[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Interesting in terms of how persistent tensions between Christians and Muslims have been, yes.

Look around the World. Look at all the conflicts. blank vs Christians. blank vs Hindus. blank vs Buddhists. Fill in the blank.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Look around the World. Look at all the conflicts. blank vs Christians. blank vs Hindus. blank vs Buddhists. Fill in the blank.

The blank... I'm going to go with bears?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Look around the World. Look at all the conflicts. blank vs Christians. blank vs Hindus. blank vs Buddhists. Fill in the blank.

All the conflicts? There's a communist insurgency in Colombia, a sustained multinational and multiethnic conflict over diamond-rich areas in Africa's Mano River Basin, a low-intensity Muslim-on-Muslim insurgency in Algeria...seems like being Muslim isn't a very good explanation for violent behavior.

[Eug]

For some reason this guy's face keeps popping into my head.

[Doofy]

Pointless talking to you people. You won't get it until it slaps you in the face. Give it 30 years.

[Laminar]

Taking the blue pill, are they?

[k2director]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How is the fact that he was a Muslim actionable? What do we do? Raise the terror level to a different color? Start a witch hunt looking for Muslim extremists? Bomb somebody?

Is this supposed to prove the argument that the probability of violence is greater comparing a Muslim to a Christian? Even if that were true, so what? How can we use this information? Do we declare war against the Muslim faith?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And what, what do we do?

Your two questions are the first things I've seen in this thread that make sense--other than my posts, of course.

My original point in this thread was how I felt disturbed that the media was ignoring the real reason for this murder spree--ie, the perpetrator's Muslim faith. I was appalled that despite mounting evidence supporting the fact that he acted for religious reasons (and that it was really yet another act of Islamic terror), that the media seemed to be trying hard to draw every conclusion but that one.

But once we finally accept that the wacko did kill those people out of an Islamic motivation, then we can ask your questions: is there something to do about it? I don't know if Hasan's act alone should prompt a change in policy or law in the military or our society in general. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It's worth looking into. But I am *quite* sure that this horrible crime should, along with other events over the years (need I mention them? they are legion), prompt us to ask whether Islam--or how Islam is interpreted by some # of its followers--is consistent and compatible with Western values, which this country stands for.

This event alone raises interesting questions (and it's not the first time a Muslim American soldier has killed fellow soldiers because he felt he had to act in support of his faith):

** Should Muslims be allowed to be front-line soldiers in a war against other Muslims?

** Should the military be allowed to ask about a Muslim's deeper feelings about their faith before accepting them when we're at war with Muslim countries? Or would that be an invasion of privacy or some form of discrimination? Should we have a Don't Ask/ Don't Tell policy?

** Should a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Military be able to pick or choose how they serve our military during a time of war? We're supposed to be a country that separates Church and State. Should a Muslim be able to join the U.S. Army (all volunteer, by the way), enjoy its investments and time, and then say, "You know what, I don't want to fight against other Muslims", thereby taking themselves out of the role the military trained them for. If we can't discriminate against people for their religion, should they be allowed to use their religion as a justification for refusing reasonable service required of them?

** While we're at it, when we're at war a portion of the Muslim world, and I believe Muslims are more likely to take their religious identity seriously and tend to see themselves as Muslims first, and nationalities second, then should we have an immigration policy that limits Muslim immigration to the country?


These are all valid questions, along with a bunch of others. You might be surprised at my own answers to at least some of them, but this event in Texas further convinces me that we should at least be willing to ask the questions....

[Uncle Skeleton]

We might be surprised at your answers... if you were brave enough to share them

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Taking the blue pill, are they?

Yep. I took the red pill 21 years ago when one of the f'ers blew a friend of mine out of the sky.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

We might be surprised at your answers... if you were brave enough to share them

Bingo.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm going for popcorn, anyone want any?

Make sure you grab the parmesan, please.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by k2director 

That in itself isn't surprising to me at all. What is surprising (even as disturbing) is the clear reluctance of American media and the American left to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that this had to do with Islam, and an American choosing his warped view of religious duty over this duty to fellow soldiers and his country.

Well we all knew the stupidity would inevitably hit the boards right?

Originally Posted by k2director 

Right now, it's widely known that Nidal Malik Hasan was:

* A devout Muslim

Oh yeah. That's a crime.

Originally Posted by k2director 

* Sought a wife that wore a Hijab and prayed 5 times a day

Were he Christian such a mentality would fit right in with the Pat Robertson crowd over at the 700 Club.

Originally Posted by k2director 

* Had disturbed other army officers by saying that Jihadists fighting American soldiers were justified

Indeed. Fighting foreign soldiers in your own country is obviously indefensible. Especially when the foreign soldiers are Americans.

Originally Posted by k2director 

* Had been investigated by the FBI for making extremist statements on web sites, celebrating Jihad and suicide bombers

To date it has not been confirmed that he was the author of said posts. Additionally, the posts didn't "celebrate suicide bombers". They likened them to Kamikaze pilots during WWII or a soldier that dives on a grenade to save his comrades.

Originally Posted by k2director 

* And, worst of all, yelled "Allahu Akbar!" (Arabic for "God is Great") every time he shot one of his victims.

Now you are really just making sh*t up. No news report has claimed he did this "every time he shot one o his victims". There are unconfirmed reports that he may have said it once before the initial shot.

Originally Posted by k2director 

We know all this, but what is the main headline at the Christian Science Monitor right now? It's: "Nidal Malik Hasan case: Are Army psychiatrists overwhelmed?"

At the New York Times, it's: "Suspect Objected to Deployment, Cousin Says"

At no other media site or paper I've seen, except Fox News, have I seen the media raising the obvious conclusion that this was a premeditated act of Islamic terror, just like 9/11. They seem far more inclined to paint this as a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or proof that the controversy regarding America's two wars is becoming more pronounced and extreme (ie, damning our wars, in a way).

Perhaps that's because the "other media" has a bit more sense than you and a large cross-section of the Fox News crowd? Given what we actually know it is certainly not an "obvious conclusion". PTSD is a fact. Army psychiatrists are not immune to it. This is not the first act of violence by a US soldier against his own since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began. And as quiet as its kept, many soldiers are against the continued presence of US troops in those two countries ... and most of them are Christian. But of course, the Fox News crowd is quick to ascribe the motivation for his attacks to his faith simply because he is Muslim ... when they conveniently ignore the faith of others who do the same or worse. Especially if they are Christian and white. Funny how such "obvious conclusions" weren't reached about Timothy McVeigh.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. I took the red pill 21 years ago when one of the f'ers blew a friend of mine out of the sky.

And what actions has this led you to take, that you wouldn't otherwise have taken? (besides chest-pounding and saber-rattling)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Your two questions are the first things I've seen in this thread that make sense--other than my posts, of course.

My original point in this thread was how I felt disturbed that the media was ignoring the real reason for this murder spree--ie, the perpetrator's Muslim faith. I was appalled that despite mounting evidence supporting the fact that he acted for religious reasons (and that it was really yet another act of Islamic terror), that the media seemed to be trying hard to draw every conclusion but that one.

But once we finally accept that the wacko did kill those people out of an Islamic motivation, then we can ask your questions: is there something to do about it? I don't know if Hasan's act alone should prompt a change in policy or law in the military or our society in general. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It's worth looking into. But I am *quite* sure that this horrible crime should, along with other events over the years (need I mention them? they are legion), prompt us to ask whether Islam--or how Islam is interpreted by some # of its followers--is consistent and compatible with Western values, which this country stands for.

This event alone raises interesting questions (and it's not the first time a Muslim American soldier has killed fellow soldiers because he felt he had to act in support of his faith):

** Should Muslims be allowed to be front-line soldiers in a war against other Muslims?

** Should the military be allowed to ask about a Muslim's deeper feelings about their faith before accepting them when we're at war with Muslim countries? Or would that be an invasion of privacy or some form of discrimination? Should we have a Don't Ask/ Don't Tell policy?

** Should a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Military be able to pick or choose how they serve our military during a time of war? We're supposed to be a country that separates Church and State. Should a Muslim be able to join the U.S. Army (all volunteer, by the way), enjoy its investments and time, and then say, "You know what, I don't want to fight against other Muslims", thereby taking themselves out of the role the military trained them for. If we can't discriminate against people for their religion, should they be allowed to use their religion as a justification for refusing reasonable service required of them?

** While we're at it, when we're at war a portion of the Muslim world, and I believe Muslims are more likely to take their religious identity seriously and tend to see themselves as Muslims first, and nationalities second, then should we have an immigration policy that limits Muslim immigration to the country?


These are all valid questions, along with a bunch of others. You might be surprised at my own answers to at least some of them, but this event in Texas further convinces me that we should at least be willing to ask the questions....

So you draw a line in the sand, and in doing so open the floodgates to all sorts of additional problems:

- identifying Muslims (something which Americans are not good at)
- asking these questions to innocent non-violent Muslims
- preventing this from becoming a witch hunt
- maintaining good relations with the Muslim world, which makes up about a third of the world's population

I happen to think that we would probably be better off without any religion whatsoever, at least in terms of world peace and solidarity.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. I took the red pill 21 years ago when one of the f'ers blew a friend of mine out of the sky.

So how do you deal with people that look like they might be Muslims in real life, given this association?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And what actions has this led you to take, that you wouldn't otherwise have taken? (besides chest-pounding and saber-rattling)

Actions? None. Like I said, you can't do anything.

Awareness? Lots.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What good is awareness if it doesn't affect your actions? Would it even allow you to avoid being blown out of the sky, if you were about to be?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Oh please, it's your attitude of denial that's so scary. First of all, Whitman did NOT act out of some religious motivation, unlike Hasan. Whitman didn't kill those people because of what he thought the Bible told him to do, or what the Christian god wanted. Whitman acted out of mental disturbance, brought on by some emotional stress but more so by the huge tumor in his brain, which was discovered during his autopsy.

I think you're missing the point. Both men were emotionally and mentally disturbed. One used his sickness as justification for killing 16 people, the other used his religion as justification for killing 15 people. If Hasan hadn't been a Muslim, he would have found another reason to justify kill 15 people.

Originally Posted by k2director 

And yet, according to you, "Nidal Hasan would've killed those soldiers whether he was a Muslim or not".

Yes, for the same reason I think Manson used religion to manipulate people and have others killed.

Originally Posted by k2director 

You dishonor his victims with that kind of ridiculous statement. If I were murdered by that wacko, I would at least want people to know why it happened. You can't even give those victims the decency of the truth. That's disgraceful.

I'm sure FOX News will be right on it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So how do you deal with people that look like they might be Muslims in real life, given this association?

I don't deal with muslims.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't deal with muslims.

I'm sure you have, but never noticed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What good is awareness if it doesn't affect your actions?

It allows you to plan courses of action to be undertaken should push come to shove. It'll all kick off in a European country first, perhaps here, perhaps France. I know what to be looking for and which way to point the lifeboat.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Would it even allow you to avoid being blown out of the sky, if you were about to be?

Doesn't affect me - I hate flying anyway.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think you're missing the point. Both men were emotionally and mentally disturbed. One used his sickness as justification for killing 16 people, the other used his religion as justification for killing 15 people. If Hasan hadn't been a Muslim, he would have found another reason to justify kill 15 people.

But you can't know this.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm sure you have, but never noticed.

This is not the US. You can spot the difference between a muslim, a Hindu and a Sikh and mile away.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by k2director 

You don't see many Christians killing masses of innocent and defenseless people because their religion inspired them to...ie, as a religious duty or act. On the other hand, over the last 40 or so years, you see that kind of behavior far more from Muslims, don't you? Yes, you do.

Every hear of the Crusades? Look it up - interesting reading.

Every heard of the witch-hunts in the Middle Ages and early modern Europe? Best to look that up too.

Ever hear of some nut blowing up an abortion clinic? Those nuts are 9/10 "doing God's will".

"Christians" as a group are not innocent of crimes against innocent and defenseless people either.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Your two questions are the first things I've seen in this thread that make sense--other than my posts, of course.

My original point in this thread was how I felt disturbed that the media was ignoring the real reason for this murder spree--ie, the perpetrator's Muslim faith. I was appalled that despite mounting evidence supporting the fact that he acted for religious reasons (and that it was really yet another act of Islamic terror), that the media seemed to be trying hard to draw every conclusion but that one.

But once we finally accept that the wacko did kill those people out of an Islamic motivation, then we can ask your questions: is there something to do about it? I don't know if Hasan's act alone should prompt a change in policy or law in the military or our society in general. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It's worth looking into. But I am *quite* sure that this horrible crime should, along with other events over the years (need I mention them? they are legion), prompt us to ask whether Islam--or how Islam is interpreted by some # of its followers--is consistent and compatible with Western values, which this country stands for.

This event alone raises interesting questions (and it's not the first time a Muslim American soldier has killed fellow soldiers because he felt he had to act in support of his faith):

** Should Muslims be allowed to be front-line soldiers in a war against other Muslims?

** Should the military be allowed to ask about a Muslim's deeper feelings about their faith before accepting them when we're at war with Muslim countries? Or would that be an invasion of privacy or some form of discrimination? Should we have a Don't Ask/ Don't Tell policy?

** Should a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Military be able to pick or choose how they serve our military during a time of war? We're supposed to be a country that separates Church and State. Should a Muslim be able to join the U.S. Army (all volunteer, by the way), enjoy its investments and time, and then say, "You know what, I don't want to fight against other Muslims", thereby taking themselves out of the role the military trained them for. If we can't discriminate against people for their religion, should they be allowed to use their religion as a justification for refusing reasonable service required of them?

** While we're at it, when we're at war a portion of the Muslim world, and I believe Muslims are more likely to take their religious identity seriously and tend to see themselves as Muslims first, and nationalities second, then should we have an immigration policy that limits Muslim immigration to the country?


These are all valid questions, along with a bunch of others. You might be surprised at my own answers to at least some of them, but this event in Texas further convinces me that we should at least be willing to ask the questions....

You are ABSOLUTELY right! The only answer is make CERTAIN that all American soldiers are 100% white, Christian males.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

You are ABSOLUTELY right! The only answer is make CERTAIN that all American soldiers are 100% white, Christian males.

But what happens if the US got into yet another war with a European country? We'd be back to the same problem because our troops would be facing other white, Christian males. Certainly we'd have to have loyalty tests and what not!

OAW

[Big Mac]

Some of you are so farking dense it's really quite hilarious.

Did SpaceMonkey really explain that radical Muslims have a legitimate reason to harm innocents whenever they want because Christians have a dominant position on the world stage? Really? When some of the richest people in the world are Muslims? And even if Muslims were all uniformly poor and downtrodden, do you really think that would give them license to act in the barbarous ways that a percentage of them do?

You know, if anyone had an excuse to act like radical Muslims act against America, it would be the Vietnamese. We killed those people based on a weak treaty obligation and the Containment Theory. If you think about it, it would make sense if they were the ones going on rampages against the West. But they come here and start businesses and try to make better lives for themselves and their children.

The federal government gave this guy an incredible education and career for free. They made him a doctor and gave him a high military rank. He could have finished his time in the military and then went on to a successful private practice. As a psychiatrist he wouldn't have been on the front lines killing his fellow Muslim anyway. Plus, if his motive were really to escape service, he could have turned himself into the authorities saying that he just couldn't take the psychological strain of participating in the wars. If they failed to listen, he could have gone to the media, and it would have been a major story. But no, he chose to go in and perpetrate an incredibly heinous crime, to cause as much damage to as many people as he possibly could. And you guys make excuses. Wow.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. I took the red pill 21 years ago when one of the f'ers blew a friend of mine out of the sky.

You became a conservative when a conservative killed your friend?

[ort888]

I think a good start would be to require that all muslim-americans be required to wear some sort of visible identification badge to let the rest of the world know their religion. I have some other ideas too, but we'll get to those later.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I think a good start would be to require that all muslim-americans be required to wear some sort of visible identification badge to let the rest of the world know their religion. I have some other ideas too, but we'll get to those later.

Good idea.

I would have never thought of that myself.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Some of you are so farking dense it's really quite hilarious.

Did SpaceMonkey really explain that radical Muslims have a legitimate reason to harm innocents whenever they want because Christians have a dominant position on the world stage?

That's actually not what I said at all. In responding to the specific point that Christians haven't recently committed much violence in the name of religion, I said that I think it is in large part because of changes in political development in Christian-dominant areas of the world since the Middle Ages. I made no "excuses" for Hasan's crime and said nothing about the legitimacy of religiously-motivated violence. I just tried to offer an explanation for why Christians haven't engaged in much of it lately.

[hyteckit]

I say it's another coverup.

First it was the Pat Tillman coverup.

Now this.

First they said Hasan was killed, now they said he is alive.
First they said woman cop who stopped Hasan was killed, now they said she is wounded.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you draw a line in the sand, and in doing so open the floodgates to all sorts of additional problems:

- identifying Muslims (something which Americans are not good at)
- asking these questions to innocent non-violent Muslims
- preventing this from becoming a witch hunt
- maintaining good relations with the Muslim world, which makes up about a third of the world's population

I happen to think that we would probably be better off without any religion whatsoever, at least in terms of world peace and solidarity.

Oh no, by asking questions I've opened up the floodgates on all sorts of additional problems! Oh the horror! How can a society navigate the world if it's going to ask such controversial or inconvenient questions!

As for the other posts suggesting I wasn't brave for answering some of the questions I posed, it wasn't the point of my thread, and I'd also like to get something else done today. I started this thread to point out the lengths fools go to deny the obvious: that with all the evidence pointing to Hasan's actions being motivated by Islam, a shocking number of people and professional observers (the press) were desperately trying to drudge up any excuse but the real one.

And it is important to recognize that this was yet another premeditated act of Islamic extremism (in a long line of them), perpetrated by one of the last people you'd expect--an American *officer* who's job was to help other American soldiers, not murder them in cold blood.

When Islamic extremists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in the mid 1990s (before there were wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to whine about), did that act make anyone think *some* kind of response was appropriate, rather than simply pretending the act didn't happen?

When a new set of Islamic extremists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11 (again, before there were wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to whine about), did that act make anyone think *some* kind of response was appropriate, rather than pretending the act didn't happen?

Bombings or attempted bombings of buses, planes, trains, hotels, government buildings, kidnappings and beheadings, death fatwas aimed at journalists, authors and cartoonists, murders of filmmakers, etc. etc....all of these acts have been committed in just the last few years in the name of Islam. Do you think they warranted any kind of response from the societies who experienced these attacks--be it more police on the street, or tighter travel restrictions, or armed military operations, or better surveillance and covert intelligence, or investments in new military technologies (Predator drones, etc), etc. etc.?

All of these acts of Islamic terror warranted *some* kind of response on the part of victimized society. Similarly, an American Muslim who is a Major in our own military, who murders 13 soldiers because of his Islamic values, *also* warrants a response. Stop pretending that it doesn't. Politically correct dogma isn't a substitute for common sense.

[Eug]

IMO:

Originally Posted by k2director 

** Should Muslims be allowed to be front-line soldiers in a war against other Muslims?

Yes, most definitely.

** Should the military be allowed to ask about a Muslim's deeper feelings about their faith before accepting them when we're at war with Muslim countries?

I'd have to think on this one more, but my first gut feeling is no.

** Should a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Military be able to pick or choose how they serve our military during a time of war?

Of course not.

** While we're at it, when we're at war a portion of the Muslim world, and I believe Muslims are more likely to take their religious identity seriously and tend to see themselves as Muslims first, and nationalities second, then should we have an immigration policy that limits Muslim immigration to the country?

No.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Oh no, by asking questions I've opened up the floodgates on all sorts of additional problems! Oh the horror! How can a society navigate the world if it's going to ask such controversial or inconvenient questions!

As for the other posts suggesting I wasn't brave for answering some of the questions I posed, it wasn't the point of my thread, and I'd also like to get something else done today. I started this thread to point out the lengths fools go to deny the obvious: that with all the evidence pointing to Hasan's actions being motivated by Islam, a shocking number of people and professional observers (the press) were desperately trying to drudge up any excuse but the real one.

And it is important to recognize that this was yet another premeditated act of Islamic extremism (in a long line of them), perpetrated by one of the last people you'd expect--an American *officer* who's job was to help other American soldiers, not murder them in cold blood.

When Islamic extremists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in the mid 1990s (before there were wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to whine about), did that act make anyone think *some* kind of response was appropriate, rather than simply pretending the act didn't happen?

When a new set of Islamic extremists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11 (again, before there were wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to whine about), did that act make anyone think *some* kind of response was appropriate, rather than pretending the act didn't happen?

Bombings or attempted bombings of buses, planes, trains, hotels, government buildings, kidnappings and beheadings, death fatwas aimed at journalists, authors and cartoonists, murders of filmmakers, etc. etc....all of these acts have been committed in just the last few years in the name of Islam. Do you think they warranted any kind of response from the societies who experienced these attacks--be it more police on the street, or tighter travel restrictions, or armed military operations, or better surveillance and covert intelligence, or investments in new military technologies (Predator drones, etc), etc. etc.?

All of these acts of Islamic terror warranted *some* kind of response on the part of victimized society. Similarly, an American Muslim who is a Major in our own military, who murders 13 soldiers because of his Islamic values, *also* warrants a response. Stop pretending that it doesn't. Politically correct dogma isn't a substitute for common sense.

So what is your goal here? Say that I agree with everything you've said - okay, again, now what? What do we do?

Explain to me how you would deal with the problems I've listed in somehow segregating Muslims.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Oh no, by asking questions I've opened up the floodgates on all sorts of additional problems!

He didn't say you did that, he said "suppose" you do that (in the future). He's trying to pry some semblance of a spine out of you, and induce you to take a stand and actually make a declarative statement.

As for the other posts suggesting I wasn't brave for answering some of the questions I posed, it wasn't the point of my thread

Save it, aberdeenwriter. We all know that the point of your thread was to troll some over-reaction out of someone by clearly implying things you are too chickenshit to say outright, so you can play all mis-represented pacifist. No one is biting, and now you tipped your hand. You might as well stand by the courage of your convictions at this point, and reveal your alleged opinions on the questions you posed.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by k2director 

And it is important to recognize that this was yet another premeditated act of Islamic extremism (in a long line of them), perpetrated by one of the last people you'd expect--an American *officer* who's job was to help other American soldiers, not murder them in cold blood.

I think what's in dispute is not that Hasan sympathized with other Muslims. I just don't understand why you think it would be productive for the media to report something like what you wrote here, while the investigation is ongoing. It is absolutely not clear that, as you wrote in your first post, this was a "premeditated act of Islamic terror, just like 9/11." The difference in degree of premeditation between an individual picking up a gun they already own and deciding to shoot someone with it, and a conspiracy among a dozen or more individuals to hijack numerous aircraft and simultaneously crash them into buildings, is large.

[besson3c]

k2director is Abe????

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

k2director is Abe????

That would be too awesome.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I think a good start would be to require that all muslim-americans be required to wear some sort of visible identification badge to let the rest of the world know their religion. I have some other ideas too, but we'll get to those later.

First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out -- because I am not a Muslim...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Eug 

For some reason this guy's face keeps popping into my head.

He would have known it was a trap.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out -- because I am not a Muslim...

Goody goody. Two more worthless MacNN comparisons between Muslims and the Holocaust. Highly ironic to find it in a thread about another senseless act of Arab terror.

[OAW]

Based on what's being reported right now .... what we have here is someone who really, really, really didn't want to get shipped out to the war zone. One thing is for sure ... he certainly won't be going to Iraq or Afghanistan now.

OAW

[Eug]

They should put him in prison in Iraq.

[OAW]

Well I imagine dude didn't expect to survive the attacks. This was a pretty smart guy so he had to know it wouldn't end well for him. But it appears that he may suffer a fate worse than death. The latest reports say he is paralyzed and comatose.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Goody goody. Two more worthless MacNN comparisons between Muslims and the Holocaust. Highly ironic to find it in a thread about another senseless act of Arab terror.

Arab terror is not as big a threat as you seem to think it is. There are orders of magnitude more innocent non-terrorist Arabs and Muslims than there are victims of Arab and Muslim terrorists. The way to defeat terrorists is to deny them the source of their recruiting potential: your over-reactions.

Besides, the point of the poem is to oppose racism and profiling before it becomes a holocaust. Of course it's not one yet, that's the whole point. "Do unto others,..." I forget how that one ends. Hey Big Mac that reminds me, would you like it if you were accused of any crime any other Jew committed, just because of shared belief? When was the last time someone accused you of being in control of all the banks and the liberal media, and suggested you should bear your share of responsibility for the populist rage against the finance sector? Maybe someone should suggest that Jews shouldn't be allowed to control anyone else's money, and see how far that idea gets...

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by osiris 

Shut down all military operations around the world?

That would save you guys some money.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yeah, it should have raised a flag when a med services officer gets "promoted" from Walter Reed to Fort Hood.
Apparently, his performance was not that great, and he was "dumped" there. Great setup for what followed.

-t

He did his internship, residency and fellowship at Walter Reed. Lots and lots (emphasis important) of people do their internship. residency and if applicable, a fellowship at Walter Reed. They also do these at Brooke Army Medical Center and Willford Hall Medical Center here in San Antonio (along with a number of civilian hospitals that have agreements with the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Just completing a fellowship does not mean the guy was "promoted to some other post." Finishing the fellowship probably does mean that he qualified for promotion though.

That the guy had extreme religious views is not at all in conflict with Army or DoD policy. There are some really "interesting" folks on active duty that use the label "Christian" but whose views and beliefs are odd to say the least. On the other hand, posting materials that have been attributed to Hassan is indeed in conflict with the basic principles of military service. If he really did post those things, then he should have been watched more closely. If he merely agreed with them online, he should have been watched.

[lpkmckenna]

Extremely troll-tastic thread. Typical.

From the NY Times: “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.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ort888 

What is the media supposed to do?

The media is supposed to get everyone calling for the expulsion of all Muslims from the American military and to incite violence against Muslim Americans.