Ft. Hood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Islam has nothing to do with these loonies.The Hispanic guy in Orlando,florida shooting was not motivated by his religion to start shooting.Similarly Hassan happened to be a Muslim but a sick person too.The sad part is he was dealing with a lot of post traumatic stress patients and I think he just snapped!!

Did Islam have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks either?

Clearly only a small percentage of Muslims interpret their faith to support terrorist acts as do a small percentage of Irish Protestants, Hindus, conservative Christians, etc. but the size of the percentage does not negate the causal connection. One hopes that all terrorists are psychological ill, but there are many factors that contribute to their actions and sometimes their skewed interpretation of their religion is indeed one of them. To deny this fact is to allow political correctness to impede national security.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Did Islam have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks either?

Clearly only a small percentage of Muslims interpret their faith to support terrorist acts as do a small percentage of Irish Protestants, Hindus, conservative Christians, etc. but the size of the percentage does not negate the causal connection. One hopes that all terrorists are psychological ill, but there are many factors that contribute to their actions and sometimes their skewed interpretation of their religion is indeed one of them. To deny this fact is to allow political correctness to impede national security.

I don't think the motivations of the 9/11 perpetrators are remotely similar to Hasan's. Nobody is suggesting that religion be ignored completely. The issue is whether it is the primary issue of concern. For instance, a number of American Jews have been caught spying for Israel. That does not mean that any Jew with access to sensitive information should be considered a possible Israeli spy.

Prejudice can be used to hinder national security as well. Read the story of Dr. Ayaad Assaad:

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

He was a scientist at the US Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, where he worked with anthrax. Just before the death of the first anthrax victim, the FBI received an anonymous letter making the case that Assaad might be behind the attacks. Given the fact that Assaad was Egyptian-born and the anti-Arab hysteria in the US in October 2001, he is lucky that it didn't end up getting water-boarded. In the end, it was cleared of any involvement.

[Anonymous]

Yes, Islam is a common factor among the terrorists we are discussing. But so are other things. All those involved in 9/11 and the earlier World Trade Center plot were male (along with non-Muslim terrorists like McVeigh and Oswald). We don't distrust all males, because it's so large a class that only a minuscule percentage deserve scrutiny. Same for Muslims. We need a finer classification, like perhaps involvement with certain militant groups.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote: Nobody is suggesting that religion be ignored completely.

Let's look back to the beginning of this discussion, where you stated that religion should be ignored in this situation.

jsteele wrote:
Again, with Hasan, I don't see any need to bring his religion in it.

[Anonymous]

To me the difference between this and 9/11 is, the 9/11 attacks took so long to plan. They were coldly calculated and carried out. The perps were cruel but not insane, sadly. They don't seem to have been confused, or ridden with angst, or to have acted bizarrely.

Hassan is the opposite of that. He is a crazy person who happened to be Muslim. The terrorists were many things but not crazy.

[Anonymous]

if it wasn't so sad it would be funny. why is the left jumping over backwards to deny the incredibly obvious? Hasan was a fanatical Muslim who murdered in the name of his religion. how is that even debatable? is that an indictment of all Islam? of course not. how is that bigoted against all Muslims? of course it isn't.

it does mean that when a muslim is defending suicide bombing and acting erratically that the army needs to take a closer look.

[Anonymous]

see below for the latest on Awlaki. Does this mean he is also crazy? No, not mentally ill. He simply practices a version of Islam followed by many that justifies and encourages murder and suicide. Is everyone who follows this cleric "crazy"? No. Dangerous? yes. Especially dangerous if they are an officer in the US Armed Forces ...

Awlaki praised Hasan as a hero on his personal Web site Monday. The posting stated that American Muslims who have condemned the Fort Hood attack are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.

It went on to state that the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."

"Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero," Awlaki said. "He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: Nobody is suggesting that religion be ignored completely.

Let's look back to the beginning of this discussion, where you stated that religion should be ignored in this situation.

jsteele wrote:
Again, with Hasan, I don't see any need to bring his religion in it.

Nice try, but you took that sentence out of context. You lose two points for unfair debating.

My remark was a response to whether Hasan should have been transferred to Fr. Hood even though he had show tendencies toward fanatical Islam. My point was that there were enough reasons to be concerned without even considering the religious aspects.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:if it wasn't so sad it would be funny. why is the left jumping over backwards to deny the incredibly obvious? Hasan was a fanatical Muslim who murdered in the name of his religion. how is that even debatable? is that an indictment of all Islam? of course not. how is that bigoted against all Muslims? of course it isn't.

it does mean that when a muslim is defending suicide bombing and acting erratically that the army needs to take a closer look.

Your determination to make Islam the "root cause" long ago crossed the line to pure bigotry. Hasan can be described as a "fanatical Muslim". He can be described as "an unmarried male". He can be described as "an unbalanced individual". He can be described as "a life-long Virginian". There are many, many ways to describe this man. None of us can say at this time which attributes were most important in causing him to go on a murdering rampage. Your fixation solely on the religious aspect says a lot about you and your own prejudices.

Anonymous wrote:
see below for the latest on Awlaki. Does this mean he is also crazy? No, not mentally ill. He simply practices a version of Islam followed by many that justifies and encourages murder and suicide. Is everyone who follows this cleric "crazy"? No. Dangerous? yes. Especially dangerous if they are an officer in the US Armed Forces ...

Awlaki praised Hasan as a hero on his personal Web site Monday. The posting stated that American Muslims who have condemned the Fort Hood attack are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.

It went on to state that the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."

"Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero," Awlaki said. "He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."

Hasan is not responsible for anything that Awlaki says. The Hasan-Awlaki connection appears to be a lot less than it was made to appear. No wonder ABC hyped the story yesterday with no details. The contacts Hasan had with Awlaki were consistent with Hasan's duties. Also, if you visit Awlaki's blog (which I did yesterday), the comments on this blog entry are very revealing. Many of Awlaki's supporters are denying that he wrote the blog entry because they don't think he would support the attack. Other commenters (who appear to be Muslim) at attacking Awlaki (they obviously believe he wrote the entry) because he should oppose violence. Of course, a number of posters are blood-thirsty fanatics who love what Hasan did, but it is eye-opening how there is such a wide range of opinion even on this guy's blog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:see below for the latest on Awlaki. Does this mean he is also crazy? No, not mentally ill. He simply practices a version of Islam followed by many that justifies and encourages murder and suicide. Is everyone who follows this cleric "crazy"? No. Dangerous? yes. Especially dangerous if they are an officer in the US Armed Forces ...

Awlaki praised Hasan as a hero on his personal Web site Monday. The posting stated that American Muslims who have condemned the Fort Hood attack are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.

It went on to state that the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."

"Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero," Awlaki said. "He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."

The Klan votes Republican. Does that prove anything about the GOP?

[Anonymous]

ok, lets take your KKK example. If a Klansmen publicly burned down a Catholic church after years of making public comments that were discriminatory against Catholics, while wearing his robes and chanting the KKK fight song, would you consider his actions to be that of a crazy man or simply the actions typical of a violent klansmen that are the result of his misguided and bigoted views?

what would the headline be the next day? Man allegedly burns down church. President warns to not jump to conclusions.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:ok, lets take your KKK example. If a Klansmen publicly burned down a Catholic church after years of making public comments that were discriminatory against Catholics, while wearing his robes and chanting the KKK fight song, would you consider his actions to be that of a crazy man or simply the actions typical of a violent klansmen that are the result of his misguided and bigoted views?

what would the headline be the next day? Man allegedly burns down church. President warns to not jump to conclusions.

Did you even think this out? One thing I guarantee is that the headlines would not say "Protestant Burns Catholic Church". Nobody would start threads on DCUM wondering if we should start scrutinizing Protestants even though it's not politically correct.

Your singular fixation on this man's religion is making you stupid.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if it wasn't so sad it would be funny. why is the left jumping over backwards to deny the incredibly obvious? Hasan was a fanatical Muslim who murdered in the name of his religion. how is that even debatable? is that an indictment of all Islam? of course not. how is that bigoted against all Muslims? of course it isn't.

it does mean that when a muslim is defending suicide bombing and acting erratically that the army needs to take a closer look.

Your determination to make Islam the "root cause" long ago crossed the line to pure bigotry. Hasan can be described as a "fanatical Muslim". He can be described as "an unmarried male". He can be described as "an unbalanced individual". He can be described as "a life-long Virginian". There are many, many ways to describe this man. None of us can say at this time which attributes were most important in causing him to go on a murdering rampage. Your fixation solely on the religious aspect says a lot about you and your own prejudices.

Anonymous wrote:
see below for the latest on Awlaki. Does this mean he is also crazy? No, not mentally ill. He simply practices a version of Islam followed by many that justifies and encourages murder and suicide. Is everyone who follows this cleric "crazy"? No. Dangerous? yes. Especially dangerous if they are an officer in the US Armed Forces ...

Awlaki praised Hasan as a hero on his personal Web site Monday. The posting stated that American Muslims who have condemned the Fort Hood attack are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.

It went on to state that the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."

"Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero," Awlaki said. "He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."

Hasan is not responsible for anything that Awlaki says. The Hasan-Awlaki connection appears to be a lot less than it was made to appear. No wonder ABC hyped the story yesterday with no details. The contacts Hasan had with Awlaki were consistent with Hasan's duties. Also, if you visit Awlaki's blog (which I did yesterday), the comments on this blog entry are very revealing. Many of Awlaki's supporters are denying that he wrote the blog entry because they don't think he would support the attack. Other commenters (who appear to be Muslim) at attacking Awlaki (they obviously believe he wrote the entry) because he should oppose violence. Of course, a number of posters are blood-thirsty fanatics who love what Hasan did, but it is eye-opening how there is such a wide range of opinion even on this guy's blog.

how can you be coordinated enough to throw around accustations of bigotry with your head so firmly buried in the sand? I never said Islam was the root cause, I said Hasan was motivated by religion and politics. Every Muslim I know is a peace loving gentleman.

All actions of evil are not committed by "crazy" people. I don't know why Hasan is a violent extremist. Hopefully he will live just long enough that we can find out.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Did Islam have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks either?

Clearly only a small percentage of Muslims interpret their faith to support terrorist acts as do a small percentage of Irish Protestants, Hindus, conservative Christians, etc. but the size of the percentage does not negate the causal connection. One hopes that all terrorists are psychological ill, but there are many factors that contribute to their actions and sometimes their skewed interpretation of their religion is indeed one of them. To deny this fact is to allow political correctness to impede national security.

I don't think the motivations of the 9/11 perpetrators are remotely similar to Hasan's. Nobody is suggesting that religion be ignored completely. The issue is whether it is the primary issue of concern. For instance, a number of American Jews have been caught spying for Israel. That does not mean that any Jew with access to sensitive information should be considered a possible Israeli spy.

Prejudice can be used to hinder national security as well. Read the story of Dr. Ayaad Assaad:

Waaaaaaaaaaiiit. Who said any Muslim with access to security should be considered a terrorist? What I have heard people say is that perhaps religion played a part in Hasan's actions, and to not analyze and learn from that would be to greater good of 'PC' but perhaps to the detriment of security and commonsense.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ok, lets take your KKK example. If a Klansmen publicly burned down a Catholic church after years of making public comments that were discriminatory against Catholics, while wearing his robes and chanting the KKK fight song, would you consider his actions to be that of a crazy man or simply the actions typical of a violent klansmen that are the result of his misguided and bigoted views?

what would the headline be the next day? Man allegedly burns down church. President warns to not jump to conclusions.

Did you even think this out? One thing I guarantee is that the headlines would not say "Protestant Burns Catholic Church". Nobody would start threads on DCUM wondering if we should start scrutinizing Protestants even though it's not politically correct.

Your singular fixation on this man's religion is making you stupid.

nice, love the personal attacks. bigot, stupid. wondeful debate ...

I think the motivation for the klansmen would be his extremism and his hate, not his protestantism. (Who said anything about religion? Who is obsessed here?)