunatic who goes on a killing spree, but it seems to happen with disconcerting regularity in the US.

claymisher
11-06-2009, 04:15 PM
Centrism implies taking bits of hard left and hard right and combining them as they are.


Why would you want to do that, other than to soothe a troubled mind? Good policies stand on their own, independent of the clusters of ideas that political factions are associated with. I'm all for casting far and wide for good ideas (for example, libertarian policy on urban land use), but there's no reason to think that a centrism algorithm will automatically lead to good policy. Take the reductio ad absurdum case, what's centrism in 1933 Germany?

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-06-2009, 04:16 PM
But what is it about the US and people who go berserk? Other countries have an occasional lunatic who goes on a killing spree, but it seems to happen with disconcerting regularity in the US.

Sadly, you might be right. We're nowhere near the top of this list (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita), but certainly ahead of any other developed nation. The liberal in me says the answer might be our gun control laws (or lack thereof), but I'm interested to hear other interpretations too.

claymisher
11-06-2009, 04:19 PM
so which community is responsible for you?

or do you think <radical notion alert!> that you are responsible for your own actions?

When Lyle shoots up his middle school we're sure as hell not responsible for that. Expect no apologies from the bloggingheads nation!

AemJeff
11-06-2009, 04:21 PM
Funny....especially the Colbert.

But what is it about the US and people who go berserk? Other countries have an occasional lunatic who goes on a killing spree, but it seems to happen with disconcerting regularity in the US.

If you allow for the relative population size of the US, compared to most other countries, and the global reach of American media - it's not clear to me that there's much evidence that it's a worse problem here than elsewhere.

claymisher
11-06-2009, 04:21 PM
Funny....especially the Colbert.

But what is it about the US and people who go berserk? Other countries have an occasional lunatic who goes on a killing spree, but it seems to happen with disconcerting regularity in the US.

Our economic system has more inequality and causes more stress than other rich-nation economic systems.

Francoamerican
11-06-2009, 04:24 PM
Sadly, you might be right. We're nowhere near the top of this list (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita), but certainly ahead of any other developed nation. The liberal in me says the answer might be our gun control laws (or lack thereof), but I'm interested to hear other interpretations too.

I knew the US had much higher murder rates than European countries, but killing sprees are a different matter. Killing someone in particular is understandable (most people have probably had the fantasy at one time or another....) but killing complete strangers at random is a mystery, to me at least.

claymisher
11-06-2009, 04:24 PM
Perhaps they're all Guy Fawkers. (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/255184/november-05-2009/guy-fawkers)

A+ link.

This backs up my "wingnuts are the new hippies" thesis. When you're revering Catholic terrorists you're getting pretty damned close to Weathermen territory.

graz
11-06-2009, 04:31 PM
But what is it about the US and people who go berserk? Other countries have an occasional lunatic who goes on a killing spree, but it seems to happen with disconcerting regularity in the US.

Something about Westward expansion... the lonesome Prairie and the Pacific rim (Westward expansion ends - leaving aside imperialism). This rationale is perhaps best captured by the likes of Wim Wenders with Paris, Texas or Sam Shepard's True West.

In other words alienation... Really though, I don't have a clue. I think easy access to guns is only a small part of it. Any theories?

Francoamerican
11-06-2009, 04:34 PM
If you allow for the relative population size of the US, compared to most other countries, and the global reach of American media - it's not clear to me that there's much evidence that it's a worse problem here than elsewhere.

Britain and France have about 500 murders each per year (out of a population of app. 60 million each). The US has about 15,000 murders a year (out of a population of 300 million). Proportionately, I think you can see the difference: 500 X 5 = 2,500.

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 04:36 PM
I grant that trying to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment is worse than trying to encourage pro-equality sentiments. So to that extent they're different; but they're also different because Hasan's Islam could end up being relevant, whereas Kimberly Munley's sex almost certainly won't end up being relevant (unless Hasan didn't take her seriously because of her sex, or something like that).

That said, I find it a bit curious--only a bit, mind you--that so many people dislike Lyle for trying to make a (so far) spurious connection between Hasan's religion and his actions, given that many of those same people are perfectly willing to say that religious beliefs by and large make people worse (more violent, more bigoted) than not having religious beliefs.

I suspect that what's going on is push-back against conservatives' singling out of Islam, rather than a brief for Islam in particular, but it never seemed obvious to me that religions, which make so many different claims about the human condition and what people are to do, should end up all having the same effects on people's conduct. Indeed, I should think the revese would be true: since different religions preach different things, their adherents are going to behave in different ways, much like Republicans and Democrats, because of their different beliefs, behave in different ways.

Wonderment
11-06-2009, 04:46 PM
Let me state something VERY clearly to those who refuse to yield to the obvious. In modern times, the chances that one would use Islamic teachings as inspiration for acts of violence is far greater than any other major religion.

I would dispute that. The greatest violence ever perpetrated on the peoples of the planet was Euro-colonialism, including slavery. Colonialism was a fanatically Christian violence that has evolved over the centuries into a less overtly quasi-secular ideology of violence, but one that continues to have its roots in the false religious belief that the God-man Jesus -- in fact, a pacifist, -- blesses war and wants his righteous minions to wage it in His name.

This is a terrible perversion of Christianity, just as terrorism is a perversion of Islam.

The drones that kill civilians in AfPak are Christian drones, killing (usually tacitly) in the name of Jesus. The perpetrators in their majority go to church and believe in a divine war mission guided by Jesus. The Western military operations are not closed to Jews, Muslims and atheists, but they are minority cultures within it.

What is different about Muslim violence is that it is generally an amateur operation, "asymmetrical," less polished, less ecumenical, entirely lacking the pseudo-secular component and contemptuous of the rule of Western law.

Muslim terrorists appall us, and rightly so. They are monsters. But not so different from the monster within us. Killing human beings is a monstrous endeavor.

You will get no clarity about why men go to war or how to prevent it from blaming one group as being fanatical or having an inferior ideology. War, by definition, is fanaticism and evil. If you demonize Muslims (or Christians or Jews), you will only perpetuate the evil.

Conflict resolution is not achieved by annihilating the "bad guys" and eradicating their ideas.

JonIrenicus
11-06-2009, 04:51 PM
Britain and France have about 500 murders each per year (out of a population of app. 60 million each). The US has about 15,000 murders a year (out of a population of 300 million). Proportionately, I think you can see the difference: 500 X 5 = 2,500.

6 times higher in total number

put another way

0.00083 % of UK/French population murdered each year

0.005 % of the US population is murdered each year

Big difference there huh.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 04:53 PM
Allahu Akbar and Amen!

AemJeff
11-06-2009, 04:55 PM
Britain and France have about 500 murders per year (out of a population of app. 60 million each). The US has about 15,000 murders a year (out of a population of 300 million). Proportionately, I think you can see the difference: 500 X 5 = 2,500.

Of course. But, random mass killings are a clearly distinct form of murder, and I don't think generic murder statistics can support an assertion about the former. Don't get me wrong, I think the murder statistics in the States are horrible, and I strongly believe they're a direct result of our for-shit gun laws and the lobbying of extremists who have argued for generations that the language of the American Constitution says something that it clearly does not say (as was amply demonstrated last year by the Heller decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller).) I'm open to contrary data, but drawing a line from there to your assertion doesn't feel satisfactory to me.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 04:57 PM
Yeah, of course he killed those people because he was a Muslim extremist.

Irregardless any sane journalist would point out that he was a Muslim if they could, which is why journalists quickly researched if he was in a fact a Muslim so that they could report that fact to the world.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 04:59 PM
BobbyG,

What exactly is my political agenda? Where do I even discuss politics in this thread?

Lyle
11-06-2009, 05:02 PM
I respect that.

Francoamerican
11-06-2009, 05:07 PM
Of course. But, random mass killings are a clearly distinct form of murder, and I don't think generic murder statistics can support an assertion about the former. Don't get me wrong, I think the murder statistics in the States are horrible, and I strongly believe they're a direct result of our for-shit gun laws and the lobbying of extremists who have argued for generations that the language of the American Constitution says something that it clearly does not say (as was amply demonstrated last year by the Heller decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller).) I'm open to contrary data, but drawing a line from there to your assertion doesn't feel satisfactory to me.

I didn't mean to draw a line from murder statistics in general to random killing sprees. As I said above, I find random killings incomprehensible. But the latter are extremely rare in Europe, whereas they seem to occur once or twice a year in the US. One could certainly speculate why that is so, but I am loathe to play the amateur sociologist.

Francoamerican
11-06-2009, 05:13 PM
6 times higher in total number

put another way

0.00083 % of UK/French population murdered each year

0.00083 % of the US population is murdered each year

Big difference there huh.

How do you figure that? You have to calculate the percentage for each country. France (=60 million) Britain (=60 million) US (=300 million) The US has five times the population of France and Britain but 30 times more murders than either country.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 05:14 PM
What community is responsible for my own actions? The same community responsible for yours. I mean if I were to murder someone and my community decided to apologize for me and give me a pass, I'd be cool with that.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 05:16 PM
Actually you are, cause you'll be responsible for seeing that I'm prosecuted. And for preventing someone from ever doing something like that again.

Lyle
11-06-2009, 05:29 PM
We don't live in colonial times do we though Wonderment?

popcorn_karate
11-06-2009, 05:29 PM
They are the same (in their badness according to you) in that they bring in an irrelevant quality in order to introduce a colateral political statement.

my understanding of Bobby, and what i was agreeing with is this:

But structurally, it seems what they're doing is the same: bringing up irrelevant details to manipulate people into thinking what they want.

I did not get that there was an attempt to say that the level of "badness" was equal. much like structurally, invading grenada may have been similar to invading Iraq, but the scale of the "badness" is rather different.

JonIrenicus
11-06-2009, 05:32 PM
I would dispute that. The greatest violence ever perpetrated on the peoples of the planet was Euro-colonialism, including slavery. Colonialism was a fanatically Christian violence that has evolved over the centuries into a less overtly quasi-secular ideology of violence, but one that continues to have its roots in the false religious belief that the God-man Jesus -- in fact, a pacifist, -- blesses war and wants his righteous minions to wage it in His name.


(Massages temples at the daunting task before him, prepares to begin sweeping the sand from the desert)

Don't care about what was, care about what is. Christians have tempered their ways, too many Muslims have not. I am not worried about the effects of deranged Jainism or Quakerism or a baptist church inspiring men to murder other men using their theology as a rationale for.





This is a terrible perversion of Christianity, just as terrorism is a perversion of Islam.

The drones that kill civilians in AfPak are Christian drones, killing (usually tacitly) in the name of Jesus. The perpetrators in their majority go to church and believe in a divine war mission guided by Jesus. The Western military operations are not closed to Jews, Muslims and atheists, but they are minority cultures within it.

(Massages temples again)

I'm an atheist, and was in favor of going to war in Afghanistan, as was some 80+ % of the nation at the time in all likelihood. Not that it matters to a pacifist. All war, by definition, is bad war. Any arguments made to the contrary are a waste of time until that nonsensical skein is peeled from your mind.

But seeing as that the vast majority of the nation is christian, you could make the case that any decision made has a christian basis. And if you did you would be wrong, again. Not all wars are religious in nature, Afghanistan was in response to a direct attack, and a desire, by the majority of all peoples, to root that out. Save the pacifists of course. I need to find or upload a clip of Denethor telling his men to abandon their posts when faced with war on his doorstep, sometimes this position is so absurd it needs to be knocked out of people, go Gandalf.


...Muslim terrorists appall us, and rightly so. They are monsters. But not so different from the monster within us. Killing human beings is a monstrous endeavor.


No, pacifist, no it is not. I will highlight a distinction you are incapable of seeing. Murder vs killing. Very different. To see killing as no different from murder, you have to think all killing is the same. That murder is no WORSE than say killing a terrorists or pirate or murderer. I consider such a view absurd, a perversion of ethics, a crippled moral lens through which to view the world. But that is opinion, still, I think my view leads to a less upside down world, where we do NOT see the killing of a terrorists who fights dominate others under the rule of sharia and worse, is the SAME act as the killing of a civilian working to BUILD things for people, or a soldier working to defeat those who wish to stop progress.

But then one would have to believe that certain ideas and values and conceptions of progress are superior to others. That they do not simply depend on cultural dictates.



You will get no clarity about why men go to war or how to prevent it from blaming one group as being fanatical or having an inferior ideology. War, by definition, is fanaticism and evil. If you demonize Muslims (or Christians or Jews), you will only perpetuate the evil.

Conflict resolution is not achieved by annihilating the "bad guys" and eradicating their ideas.

I will demonize and judge harshly whatever I see fit. That includes backwards beliefs and ideas. Some of you may buy into the notion that religious beliefs should be a private matter, beyond the realm of open critiques, not here. If I think an ideology is backwards and harmful I intend to say so.

You do not perpetuate evil by calling the bad, bad, you perpetuate evil by allowing it to stand unchallenged. It is the fatal mistake of the pacifist, for all the want to avoid doing harm in this world, it is their very inaction that often results in MORE evil persisting in this world.

There are times when I am glad the bad guys are annihilated, and their ideas discredited and argued against. I mean for gods sakes, even liberals should be for that last part, and yet we find so many hold their tongues when it comes to placing backwards and ideas and beliefs in check if they stem from Muslims.

This is NOT the time for that. If you must be liberal, be genuine and just a bit more classical, not left, not so pacifistic in your approach. It does not serve Islam or the speed at which the radical factions are broken down and marginalized to stay silent, to give the intolerant a pass.

popcorn_karate
11-06-2009, 05:36 PM
What community is responsible for my own actions? The same community responsible for yours.

ok. so is that the "Muslim community" or a different one?

JonIrenicus
11-06-2009, 05:44 PM
How do you figure that? You have to calculate the percentage for each country. France (=60 million) Britain (=60 million) US (=300 million) The US has five times the population of France and Britain but 30 times more murders than either country.

I messed up the numbers, used the 2500 instead of the 15000.

Still, the percentage of the population that is murdered is minuscule.

5 thousandths of a percent. Too high? yes, but not an epidemic.


As for an explanation of the elevated numbers I suspect it has to do with a greater degree of heterogeneity of the population. Though France has a larger muslim population now, I wonder what the numbers look like for nations with similar ethnic diversity.

I'd also be curious to know what the murder rate break down was for different demographics, what percentage was due to gangs etc.

bjkeefe
11-06-2009, 05:49 PM
Good posts from Jim Newell (http://wonkette.com/412067/americas-television-channel-what-the-dickens-do-we-do-about-these-muzzies), and via him, James Fallows (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/the_meaninglessness_of_shootin.php).

Bobby G
11-06-2009, 05:54 PM
Hi Lyle,

I took your political agenda to be that you think Muslim extremists, and perhaps Muslims in general, are more likely to commit violence than people who are not Muslim extremists, or than people who are not Muslims. Otherwise, I can't for the life of me explain why you brought it up (your response to this question seems to be that you brought it up because it was true of him; but there are lots of things that are true of him that you didn't bring up; so, why did you bring up his religion, as opposed to his baldness?). Similarly, although Maddow never said that her agenda was to try to make people take women in combat more seriously, I took it that that was her agenda--I take it you also don't agree with this inference of mine? Sorry if I imputed something to you that wasn't there.

Nevertheless, just for the record, I shall assume that you agree with the following statements:

You don't think Muslim extremists are more likely to commit violence than non-Muslim extremists. [EDIT: I see from your statement of 4:57 pm that "Yeah, of course he killed those people because he was a Muslim extremist" that there is some evidence that you don't agree with this statement. Thus, I shall conclude that you think Muslim extremists are indeed more likely to commit violence than non-Muslims extremists.]

You think Hasan's religious beliefs were completely irrelevant to why he carried out his heinous deeds. [EDIT: your post of 4:57 indicates to me that you also don't agree with this statement.]

The only reason that you brought up Hasan's religious beliefs is that it's true of him that he has them, just like it's true of him that he's balding. [EDIT: your post of 4:57 pm indicates that you don't agree with this statement either]

Finally, the reason that you brought up his religion but not his baldingness is that it just didn't occur to you to bring up his baldingness, but it did occur to you to bring up his religion, and there's nothing more to be said about why it occurred to you to bring up his religion. [EDIT: your post of 4:57 pm indicates that you don't agree with this statement either.]

EDIT: so it turns out that when I attributed to you the belief that Muslim extremists are more likely than non-Muslim extremists to commit violence, and that you brought up Hasan's religion because you suspected this to have something to do with what he did, turned out to be entirely right. That said, why did you label your initial post, "Muslims Murder U.S. Soldiers Again"? Why didn't you call it "Muslim-Extremists Murder U.S. Soldiers Again"?

popcorn_karate
11-06-2009, 06:10 PM
go Gandalf.

since you like the Lord of the Rings, think about Gollum. Isn't it interesting that mercy was so powerful? if Gandalf or Bilbo or Frodo had ever given into your worldview, they would have killed gollum, and the ring would never have been destroyed, and middle earth would be lost to the Dark Lord.

that story is a christian parable, but the heart of it is Mercy, not judgement and violence. By showing mercy and compassion, they found the remnants of the "humanity" (or hobbitity) left in Smeagol.


and don't let me catch you misusing Tolkien again!
; )

Francoamerican
11-06-2009, 06:17 PM
I would dispute that. The greatest violence ever perpetrated on the peoples of the planet was Euro-colonialism, including slavery. Colonialism was a fanatically Christian violence that has evolved over the centuries into a less overtly quasi-secular ideology of violence, but one that continues to have its roots in the false religious belief that the God-man Jesus -- in fact, a pacifist, -- blesses war and wants his righteous minions to wage it in His name. .

How do you arrive at such summary, peremptory judgements? The greatest violence: what does that mean? Are you referring to the Crusades? And what is a "less overtly quasi-secular ideology of violence?" What exactly do the revolutionary wars, the wars of national liberation, the ideological wars of the 20th century have to do with Christianity? To blame 19th-century European (and American) colonialism on Christianity is absurd.

Apropos of slavery. You are surely aware, aren't you, that Muslims traded and owned slaves? That there were slaves in Saudi Arabia and parts of Muslim Africa well into the 1960s? And surely you are aware that Islam was a religion of military conquest for the first five hundred years or so of its history?

This is a terrible perversion of Christianity, just as terrorism is a perversion of Islam.

Exactly.

bjkeefe
11-06-2009, 06:20 PM
One-time B'head Jerome Corsi connects the dots (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/iwndis-jerome-corsi-claim_n_348461.html) (on prominent conservative website WND): Obama is in cahoots with the shooter!!!1!

(h/t: Juli Weiner (http://wonkette.com/412056/it-is-about-time-someone-obviously-jerome-corsi-linked-the-ft-hood-shooter-to-obama))

Wonderment
11-06-2009, 06:34 PM
I think my view leads to a less upside down world

I realize that as a warist you hold this to be true, but I think it's warism and warists who have caused the most harm, not pacifism and pacifists.

Rather than debate that point and frustrate yourself by "sweeping the sands of the desert), however, I'd encourage you to explore alternatives to war, i.e., nonviolent conflict resolution. If the US, for religious motives or not, had not been so trigger-happy in the post 9/11 period, we would have spared millions of people lives of immense misery (not the least of which are our own military veterans, many of whom I have seen crippled, crazy and terminally haunted over the decades, and ESPECIALLY now).

I will demonize and judge harshly whatever I see fit. That includes backwards beliefs and ideas. Some of you may buy into the notion that religious beliefs should be a private matter, beyond the realm of open critiques, not here. If I think an ideology is backwards and harmful I intend to say so.

Having watched the Israel-Palestine conflict develop over the past 60 years, I can assure you that demonizing religions and quasi-religious narratives about peoplehood and culture is profoundly counterproductive. You just insult, enrage and alienate people that way. There are much better strategies and principles for eliminating the risk of violence. Perhaps the most intractable problem is how to break free from the cycle of violence: provocation, violent reaction, revenge/retaliation. You don't do that by telling the other side that their religion is stupid and that they are backward or evil.

Wonderment
11-06-2009, 06:40 PM
Obama is in cahoots with the shooter!!!1!

They were probably trained in the same Indonesian madrassa.

Plus, they are obviously related: Malik Hasan/Barack Hussein.

Also, note that Malik spelled backwards is Barack.

JonIrenicus
11-06-2009, 07:03 PM
since you like the Lord of the Rings, think about Gollum. Isn't it interesting that mercy was so powerful? if Gandalf or Bilbo or Frodo had ever given into your worldview, they would have killed gollum, and the ring would never have been destroyed, and middle earth would be lost to the Dark Lord.

that story is a christian parable, but the heart of it is Mercy, not judgement and violence. By showing mercy and compassion, they found the remnants of the "humanity" (or hobbitity) left in Smeagol.


and don't let me catch you misusing Tolkien again!
; )

When I am done scrounging for the Denethor clip where Gandalf knocks him out, I'll post it.

Wonderment
11-06-2009, 07:39 PM
I also thought this article brought out the melding of Christian war and Muslim war quite nicely. It is published in the NYT with a nice pic of Ms. Villa standing next to her wall Crucifix (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07suspect.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=global-home&adxnnlx=1257550397-gPaUowTlaKcki4dq2AB1XQ).

KILLEEN, Tex. — On Thursday morning, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan went to his next-door neighbor at the rundown apartment complex where he rented a one-bedroom unit and gave her most of his belongings, saying he would not need them any more.

Mr. Hasan told the neighbor, Patricia Villa, that he was leaving for Iraq or Afghanistan and would not be back for six months. Mr. Hasan brought over an air mattress, a steamer and men’s clothing for her husband, some still in dry cleaning bags marked “Hasan.” He offered her $60 to clean his apartment on Friday morning. The day before, he had brought over a copy of the Koran and bags of vegetables that he said he would not be able to eat.

“He said he was ready,” Ms. Villa said on Friday. “I said, ‘For real?’ He said, ‘I’m ready.’ I figured, he’s with God. He’s ready to go fight.”

A few hours later, Mr. Hasan was shot down by two civilian police officers and taken into custody by the authorities after a shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead and at least 28 others wounded.

claymisher
11-06-2009, 07:42 PM
How do you arrive at such summary, peremptory judgements? The greatest violence: what does that mean? Are you referring to the Crusades?

I always think of the Albigensian crusade, probably 'cos I'm a vegetarian.

Ocean
11-06-2009, 08:53 PM
I grant that trying to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment is worse than trying to encourage pro-equality sentiments. So to that extent they're different; but they're also different because Hasan's Islam could end up being relevant, whereas Kimberly Munley's sex almost certainly won't end up being relevant (unless Hasan didn't take her seriously because of her sex, or something like that).

Yes, we agree on that.

That said, I find it a bit curious--only a bit, mind you--that so many people dislike Lyle for trying to make a (so far) spurious connection between Hasan's religion and his actions, given that many of those same people are perfectly willing to say that religious beliefs by and large make people worse (more violent, more bigoted) than not having religious beliefs.

I want to clarify that I didn't say that I dislike Lyle for that. As a matter of fact, Lyle has been doing the same (sneaking a provocative comment here and there) for so long, that I find it, most of the time funny in that it's obvious, predictable and often outrageous.

I responded to the comment that you made because you equated the two kinds of statements, which seemed different to me in the degree of maliciousness.

I suspect that what's going on is push-back against conservatives' singling out of Islam, rather than a brief for Islam in particular, but it never seemed obvious to me that religions, which make so many different claims about the human condition and what people are to do, should end up all having the same effects on people's conduct. Indeed, I should think the revese would be true: since different religions preach different things, their adherents are going to behave in different ways, much like Republicans and Democrats, because of their different beliefs, behave in different ways.

I think here the difference to be noticed is between religious fanatics and non-fanatics. If sports fanatics can use violence and even kill in the midst of their fervor, equally violent specimens of humankind would do the same in their religious fervor, even if it counters their actual religious moral principles.

Ocean
11-06-2009, 08:55 PM
I did not get that there was an attempt to say that the level of "badness" was equal. much like structurally, invading grenada may have been similar to invading Iraq, but the scale of the "badness" is rather different.

Yes, I understand that. My comment added a different aspect that made the two cases different.

Baltimoron
11-06-2009, 09:09 PM
Having thought of some trauma as a cause, I am nonetheless flummoxed and depressed - don't fret for my mental state! - about a claim by one of Rachel Maddow's guests, that PTSD is possible in health care professionals treating soldiers. I know that sounds moronic, but I fret, just how pervasive could mental health problems become in an Army already beset with so many troubles?

Does anyone know more about this aspect of PTSD? Can we have a diavlog?

Ocean
11-06-2009, 09:18 PM
In other words alienation... Really though, I don't have a clue. I think easy access to guns is only a small part of it. Any theories?

The American glorification of the Rambo-like hero?

The American glorification of violence?

The American glorification of righteousness?

bjkeefe
11-06-2009, 09:29 PM
More in this category: RS McCain and Linda Chavez (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/11/fightin-keyboarders-called-back-into.html).

Wonderment
11-06-2009, 09:31 PM
In other words alienation... Really though, I don't have a clue. I think easy access to guns is only a small part of it. Any theories?

I think access to guns and a fascination with guns is a HUGE part of it, although it doesn't explain it entirely.

I've thought a lot about American alienation and the kinds of issues Ocean raises, but haven't really reached strong conclusions.

In the meantime, I work very hard at keeping guns out of our communities. It's an uphill battle because of the strength of the gun lobby (the NRA is just the tip of the iceberg) and the perverse (yet standard) interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.

Gun violence reduction is a truly bipartisan issue. Gun violence reduction advocates are not taken very seriously in either party, but if you want to get involved, The Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycampaign.org/) is a good place to start. Here is their statement on the Ft. Hood tragedy:

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement about the tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas:

“Our deepest sympathies go to the families who lost loved ones or are today visiting them in the hospital. Along with the rest of the country, we wish the Fort Hood community a return to a secure and safe environment.

“When I heard of the tragedy yesterday, we were in the midst of planning a response to the latest dangerous legislative proposal from the gun lobby in the United States Senate - language to automatically restore access to guns to veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department as ‘mentally incapacitated’ or ‘mentally incompetent.’ In light of what happened yesterday - a violent attack by an emotionally unstable soldier - it is even clearer that the proposal being pushed by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina should be rejected."

Baltimoron
11-06-2009, 09:38 PM
Not funny.

It looks like local law enforcement erred here (http://radicalcontra.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/did-rodriquez-slip-through-the-cracks/).

Lyle
11-06-2009, 09:43 PM
BobbyG,

I hate to tell you this, but you don't make any sense to me. It doesn't follow at all that because I think this one extremist Muslim acted out due to his extremist Muslim views (like a lot of other Muslim extremists have done in the past), that I think Muslims are more prone to violence than other groups. For that argument to even be possible I would have to had compared Muslims to some other group or groups which I haven't done, or said that Muslims are more prone to violence than other groups. Where do I say this? The fact that the Muslim community has a problem with Muslim extremists is factual, not political. I still have no idea where you're coming up with the idea that any political statement has been made.

What political statements of mine are you addressing?

... and about the thread title, because Muslim extremists are Muslims. Not all Muslims are extremists Muslims, but all extremist Muslims are Muslims. So its a, broadly speaking, accurate statement. I like to be provocative, what can I say.

bjkeefe
11-06-2009, 09:44 PM
The perspective from "the nation's third most-popular radio talk show host," Michael Savage (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/11/savage-nation.html).

bjkeefe
11-06-2009, 09:52 PM
Two good posts from B'head Spencer Ackerman, via Scott Lemieux (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/11/heart-of-matter.html).

Lyle
11-06-2009, 09:54 PM
Victor Davis Hanson

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGRhYzk5ZDk5N2UyMTgyMDBkYWI1MmJlNWI2MTMxZDA=

Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bawer:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/keeping-paranoia-in-check.html

Rod Dreher:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/11/ft-hood-killers-islam-matters.html

Reihan Salam (decent comments too):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-06/the-collateral-damage-to-muslims/

bjkeefe
11-06-2009, 10:06 PM
Victor Davis Hanson

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGRhYzk5ZDk5N2UyMTgyMDBkYWI1MmJlNWI2MTMxZDA=

Shorter VDH:

You should resent being told what to think. Now, here's what to think.

claymisher
11-06-2009, 10:23 PM
Shorter VDH:

VDH is the worst thing to happen to the classics since the sack of Rome.

Whatfur
11-06-2009, 11:38 PM
Not sure if this concept has been addressed here as I had to stop reading due to the tedium but...
with all of the excuse making and political correct feet shuffling it makes one wonder ...

If a white guy with a shaved head and tattoos on his arms walked into a gay bar or maybe a branch of the NAACP and started shooting do you think the media and all here would be waiting for all the information to come out before there was some (obvious) speculation?

or maybe an abortion clinic gets blown up...how fast is the perpetrator called a religious fanatic by MSNBC?

Baltimoron
11-07-2009, 12:28 AM
Without quoting an execrable post expressing some of your darker and more paranoid, racist, homophobic fantasies, please Whatfur, seek a trained psychiatrist in a suburban Muslim community in Maryland (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec09/forthood2_11-06.html). The answers are not always apparent. But if the MSM is writing for crackpots, it will never have a reason to investigate a real issue, like PTSD, or, indeed, the diversity of intelligent discourse within the military community about wars, benefits, and quality of life. I ask that you stop subscribing to mainstream publications, so that you don't mislead the bean counters that most Americans are like you. I'm sure you'll be happier if you listen to the voices in your head. But, please, keep going to therapy, so that trained professionals can alert trained, female police officers to protect us if you crack up.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-07-2009, 12:58 AM
I like to be provocative, what can I say.

Lyle, I think everyone was just waiting for you to say that. That you have chosen provocative language that suggests a political claim beyond your actual views (ie suggests something about Islam rather than something about this particular guy). You and I have already dealt with our differences over whether provocation of this kind is appropriate, but I'd suggest to you that your other detractors on this thread are making a similar argument to mine--that such provocation is inappropriate--albeit for perhaps different reasons.

Jyminee
11-07-2009, 03:26 AM
“When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal,” said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. “But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07muslim.html?hp

Francoamerican
11-07-2009, 04:50 AM
Having watched the Israel-Palestine conflict develop over the past 60 years, I can assure you that demonizing religions and quasi-religious narratives about peoplehood and culture is profoundly counterproductive. You just insult, enrage and alienate people that way. There are much better strategies and principles for eliminating the risk of violence. Perhaps the most intractable problem is how to break free from the cycle of violence: provocation, violent reaction, revenge/retaliation. You don't do that by telling the other side that their religion is stupid and that they are backward or evil.

You do quite a lot of demonizing yourself. For example you blame Christianity for the ills of European wars and imperialism....and who knows what else?

As Churchill once pointed out, British and French pacifists were the main CAUSE of Munich.

kezboard
11-07-2009, 05:02 AM
As for an explanation of the elevated numbers I suspect it has to do with a greater degree of heterogeneity of the population. Though France has a larger muslim population now, I wonder what the numbers look like for nations with similar ethnic diversity.

I've said this before but I want to make the point again that I think that that explanation is too facile and probably wrong. Canada, Australia, Great Britain, etc. are all very ethnically diverse nations too.

kezboard
11-07-2009, 05:10 AM
Yeah, that's basically Rule Number One of bigotry. If a white guy is beating his wife, he's an asshole whose wife should leave. If a black guy is beating his wife, he's an example of social pathology and the black community is in crisis. If a guy with a Christian name from a Christian background shoots a bunch of people, he's either crazy or evil and he and should go to jail. If a guy with a Muslim name from a Muslim background shoots a bunch of people, he's a sleeper cell and the US army has been infiltrated by extremists.

Francoamerican
11-07-2009, 05:15 AM
I've said this before but I want to make the point again that I think that that explanation is too facile and probably wrong. Canada, Australia, Great Britain, etc. are all very ethnically diverse nations too.

Ethnic heterogeneity is no explanation at all. And, by the way, one out of four French persons has a grandparent born in some other country. I wonder if that is true of the US....

The explanation for high American murder rates has to be sought elsewhere, I agree. I watched a BBC documentary about high murder rates among mainly black teenagers in Chicago....within a few miles of Obama's house. There is nothing like such carnage in any European country.

Bobby G
11-07-2009, 05:21 AM
BobbyG,

I hate to tell you this, but you don't make any sense to me. It doesn't follow at all that because I think this one extremist Muslim acted out due to his extremist Muslim views (like a lot of other Muslim extremists have done in the past), that I think Muslims are more prone to violence than other groups. For that argument to even be possible I would have to had compared Muslims to some other group or groups which I haven't done, or said that Muslims are more prone to violence than other groups. Where do I say this? The fact that the Muslim community has a problem with Muslim extremists is factual, not political. I still have no idea where you're coming up with the idea that any political statement has been made.

It could be that you and I are not on the same page about what a political statement is. I think the statement, "Muslim extremists are more prone to violence than non-Muslim extremists" is a political statement. Do you? If you don't think it's a political statement, then you and I have been talking past each other when we've mentioned political statements.

Now, I guess I had you wrong: when you said "Muslims Murder U.S. Soldiers Again", you did not mean to imply that Muslims are any more likely than anyone else to kill people. Nor did you mean that Muslim extremists are any more likely than anyone else to kill people. All you meant when you wrote "Muslims" (plural) was that this particular Muslim (singular) killed people because of his religious beliefs. Am I right about what you meant?

If I am right, I'm confused about a few things. First, at the time you posted the title for this comment thread, how did you know Hasan was a Muslim? How did you know he was a Muslim extremist? And how did you know that he was a Muslim extremist who killed people because of his religious beliefs? Was it a supposition on your part?

Second, given that you're weren't assuming that Muslims, or Muslim extremists, are any more likely than non-Muslims, or non-Muslim extremists, to murder someone, why do you think this particular Muslim extremist murdered people because of his religious beliefs?

JonIrenicus
11-07-2009, 05:58 AM
Ethnic heterogeneity is no explanation at all. And, by the way, one out of four French persons has a grandparent born in some other country. I wonder if that is true of the US....

The explanation for high American murder rates has to be sought elsewhere, I agree. I watched a BBC documentary about high murder rates among mainly black teenagers in Chicago....within a few miles of Obama's house. There is nothing like such carnage in any European country.

An interesting chart

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


toggle the murders/manslaughter type crimes to arrange it from highest to lowest by city.

top cities by murder based on those numbers for 2007 were



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit,_Michigan#Demographics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore#Demographics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis,_Missouri#Demographics


And the common thread so far is a high density of black people. Oh my, isn't this getting non pc VERY fast.


Looks like there is a higher murder rate among black populations in the US, particularly cities with a large percentage of black people.


So what are we to draw from this? The reason there are less murders is because France/UK has a lower number of black people as a percentage of the population?


Not leading to conclusions you prefer? Not something inherently malevolent about the soul of Americans vs their Euro counterparts? Leading to worse conclusions?


Well you did ask, and that is the surface answer based on the numbers. Now why there are so many more murders in cities with higher percentages of black people is a question with breathing room for answers. But as far as a link to more murder, we have something already. And if that stat is not constant, you don't get points for being superior.


Added perspective:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Last chart shows the US is far from the worst.

Francoamerican
11-07-2009, 06:12 AM
An interesting chart

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


toggle the murders/manslaughter type crimes to arrange it from highest to lowest by city.

top cities by murder based on those numbers for 2007 were



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit,_Michigan#Demographics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore#Demographics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis,_Missouri#Demographics


And the common thread so far is a high density of black people. Oh my, isn't this getting non pc VERY fast.


Looks like there is a higher murder rate among black populations in the US, particularly cities with a large percentage of black people.


So what are we to draw from this? The reason there are less murders is because France/UK has a lower number of black people as a percentage of the population?


Not leading to conclusions you prefer? Not something inherently malevolent about the soul of Americans vs their Euro counterparts? Leading to worse conclusions?


Well you did ask, and that is the surface answer based on the numbers. Now why there are so many more murders in cities with higher percentages of black people is a question with breathing room for answers. But as far as a link to more murder, we have something already. And if that stat is not constant, you don't get points for being superior.


Added perspective:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Last chart shows the US is far from the worst.

Well, I was wrong about the UK and France (1000 murders instead of 500). The US still has 15 times more murders (instead of 30 times as I said) proportionately to its population. That is a huge difference statistically.

You may draw whatever conclusions you want. I drew my conclusions long ago about the US.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 10:05 AM
or maybe an abortion clinic gets blown up...how fast is the perpetrator called a religious fanatic by MSNBC?

When Dr. George Tiller was murdered by Scott Roeder a few months ago, no one hesitated to say that Roeder's warped understanding his religion played a key role in the act. But that's a far cry from implying something dark lurks in the heart of all Christians.

It's fine to say that Roeder was motivated by a twisted and deranged understanding of his faith; it's not okay to direct responsibility and blame towards all Christians everywhere, with snide comments like "come on, followers of the prince of peace, get your act together." The latter example of bigotry would suggest that Christianity's conception of Jesus as a "prince of peace" is somehow undermined by the actions of a single person (Roeder), and that all Christians are suspect and should be put on the defensive. That's classic bigotry.

And it's precisely what Lyle did (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=136298#post136298): In his initial post in this thread, Lyle used a single act at Fort Hood to pin blame on all Muslims. It wasn't enough for him to condemn one deranged individual, or even stop at attacking the broader strain of militant Islam that endorses these kinds of acts. Instead, Lyle used the opportunity, knowingly and willingly even if he lies about it afterwards, to impugn all Muslims everywhere. He even said that he hoped his focus on the culpability of Islam would bring shame to all Muslims (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=136317#poststop).



.

Whatfur
11-07-2009, 10:42 AM
I thought I carried the badge of being the only person you had on your ignore list and felt honored to have been buffered from your most intelligent assaults. Guess you are a liar also, besides being a moron.

In any case, I was just asking the question. I personally don't have a problem with waiting a bit before casting judgement. I also don't have a problem with speculation. I find it no more absurd than speculating about PTSD or whether there was a difference between him "snapping" or planning this. Where I might differ is I feel that the wife, husband, or children of those he killed should have the legal ability to walk into his hospital room right now and blow his head off, but funny I have heard very little about the relatives of those he killed.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 11:02 AM
Yeah, that's basically Rule Number One of bigotry. If a white guy is beating his wife, he's an asshole whose wife should leave. If a black guy is beating his wife, he's an example of social pathology and the black community is in crisis. If a guy with a Christian name from a Christian background shoots a bunch of people, he's either crazy or evil and he and should go to jail. If a guy with a Muslim name from a Muslim background shoots a bunch of people, he's a sleeper cell and the US army has been infiltrated by extremists.

You know, I happened to be looking at some crime statistics the other day, and I discovered the following about Lyle's home state of Louisiana: It has the 4th highest per captia rate of violent crime in the US, and holds first place in per capita rape.

What does this tell us about Lyle? Or about the entire population of Louisana?

I noticed something else interesting: one graph showed the disparity between black and white per capita crime; the black rate was higher than the white. We all knew this was the case because conservatives so love to talk about it. But then I spotted another graph that showed an almost identical pattern between per capita rates of violence committed by men and women. Men have historically been far more likely to commit violent crimes than women. What does this tell us about men?

Why don't conservatives constantly suggest that the male-female disparity tells us something just as ominous about men as the black-white disparity tells us about blacks?

The answer to both of these questions -- the slack Lyle cuts for Louisiana and for men -- is contained somewhere in the notions you and Jyminee are discussing above. When the "guilty" group is an "other," like Muslims or blacks, it's easy to become hysterical about the supposed perversion of the whole group. But when our group is disproportionately guilty, we reach for a far more nuanced, sophisticated, and forgiving model, and we make damn sure no one thinks all men or all Louisianans are to blame for the actions of the deviant sub-group.

Ocean
11-07-2009, 11:05 AM
Good post.

Lyle
11-07-2009, 11:56 AM
Haha. PTSD? He was never deployed outside the United States and so never saw combat.

Lyle
11-07-2009, 11:59 AM
Haha. I haven't blamed all Muslims. However, more than one Muslim has killed U.S. soldiers before which is why Muslim is pluralized.

Lyle
11-07-2009, 12:07 PM
Men do have a violence problem. Who disagrees with this?

Louisiana also has the second highest proportion of blacks per capita in the United States and black men commit more murder per capita then any other race in the United States. Black on black murder is an epidemic, and is a major reason Louisiana and places that have large populations of blacks have such high murder rates. This is statistical fact.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 12:14 PM
Haha. I haven't blamed all Muslims. However, more than one Muslim has killed U.S. soldiers before which is why Muslim is pluralized.

You said that the religion of peace needed to get its act together; i.e., you blamed the whole religion. And since the religion does not exist apart from its followers, you are blaming all Muslims; you are saying there is something perverse about their religion, and therefore about them.

Furthermore, you expressed the hope that all Muslims would feel "shame" over what happened at Fort Hood. Saying that they should feel shame is saying that they bear responsibility. People don't feel shame for things they don't have responsibility for.

Do you feel any shame because of disproportionate rates of male crime? Or because Louisiana is the 3rd most racist state in the union? Or because Louisiana leads the states in per capita rape? Or because Scott Roeder murdered George Tillman? Or because Tim McVeigh murdered hundreds of Americans in Oklahoma City?

Of course you don't. And neither should the vast majority of Muslims, who are peace loving and law abiding, feel shame because of the massacre at Fort Hood.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 12:17 PM
Thank you, Ocean!

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 12:18 PM
Men do have a violence problem. Who disagrees with this?
You totally missed the point, as you always do.


Louisiana also has the second highest proportion of blacks per capita in the United States and black men commit more murder per capita then any other race in the United States. Black on black murder is an epidemic, and is a major reason Louisiana and places that have large populations of blacks have such high murder rates. This is statistical fact.
I knew you would exonerate Louisiana by pointing out that it is blacks who are to blame for Louisiana's crime rate -- not you and your white neighbors. Thanks for proving the point and falling into the trap.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 12:23 PM
if only U.S. soldiers would stop murdering U.S. Soldiers.

maybe we can some canadians down here, they don't seem to kill each other.

"Come on, American soldiers, get your act together! The incidents at Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and Mai Lai! Truly awful."



Sad, very sad (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938). Come on Religion of Peace, get your act together.

The incidents in Kuwait, Little Rock, and now Killeen. Truly awful.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 12:25 PM
yep - he supported the FLAT TAX!!!! and opposes gay marriage!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Al_Assad

"Come on, conservatives, get your act together!

The incidents at Oklahoma City, Centennial Olympic Park, numerous abortion clinics, and now Kileen. Truly awful."



Sad, very sad (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938). Come on Religion of Peace, get your act together.

The incidents in Kuwait, Little Rock, and now Killeen. Truly awful.

Lyle
11-07-2009, 12:26 PM
The Muslim community does need to get its act together just like black America needs to get its act together, and just like the Jim Crow South needed to get its act together way back when.

You and I, non-Muslims, can't really solve the problem of the virgin seeking Muslim man. That's a Muslim problem. It is something the Muslim community around the world must face head on. As I've said many, many times the vast majority of Muslims are normal, decent folk like everyone else around the world, but they still have a problem with a minority of their community who want to fight back against perceived injustices by killing innocent people.

I want it to stop and I'm not going to shut up about it until it does stop.

That goes for black America's murder problem too.

If you actually care about any of these people, you'll stop being ignorant and start being honest with yourself. Until you do, I don't think you can claim you care about any of these people at all. Frankly, you're part of the problem.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 12:26 PM
he loves beef - especially steaks.

how many murderers are carnivores? shouldn't we do something about these meat-eating freaks?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Al_Assad

"Come on, meat eaters! Get your act together!"

Because we know that the crimes of one meat-eater implicate all meat eaters!



Sad, very sad (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938). Come on Religion of Peace, get your act together.

The incidents in Kuwait, Little Rock, and now Killeen. Truly awful.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 12:29 PM
The Muslim community does need to get its act together just like black America needs to get its act together, and just like the Jim Crow South needed to get its act together way back when.

You and I, non-Muslims, can't really solve the problem of the virgin seeking Muslim man. That's a Muslim problem. It is something the Muslim community around the world must face head on. As I've said many, many times the vast majority of Muslims are normal, decent folk like everyone else around the world, but they still have a problem with a minority of their community who want to fight back against perceived injustices by killing innocent people.

I want it to stop and I'm not going to shut up about it until it does stop.

That goes for black America's murder problem too.

If you actually care about any of these people, you'll stop being ignorant and start being honest with yourself. Until you do, I don't think you can claim you care about any of these people at all. Frankly, you're part of the problem.

Funny how careful you are in selecting your targets for moral outrage, and which groups you condemn as needing self-examination and correction.

No one is falling for your bullshit, Lyle. I know you think you're very clever, but you're alone in that. Your motives are transparent to everyone.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 12:36 PM
The whole of the Islamic community is not to blame for this murderous rampage...

If you really mean it (and we know you don't), go back and append a correction to your initial post, where you blame the entire religion (and, therefore, all Muslims, as the religion does not exist apart from its followers, and if there is something wrong with the religion, as you state plainly and unambiguously, then by simple deduction there is something wrong with all adherents of the religion).

After you have posted that correction, then go and append a correction the post where you said that all Muslims should bear shame because of the actions of the killer at Fort Hood.

TwinSwords
11-07-2009, 12:39 PM
I see what you're doing, but it's kind of insensitive to make the first mention of it jokey.

It really wasn't jokey. It was a pretty serious point, I thought. I didn't see a joke anywhere in the post you replied to.

Lyle
11-07-2009, 01:12 PM
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/06/our-brain-dead-country/

Lyle
11-07-2009, 01:14 PM
What are my motives actually?

AemJeff
11-07-2009, 01:16 PM
What are my motives actually?

That's easy. To stir things up, and have people take notice of your existence.

Lyle
11-07-2009, 01:27 PM
To gain attention... hahaha!!! Who cares. To stir things up and make people confront their ignorance, definitely.

nikkibong
11-07-2009, 01:58 PM
It really wasn't jokey. It was a pretty serious point, I thought. I didn't see a joke anywhere in the post you replied to.

"No information as of yet on whether the suspect is a Muslim convert."

I actually chuckled a bit at the remark; before getting the same icky feeling that Bobby G copped to.

nikkibong
11-07-2009, 02:00 PM
Sweet Jesus*, Lyle, David Horowitz?!


*Allahu Akbar

AemJeff
11-07-2009, 02:07 PM
Sweet Jesus*, Lyle, David Horowitz?!


*Allahu Akbar

What could possibly be wrong with linking to Horowitz? Oh wait, does Stacey McCain post here, too (http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/31/marc-lamont-hills-list-of-overrated-black-people/)?

Lyle
11-07-2009, 06:02 PM
Wait a minute... I thought you respected people who've accomplished more than you in life. ;)

Chuckle. Chuckle. Chuckle.

Lyle
11-07-2009, 06:06 PM
What trap?

Black men commit most of the murders in Louisiana, and the also make up the majority of the victims. So, yes, they are largely responsible for Louisiana having such a high murder rate.

Don't get me wrong, white guys, even some women of either race, murder people too... but nothing on the level of black men.

You really should do some research to understand how bad it is with black men and murder in America.

bjkeefe
11-07-2009, 06:22 PM
You'll be shocked, shocked (http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/11/theres-no-trick-to-it-its-just-a-little-trick.html) to learn that certain members of the hand-tightenable threaded fastener community are outraged by President Obama's insufficient display of outrage.

Lyle
11-07-2009, 07:09 PM
Oh oh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Bobby G
11-07-2009, 07:24 PM
I think it's fairly clear at this point that Hasan's religious beliefs played an important motivational role in his decision to kill people. That said, when there were so many warning signs early on, I wonder why the army didn't do something about him sooner?

Whatfur
11-07-2009, 07:42 PM
OMG Lyle. You are effing psychic! While Dr. Phil is making millions and appearing on Larry King extolling the possible pressures this guy had to endure, in HIS speculation. You give it up for FREE!!!

I applaud YOU and the way you dealt with the pressures endured here as people tried to paint you every color but effing CLEAR while they extrapolated their own racism and projected it on you!!

...and so it goes.

bjkeefe
11-07-2009, 07:44 PM
... when there were so many warning signs early on, I wonder why the army didn't do something about him sooner?

Probably because, as with so many others who go on shooting sprees, the "so many warnings signs" become apparent only after one knows what to look for. Starting with one name and casting a wide net through his history is considerably different from starting with a population and trying to pick out the exceedingly rare person who would do such a thing. Prior to the shooting itself, these bits of questionable behavior presented to different people at different times and locations. Unless you want to have everyone reporting everyone else's weird moments to some central authority who is going to integrate this tattling, I don't see how you can expect that anyone should have been able to see this coming.

Even in the armed forces, this does not seem practicable, let alone desirable. We'd end up doing nothing but investigating each other. The paperwork, number of false alarms, and feelings of living in some totalitarian dystopia would swamp any conceivable benefit.

Sometimes, you just have to accept that bad things happen. There is no fix to rare moments like this that wouldn't be worse than the problem.

bjkeefe
11-07-2009, 07:48 PM
I do not think that word (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aendear) means what you think it means.

OMG Lyle. You are effing psychic! While Dr. Phil is making millions and appearing on Larry King extolling the possible pressures this guy had to endear, in HIS speculatition. You give it up for FREE!!!

I applaud YOU and the way you dealt with the pressures endeared here ...

Whatfur
11-07-2009, 07:53 PM
Thanks...corrected.

bjkeefe
11-07-2009, 07:53 PM
Thanks...corrected.

y/w

Lyle
11-07-2009, 08:06 PM
Inappropriate... sounds like censorship to me, or political correctness. As you know Preppy, not my cup of chai.

And I failed to wish you a safe trip to Pakistan before. Have a safe trip!

Baltimoron
11-07-2009, 09:02 PM
..sounds like censorship to me, or political correctness. As you know Preppy, not my cup of chai.

That self-image you have is straining. It's sound reasoning and respectful to those Muslims trying to serve their country and live in communities with bigoted people disinclined to grant them a chance.

Wonderment
11-07-2009, 09:06 PM
I think it's fairly clear at this point that Hasan's religious beliefs played an important motivational role in his decision to kill people.

Did he have especially bizarre religious beliefs? Or did he have standard religious beliefs that went off the rails when he had a psychotic breakdown?

We have religious freedom, which means you can believe any implausible thing you want. The dominant implausible belief in America is the Virgin Birth/Resurrection story. Then there are the pretty mainstream Armageddon/burn in Hell beliefs. Those are surely shared by a good percentage of the Armed Forces. I don't see how Hasan's beliefs are intrinsically any more unusual than many Christian beliefs.


That said, when there were so many warning signs early on, I wonder why the army didn't do something about him sooner?

The warning sign would be evidence of a propensity to harm himself or others? Is there evidence of homicidal tendencies? Did he threaten anyone? Did he commit any violent acts?

Lyle
11-07-2009, 09:11 PM
It could be that you and I are not on the same page about what a political statement is. I think the statement, "Muslim extremists are more prone to violence than non-Muslim extremists" is a political statement. Do you? If you don't think it's a political statement, then you and I have been talking past each other when we've mentioned political statements.

No, I don't think that is a political statement. What are the politics involved with such a statement?

Now, I guess I had you wrong: when you said "Muslims Murder U.S. Soldiers Again", you did not mean to imply that Muslims are any more likely than anyone else to kill people. Nor did you mean that Muslim extremists are any more likely than anyone else to kill people. All you meant when you wrote "Muslims" (plural) was that this particular Muslim (singular) killed people because of his religious beliefs. Am I right about what you meant?

I believed him to be a Muslim because it was highly likely he was a Muslim. Perhaps inappropriate to do, as Preppy suggests, but I was likely going to be correct. And assuming he was Muslim, I added his action to that of the Muslim man in Arkansas and the Muslim U.S. soldier in Kuwait. So it would be three acts by Muslims, based on extremists views or not. However, I think it is proper to assume that if a Muslim man massacres a group of innocents in America he's likely going to be an extremist Muslim and be part of the obvious problem the Muslim community has today with extremists.

If I am right, I'm confused about a few things. First, at the time you posted the title for this comment thread, how did you know Hasan was a Muslim? How did you know he was a Muslim extremist? And how did you know that he was a Muslim extremist who killed people because of his religious beliefs? Was it a supposition on your part?

See above.

Second, given that you're weren't assuming that Muslims, or Muslim extremists, are any more likely than non-Muslims, or non-Muslim extremists, to murder someone, why do you think this particular Muslim extremist murdered people because of his religious beliefs?

Ipso facto an extremist Muslim massacres innocents because of his religious beliefs. I mean that's why they're called extremist Muslims or Muslim extremists.

Of course it could always be something else, but not likely when it is a massacre, and not a lone homicide.

Wonderment
11-07-2009, 09:18 PM
Sometimes, you just have to accept that bad things happen. There is no fix to rare moments like this that wouldn't be worse than the problem.

I wouldn't go that far. If the Armed Forces had really top-of-the-line mental health services, Hasan might have gotten help before he flipped out. The military, however, has very poor mental health services.

In part, this is neglect of the troops; in part, it's ideological. If you train people to suppress their normal feelings of fear and self-preservation in order to go on insane missions and behave insanely, it's hard to intervene when they manifest behaviors that in normal society would be considered hyper-violent.

Many combat veterans, for example, report witnessing or participating in extremely pathological behaviors that were acceptable (and even honored) in the military. Part of the challenge of readjustment to the civilian world after warfare is to adapt to non-pathological environments.

Baltimoron
11-07-2009, 09:32 PM
The more information that comes out only confirms, that, one, the Army does a great deal of talk about spotting problems in soldiers and still does not succeed. I feel for the soldiers now who will have to attend hours of meetings in their off-hours the next few months. I feel for any soldier that so much as fails to smile or says the wrong word about his/her feelings in public in the next few months. I also feel for Muslims trying to strengthen their community outreach with rightwing nutjobs attacking them.

Rightists are also pushing back on the PTSD angle, claiming detractors are trying to depict soldiers as ticking time bombs. Why do deficit hawks deny to soldiers the benefit of a doubt when it amounts to spending more money on people than weapons, kickbacks, or bad strategy?

Secondly, Lyle and Whatfur, are you arguing Hasan was a sleeper because of a coincidence? The man joined the military before he met this AQ member. He belonged to a mosque in a suburban, assimilated community. 9/11, as for many, caused him to reevaluate. His actions don't seem those of a terrorist, but rather of a man who torn between his upbringing and a new reality. Websites and radicalized discourse didn't help him, but he did stay in his job counseling soldiers for eight years more, albeit under more and more stress. Hasan is no different than many Americans who had to reevaluate their lives after 9/11. The circumstances might be different - and this one radicalized AQ member is a security concern - but he's not a terrorist sleeper, and Lyle's original title is still bigoted and sensational. If the hyper-integrationist Army couldn't help this man, there's not much hope that, in a country where bigots resent any discussion of how to integrate non-Americans into a community, Muslims with dissenting opinions can become Americans.

But, Lyle, you're just being honest about your feelings, right! It's better to meet someone like you at the airport than a friendly face, I guess. I'm queasy you can decide so cleanly who deserves the benefit of a doubt. Ironically, soldiers are more forgiving than chicken hawks.

bjkeefe
11-07-2009, 10:02 PM
I wouldn't go that far. If the Armed Forces had really top-of-the-line mental health services, Hasan might have gotten help before he flipped out. The military, however, has very poor mental health services.

In part, this is neglect of the troops; in part, it's ideological. If you train people to suppress their normal feelings of fear and self-preservation in order to go on insane missions and behave insanely, it's hard to intervene when they manifest behaviors that in normal society would be considered hyper-violent.

Many combat veterans, for example, report witnessing or participating in extremely pathological behaviors that were acceptable (and even honored) in the military. Part of the challenge of readjustment to the civilian world after warfare is to adapt to non-pathological environments.

Points taken.

JonIrenicus
11-07-2009, 10:08 PM
since you like the Lord of the Rings, think about Gollum. Isn't it interesting that mercy was so powerful? if Gandalf or Bilbo or Frodo had ever given into your worldview, they would have killed gollum, and the ring would never have been destroyed, and middle earth would be lost to the Dark Lord.

that story is a christian parable, but the heart of it is Mercy, not judgement and violence. By showing mercy and compassion, they found the remnants of the "humanity" (or hobbitity) left in Smeagol.


and don't let me catch you misusing Tolkien again!
; )



He said do not be quick to deal out death and judgment, not to refuse to do so altogether.

And now, the archetype of the deranged pacifistic refusal to fight back, no matter what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pka5MCoory8#t=1m30s


good part near here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pka5MCoory8#t=2m25s


Good going Gandalf, there are times when a certain level of stupid needs to be removed from power so save peoples lives. I think people like wonderment and other pacifists would have given the same order Denethor gave.

Bobby G
11-07-2009, 11:01 PM
Did he have especially bizarre religious beliefs? Or did he have standard religious beliefs that went off the rails when he had a psychotic breakdown?

I don't think we have enough information yet to know which ones of his religious beliefs are especially unusual for his sect of Islam, assuming he had any bizarre ones. That said, "extreme" religious beliefs may be different from "bizarre". When I hear of bizarre religious beliefs, I think of the Mormon belief that each person will get her own planet. When I think of extreme religious beliefs, I think of the belief that it's a standing divine commandment to kill Jews.

The dominant implausible belief in America is the Virgin Birth/Resurrection story. Then there are the pretty mainstream Armageddon/burn in Hell beliefs. Those are surely shared by a good percentage of the Armed Forces. I don't see how Hasan's beliefs are intrinsically any more unusual than many Christian beliefs.

Again, big difference between "implausible", "unusual", and "extreme", in the sense I'm using it. The belief that Jesus rose from the dead, or that sinners are damned, are not extreme beliefs in the sense I'm using "extreme". I'm using "extreme" in the same sense as I'm using "extremist".

The warning sign would be evidence of a propensity to harm himself or others? Is there evidence of homicidal tendencies? Did he threaten anyone? Did he commit any violent acts?

I'm thinking of the following warning signs. First, from the Minneapolis Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/nation/69322567.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUL PQL7PQLanchO7DiUr):

(1) "While an intern at Walter Reed, Hasan had some "difficulties" that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time."
(2) "At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades."

Also, there is this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c1dFRpbej8) with Colonel Terry Lee, who, if he is to be believed, claims that (3) Hasan said Muslims should rise up against the Americans, that (4) the shooting at the recruitment center at Little Rock was justified, and other such things, such as (5) the claim that there should be more such Little Rocks.

Wonderment
11-07-2009, 11:24 PM
(1) "While an intern at Walter Reed, Hasan had some "difficulties" that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time."

We have no idea what that means. (Perhaps he was struggling with his sexual orientation in the "Don't ask, don't tell" military.)

(2) "At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades."


If he made serious threats of violence, he should not have come anywhere near a weapon, and I would agree that law enforcement was negligent.

Also, there is this interview with Colonel Terry Lee, who, if he is to be believed, claims that (3) Hasan said Muslims should rise up against the Americans, that (4) the shooting at the recruitment center at Little Rock was justified, and other such things, such as (5) the claim that there should be more such Little Rocks.

Yeah, that, if true, is very disturbing and should not have slipped through the cracks.

Whatfur
11-07-2009, 11:47 PM
The more information that comes out only confirms,...

What it confirms is that our military has been ham-strung so often by politicians and the media that like many things in our culture they have become politically pusillanimous. Leftwing "nutjobs" have put them in this position. Here we have one of the outcomes. 12 people are dead...others dying and you worry about verbal attacks from some imaginary right wing source. Pathetic.

Funny, (not ha-ha), some idiot above talks of Haditha, Abu Graib etc. without even acknowledging that those soldiers were jumped on before all the facts were out too...yet not one of the leftwing nutjobs here came to THEIR defense. Au Contraire.


Rightists are also pushing back on the PTSD angle, claiming detractors are trying to depict soldiers as ticking time bombs. Why do deficit hawks deny to soldiers the benefit of a doubt when it amounts to spending more money on people than weapons, kickbacks, or bad strategy?


Umm...the push back comes from the fact that the guy never saw combat. This guy was never affected by weapons or kickbacks and the only bad stategy he was involved in had to do with not bouncing his ass. Your attempt at a point here falls a bit short. Not surprising.

Secondly, Lyle and Whatfur, are you arguing Hasan was a sleeper because of a coincidence? ...
Do you need to be provided a bouncing ball to follow? Just adds additional validation to the concept that his religious background was tantemount to the act. Its not that difficult. Of course the coincidence needs some additional looking into also...or do we pretend that it doesn't exist.

and Lyle's original title is still bigoted and sensational.
No, Lyle's original title was a statement of fact. You and yours attempted to make it bigoted and sensational.


If the hyper-integrationist Army couldn't help this man, there's not much hope that, in a country where bigots resent any discussion of how to integrate non-Americans into a community, Muslims with dissenting opinions can become Americans.
Don't you live in Korea? What the fuck do you know? I work with Muslims every day who have successfully integrated.

... I'm queasy you can decide so cleanly who deserves the benefit of a doubt. Ironically, soldiers are more forgiving than chicken hawks.

Benefit of the doubt was given. Sweeping the obvious under the rug in the mean time is what gets more people killed...and...Forgiving about what? This guy killed 12 people he did not even know and shot a couple dozen others. Nope, no forgiveness.

kezboard
11-08-2009, 02:21 AM
Why don't conservatives constantly suggest that the male-female disparity tells us something just as ominous about men as the black-white disparity tells us about blacks?

I've often heard this remarked on by the sort of pretentious evo-psych misogynist types. It's turned into something along the lines of "You're right, we men sure are more likely to be murderers. But there was no female Michelangelo or Einstein because there was no female Jack the Ripper." (I think Camille Paglia said something more or less exactly like this.)

I find that this does not assuage my irritation.

kezboard
11-08-2009, 02:24 AM
We have a vast internal threat in this country in the form of this unholy alliance between the anti-American Left and radical Islam – whose Muslim Brotherhood network extends through our universities, our government and our military. It is “politically incorrect” to recognize this fact.

Oooo. University students. I'm scaaaaaared.

kezboard
11-08-2009, 02:29 AM
I think of the Mormon belief that each person will get her own planet.

If only. That would be less bizarre.
I think it's charming and super when people use "her" and "she" interchangeably with "him" and "he" as the neutral third-person pronoun, so please continue. This may be totally 1970s-feminist of me, but whatever. But in this case it's not appropriate. The belief is that every man will get his own planet, where he'll live with his wife (wives) and family. There may also be some bit about him essentially being God on his own planet, but that I'm not sure about and it may or may not be actual Mormon doctrine. And in any case there are definitely secret underpants involved.

Ocean
11-08-2009, 02:31 AM
... It's turned into something along the lines of "You're right, we men sure are more likely to be murderers. But there was no female Michelangelo or Einstein because there was no female Jack the Ripper."

In a male-centric universe women have no gravity.

No pain and no glory...

bjkeefe
11-08-2009, 02:38 AM
And in any case there are definitely secret underpants involved.

You mean ... secret magic underpants.

Baltimoron
11-08-2009, 02:56 AM
Have you ever served in the Army? I was a squad leader who became indirectly involved with housing issues mandated by the Federal government in the 90s. I also witnessed the stresses of increased training tempo and reaction against Washington's bad foreign policy decisions. Have you served with Muslims, or with those in the process of naturalization? Have you lived in a community with people with different beliefs, faiths, etc.? Is your concern for the Army just an ideological affectation?

PTSD (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/ptsd/posttraumaticstressdisorder.aspx) can be caused by factors other than combat. However Attackerman does push back on the PTSD meme (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/11/06/against-ptsd-slander-against-islamophobia-for-responsible-reporting/). But, he's not a stereotyping bigot:

How many shootings across this country were committed by white men? What did they tell us about white men? I love how elements of the right who hector us about spreading freedom to those unwashed Arabs and Muslims as a pretext for invasion and occupation turn around and spread innuendo about Muslim rampages, as if Hasan’s religion can unlock some secret about his motivation or herald an emerging onslaught of “Muslim” attackers.

Reihan Salam also cautions (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-06/the-collateral-damage-to-muslims/?cid=hp:mainpromo3), after reporting that Hasan "...was deeply disturbed by the prospect of serving in Iraq, where he was to use his psychiatric training to help American soldiers survive the rigors of war. Apparently Hasan tried desperately to get out of the military, going so far as to hire a lawyer. But of course Hasan could have found various other ways to avoid deploying to Iraq—by conniving his way into a dishonorable discharge, by going AWOL, or even by committing suicide. Then there are rumors that Hasan had faced harassment and discrimination as a Muslim and Arab American in the military.":

The danger is that Hasan's despicable crime will subtly and slowly change these perceptions for the worse. Overnight, Twitter feeds and message boards pulsed with anti-Muslim anger. This kind of venting is important to a free society. But it could also be an ominous sign of tensions to come. It is thus no surprise that groups like the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations have been so quick to condemn the violence. The vast majority of Americans recognize that Hasan doesn't represent all Muslims, just as the Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho didn't represent all Korean-Americans. Yet people who are on the fence about whether Muslims can be trusted could tip over into believing that they can't. Back in 2004, a survey sponsored by Cornell University found that 29 percent of Americans believed that "all Muslim Americans should be required to register there whereabouts with the federal government," a policy that would be a massive propaganda coup for America's rivals. And it should go without saying that opinions about Muslims aren't evenly distributed across the country. Muslims living in regions and neighborhoods where high levels of mistrust prevail are likely to feel alienated from the American mainstream, which could then lead them to live narrow, impoverished lives—or, worse still, turn to the kind of nihilistic violence we've occasionally seen from the Muslim youth of France and Holland and Britain, where riots and gang violence with a militant edge have grown too common.

The US Army needs to investigate its procedures, from recruitment to promotion. Some commenters have wondered if sending Muslims to fight Muslims is a good policy for morale and safety. It's conceivable Hasan, who joined the Army well before 9/11 and who is from a moderate Muslim community, became traumatized both by what was happening in America, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by the testimonies he received from his patients. I don't condone his actions. A judge wiser than I am has to devise an appropriate punishment, after more is known. It is not known if Hasan planned his attack. There are also reports claiming deaths by friendly fire. Soldiers can accomplish these tasks, just as it has accomplished what countless administrations since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dem, Republican, conservative and moderate, have burdened them with. I worry about fellow former soldiers who can't refuse a policy and who have to feel safe with other soldiers because of what the President and the law, through voters, tell them to do. People like you only care about the US Army when it enters your ideological field of vision. Now you want a witch hunt.

Bobby G
11-08-2009, 04:38 AM
Ah. Thanks for correcting me. I thought each person got her or his own planet, but now that I think about it, that wouldn't cohere with the rest of what I know about Mormonism.

Lyle
11-08-2009, 08:09 AM
Ah... if you go back up to a previous response to you, I already told you I don't think he is a terrorist. I haven't even argued he's one. He likely committed a terrorist act under Texas law and Federal law, but he doesn't come across as being a terrorist or part of some terrorist group.

He clearly is an extremist Musim though.

Lyle
11-08-2009, 08:12 AM
How is the title thread bigoted when it is the truth? Another Muslim murdered American soldiers. What is bigoted about such a statement? Muslim extremists continue to murder people the world over and you think it is bigoted to point this out?

Whatfur
11-08-2009, 08:18 AM
OMG! Not Housing issues!!!! I feel for you man.

Hard to distinguish who you're talking to or who you are quoting or what you are responding to. You know if you are going to disparage someone as a stereotypical bigot for speculating, you might want to avoid the words "Its conceivable" in your own post.

BTW, Hasan found his way out of the army.

Lyle
11-08-2009, 10:10 AM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-07/major-hasans-hidden-militancy/full/

As a result of this kind of ideology, Muslims such as the writers of a Web site, RevolutionIslam.com, called Hasan “an officer and a gentleman” and praised his alleged killing spree at Fort Hood, sending him “Get Well” greetings.

AemJeff
11-08-2009, 12:14 PM
Attackerman (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/11/08/so-plain-to-see-conspiracy/):

It’s right and responsible to investigate Hasan to learn if he acted alone. It’s wrong and irresponsible for legislators to make prejudicial public statements while the inquiry is ongoing, and to suggest that Muslim Americans in the military are Nidal Hasans in waiting.

It seems pretty clear that this was the purpose of creating this thread.

Lyle
11-08-2009, 01:14 PM
Where has it been suggested that American Muslims in the military are Nidal Hasans in waiting?

Lyle
11-08-2009, 01:19 PM
"When Muslims Commit Violence"

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/when_muslims_commit_violent_ac.php

I am not arguing, of course, that American Muslims, as a whole, are violently unhappy with America (I've argued the opposite, in fact). But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims. Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.

AemJeff
11-08-2009, 01:31 PM
Where has it been suggested that American Muslims in the military are Nidal Hasans in waiting?

Every single time the unqualified adjective "Muslims" is used in reference to the tragedy.

Lyle
11-08-2009, 01:54 PM
That still does't make any sense. I'm going to ask you again, where does anybody say that Amercan Muslims in the military are Nidal Hasans in waiting?

Provide a quote please.

AemJeff
11-08-2009, 02:01 PM
That still does't make any sense. I'm going to ask you again, where does anybody say that Amercan Muslims in the military are Nidal Hasans in waiting?

Provide a quote please.

I don't think so. What I said was clear and pointed. You've a bad habit of trying to dictate the form of my responses to you. It's not a strategy with a high probability of success.

Lyle
11-08-2009, 02:20 PM
But you didn't make a point, because nobody has suggested American Muslim soldiers are Nidal Hasans in waiting.

Get some character and defend you're arguments Jeff.

Whatfur
11-08-2009, 02:21 PM
I don't think so. What I said was clear and pointed. You've a bad habit of trying to dictate the form of my responses to you. It's not a strategy with a high probability of success.

Thats kinda funny Jeff, because out of everyone here you have the tendancy to try and dictate the questions while first ignoring those that are asked...kind of like right here.

AemJeff
11-08-2009, 02:31 PM
But you didn't make a point, because nobody has suggested American Muslim soldiers are Nidal Hasans in waiting.

Get some character and defend you're arguments Jeff.

I think they're pretty well defended, thank you. I don't know know if you actually don't get the point, or if you think disingenuousness is a valid form of argument; but either way, I'm not inclined to help you figure out what ought to be obvious.

Lyle
11-08-2009, 02:36 PM
Who are you kidding? You're argument is bunk. Nobody has suggested American Muslim soldiers are Nidal Hasans in waiting. Go ahead and keep up the insanity if you want to though.

AemJeff
11-08-2009, 02:44 PM
Who are you kidding? You're argument is bunk. Nobody has suggested American Muslim soldiers are Nidal Hasans in waiting. Go ahead and keep up the insanity if you want to though.

Ok.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-08-2009, 03:20 PM
That still does't make any sense. I'm going to ask you again, where does anybody say that Amercan Muslims in the military are Nidal Hasans in waiting?

Provide a quote please.

Lyle, let me try one more time and unpack what everyone is trying to get at here. For most of us, ANY reference to Hasan's religion in the general manner used in this post title is prejudiced.

Here's why: if you could demonstrate that in THIS particular case it WAS particular views about Islam that led DIRECTLY to his actions (which, at this early stage of investigation, we can't prove), it would be fine to say "Nidal Hasan, extremist Muslim, murders US soldiers."

Since you cannot prove something specific, your post simply points out the common religion of the murderers in three separate incidents. It suggests that we should consider that religion as important in evaluating those three incidents even though, in this particular case at least, we do not know what role it played. That implies that there is something about Islam in general that would lead us to believe it DID play a role. And because it's generalized to apply to the religion itself, it follows that similar questions can be raised about other Muslims too. And that assumption--a generalized assumption about a religion's impact on its practitioners without specific connection to the incident at hand--is prejudice, as in "pre-judging."

Bobby G
11-08-2009, 03:27 PM
Hi Preppy,

Why do we assume that Lyle was suggesting what we all took him to suggest? Because of his past behavior.

Why did Lyle assume that Hasan was an extremist Muslim who shot US soldiers because of his religious beliefs? Because of past circumstances.

I'm beginning to think that Lyle's inference wasn't *necessarily* motivated by bigotry. It could be a simple, "when someone with an Arabic-sounding name shoots a bunch of US soldiers seemingly for no reason, then, if I had to bet, what would be the sensible thing to bet? Probably that he killed because of his religious beliefs."

Of course, I don't think Lyle had to bet. He could have just waited. And I still haven't heard anything from him that explains how he knew that Hasan was an extremist Muslim who killed people because of his religious beliefs before anyone else in the public-at-large did. Perhaps he knew Hasan personally? Other than that, I can't explain how Lyle could have known those things; guessed, sure. Known? Can't see it.

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

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more I think that, at best, we can simply say that the situation, at the time Lyle wrote about it, raised the probability that he was a Muslim who killed partially because of his religious beliefs. That said, we couldn't at the time--I don't think--say that it raised the probability above 50%.

nikkibong
11-08-2009, 03:31 PM
All that said, I think that it *might* have been fair to write, "Man kills US soldiers, probably because of his Islamic religious beliefs".

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.

Bobby G
11-08-2009, 03:37 PM
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?

AemJeff
11-08-2009, 03:43 PM
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?

But the question isn't "could it be?" It's "why make one specific assumption, when there are an array of possibilities?"

Lyle
11-08-2009, 03:46 PM
Yeah, ok is right. You're argument is asinine. Nidal Hasan being a Muslim extremist has what to do with anybody else in the U.S. military?

nikkibong
11-08-2009, 03:50 PM
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?

To begin, it seems that people are more likey to be KILLED because of their beliefs, than to KILL for them. But that's just an interesting (IMO) aside.

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.

Sorry I'm not putting this particularly eloquently; this is an extremely difficult issue to grapple with...especially through an early-Sunday haze.

ADDENDUM: If violence were a result of religious beliefs, wouldn't we expect to see the same level of violence committed across cultures/nations that share the same religion? We don't, though. Clearly, something more is at play than just religion, then.

Lyle
11-08-2009, 04:08 PM
Preppy,

I think you and I just disagree on what is to be prejudiced or what prejudice actually means. What journalist wasn't trying to find out if Nidal Hasan was a Muslim after the massacre? Were they prejudiced to ask such a question and try to find the answer? You would just over look that possibility with his name? You would just look past recent history and the fact we are at war in two predominantly Muslim countries? The chances of him not being a Muslim were low. And, ultimately, I was right.

I've said as much to you that is was probably inappropriate of me to post before knowing for sure, but the language I've used has been far from prejudiced.

Lyle
11-08-2009, 04:13 PM
Well, it's likely cultural, or specifically local culture, but religion can be a part it.

None of the 9/11 highjackers were poor by the way, and they were all educated. And if religion is a mask, people are going to naturally points fingers at the religion since it is invoked by the murderers.

Bobby G
11-08-2009, 05:24 PM
Well, it would be extreme to say that religion alone is the explanation for the differing tendencies to violence between, say, Indonesia and Egypt (are the statistics in Indonesia lower than those in Egypt?). What would be more suggestive is if two countries were more or less similar in all economic ways, but had dramatically different rates of crime. Then, you could perhaps chalk up the differences to culture and history, of which religion often plays a part.

Bobby G
11-08-2009, 05:26 PM
But the question isn't "could it be?" It's "why make one specific assumption, when there are an array of possibilities?"

Hi Jeff,

Sorry, I don't get what the "could it be?" is referencing. Here's what I wrote:

"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?"

Is the idea that we shouldn't ask, "could it be that someone ever kills someone else because of his religious beliefs?", and should instead ask, "why should we ever invoke religious belief as an explanation?"?

AemJeff
11-08-2009, 07:23 PM
Hi Jeff,

Sorry, I don't get what the "could it be?" is referencing. Here's what I wrote:

"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?"

Is the idea that we shouldn't ask, "could it be that someone ever kills someone else because of his religious beliefs?", and should instead ask, "why should we ever invoke religious belief as an explanation?"?

Bobby, I probably wasn't verbose enough. What I meant was probably better expressed as follows: The question isn't "Could it be that this hypothesis (i.e. that he killed because of his religious beliefs) is true?"

It seems trivially true that he could have done so. By itself, therefore, it's not an interesting hypothesis - certainly no more so than several others. Without better evidence than what we've seen, it seems to me that we ought to withhold judgment, and refrain from ideologically charged public speculation.

Baltimoron
11-08-2009, 08:27 PM
I'm sure Lyle would call it PC, but from what I'm hearing on the Sunday talk shows, pundits are looking at this incident as both a mental health and Army readiness issue. Every commentator has tried to dismiss any speculation, but especially anti-Muslim prejudice. I think that's right where the debate should be.

bjkeefe
11-08-2009, 08:54 PM
VDH is the worst thing to happen to the classics since the sack of Rome.

Doghouse (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2009/10/theres-never-anything-on-teevee.html):

I'm guessing that either the tables at the War College are padded, or they recommended everyone attending Hanson's lectures keep his helmet on.

graz
11-08-2009, 10:30 PM
I'm sure Lyle would call it PC, but from what I'm hearing on the Sunday talk shows, pundits are looking at this incident as both a mental health and Army readiness issue. Every commentator has tried to dismiss any speculation, but especially anti-Muslim prejudice. I think that's right where the debate should be.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125769764441836773.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Pop ular

"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," Mr. Lieberman added.

bjkeefe
11-08-2009, 10:49 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125769764441836773.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Pop ular

Theorem: It is possible to substantiate any fool notion by getting a quote from Joe Lieberman.

graz
11-08-2009, 10:51 PM
Theorem: It is possible to substantiate any fool notion by getting a quote from Joe Lieberman.

I want to call that a fact... not a theory.