[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But that's not the explanation we're giving.

If we're not allowed to talk about any factors other than religion, that is the explanation you're giving.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

or when one of them murdered my best friend's daughter while she was riding the bus home from school. Most Muslims that I know are good, decent people, but radical Islam needs to be crushed now.

I don't believe that there's a difference in philosophy between radical and non-radical - only a difference in commitment. It's the same crappy, evil book that both radicals and non-radicals read.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I think we should ban Muslims from buying guns.

No. They're saying "religion did it". We should ban all religious people from buying guns.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Foiled plan to Shoot up Fort Dix
"During the investigation undercover agents found that the group had plans to kill American soldiers in the name of Allah."

(Nice to know that had they pulled it off, we could just chalk it up to stress)

Foiled Plan to attack synagogue and shoot down warplane
"They wanted to kill people, they wanted to do significant damage," Kelly said. "They all have criminal records. They stated they wanted to commit Jihad (and) made very anti-Semitic statements."

(Sounds stress related to me.)

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad tells why he shot soldiers
"Muhammad also told officers that he would have killed more soldiers if they had been on the parking lot. Muhammad also told police he was a practicing Muslim, and that he was mad at the U.S. military because of what they had done to Muslims in the past."

(Ah, more stress)

Terror Plot against Shopping Mall
"charged with conspiring with two other men in a terror plot to kill two prominent U.S. politicians and carry out a holy war by attacking shoppers in U.S. malls and American troops in Iraq."

(Clearly stress)

Foiled Plot to attack Marines at Quantico

"Prosecutors say Daniel Boyd, a drywall contractor and the father of suspects Zakariya and Dylan, was the ringleader of the aspiring terrorist group. In lengthy speeches at his home south of Raleigh, he decried the U.S. military, discussed the honor of martyrdom and bemoaned the struggle of Muslims, according to audio tapes played during a detention hearing in August."

(Stress related, I'm sure.)

FBI Foils WMD Plot in Dallas
"The 19 year old man, Mosam Maher Husein Smadi who is a Jordanian citizen, was arrested by the F.B.I. and charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. He told agents he wanted to commit "violent jihad".

Are you saying there's evidence connecting Nidal Malik Hasan with these attempts?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We aren't frightened of being truthful about radical Islam.

No, you're frightened of radical Islam.

[BadKosh]

Seems he was trying to contact al-Qa'ida? Perhaps a "lone terrorist"?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If the person superscribed to a radical sect of Christianity that preached some equivalent of jihad, martyrdom for killing 'infidels' etc, then yes, I'd call him a radical Christian. Again, what's the problem with calling a spade a spade? I don't have anything staked in any of this that makes me unable to deal with things as they may happen to be, I just wonder why so many others appear to.

So far we have no firm evidence that Hasan subscribed to a radical, violent sect of Islam or had otherwise unusual religious beliefs. Where is the spade? There is no clear evidence that Hasan's religious beliefs motivated the attack any more than there would be evidence that a killer who attended a Christian church, with no unusual beliefs other than obvious piety, was a "radical Christian"

It's total bullshit not to examine the real motivations for such an act, and come up with some bullshit Pre-TSD that's actually a joke now being bandied about as reality.

Yes of course we should examine his motivations. I'm not disputing that you could eventually be right.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I think you'll find that not even that one is universal.

Thing is, at a certain point, one feels the law inside one's self. No need for bits of paper with a big list of them on there.

I think you're making my point for me. If all it takes to be a Christian is to call yourself a Christian, then it's impossible to say that Christianity completely discounts the Old Testament. It's your belief, fine.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't believe that there's a difference in philosophy between radical and non-radical - only a difference in commitment. It's the same crappy, evil book that both radicals and non-radicals read.

The radical Christian nutbars often belong to the same churches as the more socially acceptable Christians who don't blow things up. You think there's no difference except commitment there either?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If all it takes to be a Christian is to call yourself a Christian, then it's impossible to say that Christianity completely discounts the Old Testament. It's your belief, fine.

Claiming to BE a Christian isn't all there is to actually being one. Forgive them, for the no not what they are doing.
(Let God sort it out!)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Claiming to BE a Christian isn't all there is to actually being one. Forgive them, for the no not what they are doing.
(Let God sort it out!)

Does that forgiveness extend to non-Christians? What about to Muslims? What about to "radical" Muslims?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The radical Christian nutbars often belong to the same churches as the more socially acceptable Christians who don't blow things up. You think there's no difference except commitment there either?

The radical nutbar Christians who blow stuff up aren't "on book". There's nowt in the NT which even begins to suggest that you should do anything to unbelievers other than walk away. All muslims are "on book".

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Claiming to BE a Christian isn't all there is to actually being one. Forgive them, for the no not what they are doing.
(Let God sort it out!)

In the ultimate sense, you are correct -- if the Christian God exists, he will ultimately decide who met the test. The ramification of this, though, is that while we are here on earth, no one can really say with any degree of objectiveness that something the "nutbars" believe and can cite scripture for is not actually the right answer. Hence my disagreement with Doofy about the position that directives in the Old Testament are irrelevant. There are certainly plenty of Christian denominations who disagree, and it's impossible to say that they are less Christian than others.

The corollary to this is that perhaps violent, extremist Muslims get to legitimately claim that they are Muslim, too, as do nonviolent Muslims. But in the end, this just speaks to the futility of ascribing religious motive to someone like Hasan without specific information about his particular beliefs, as opposed to the general beliefs of Muslims as a whole.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The radical nutbar Christians who blow stuff up aren't "on book". There's nowt in the NT which even begins to suggest that you should do anything to unbelievers other than walk away. All muslims are "on book".

As you pointed out earlier, Christianity as a whole isn't really "on book." Orthodoxy is defined by sect, not by text.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As you pointed out earlier, Christianity as a whole isn't really "on book."

Not my problem.

Point is, the koran tells folks to do stuff like this, whereas the Bible doesn't.
"Kill the infidel" vs "let him slap you again".

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not my problem.

Point is, the koran tells folks to do stuff like this, whereas the Bible doesn't.
"Kill the infidel" vs "let him slap you again".

And my point is that there are enough exceptions in both directions that this distinction, even if it does exist, is meaningless. The fact is that someone who considers himself to be a devout Muslim is still incredibly unlikely to be a violent terrorist. Thus without additional information, simply being a devout Muslim gives us no real insight into Nasan's violent actions.

[Doofy]

Point taken, SM.

Right, that's enough of my time here... ...I'm supposed to be writing an album.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, you're frightened of radical Islam.

How does that lazy claim further the debate?

[Uncle Skeleton]

About the same way in which your claim furthered the debate. You accused the other side of being "afraid" to call this incident "Islamic terrorism." This furthers the debate in as much as it reveals what you believe the other side's position to be. From there, the other side can correct you if you are mistaken (which you are). We have done so, but you refuse to accept the correction, and dumbly repeat your initial flawed impression ad nauseam. I don't feel like repeating myself again, so I thought I would move on to another matter, the one where you are giving the spectre of Islamic Terror more weight than it merits, which has the ironic effect of strengthening it.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Does that forgiveness extend to non-Christians? What about to Muslims? What about to "radical" Muslims?

It has to. I'm not going to judge you in respect to the forever, that is Gods Job. I can think you're an idiot, or really cool, or have lousy choice in shoes, but about whats in your head, and how close to getting Gods message through Jesus is Gods job to judge.

[Laminar]

Well, I hope God judges missed apostrophes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Well, I hope God judges missed apostrophes.

Bizarre, huh? I've seen plenty of apostrophe happy people that put them where they don't belong, but missing them in the most obvious of places?

BadK0sh: the apostrophe is really not that hard to master. Why not just learn how and wow us all?

[BadKosh]

Be$$0n3c:on this board it really isn't that important.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I think you mean "it isn't that import'nt"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Be$$0n3c:on this board it really isn't that important.

So are you saying that you can sound intelligent if you wanted to?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't believe that there's a difference in philosophy between radical and non-radical - only a difference in commitment. It's the same crappy, evil book that both radicals and non-radicals read.

Just like the Old Testament.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Point is, the koran tells folks to do stuff like this, whereas the Bible doesn't.

The Old Testament sure as hell does.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not my problem.

Point is, the koran tells folks to do stuff like this, whereas the Bible doesn't.
"Kill the infidel" vs "let him slap you again".

No. You're saying parts of the Bible don't tell folks to do stuff like this. You're conveniently writing off two-thirds of the book as being "off Book".


I wonder if God was aware that he was "off Book" when he commissioned the first 2/3 of the Bible ...?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by k2director 

What a bunch of horsesh*t psychobabble. First of all, ever been to Central or South America? How about the Phillipines? These are third-world societies that have been as wracked by poverty and civil unrest than any Middle Eastern country. And yet they're Christian (arguably more devout than Europe or the U.S.) and they haven't adopted anything like the Islamic brand of violence. China, India, Korea, etc, etc...none of these places can be said to enjoy "the social, political and economic benefits of the modern nation-state for the last few hundred years", can they? And yet, when we hear of wackos blowing people up in cafes, or in busses, or in airplanes, or going on shooting rampages, we rarely if never hear about it being motivated by Hinduism, or Buddhism, or whatever else. Admit it: these kind of acts have largely been relegated to Muslims, and no one else. It's a uniquely Muslim response to whatever stresses are being encountered...

Are you serious? More people are murdered in each central american country each week by supposed devout Catholics than in 2 years in the US by muslims. When I worked for the government my desk was littered every morning with more than I could read about the massacres in central america. They have all kinds of
religious "catholic" rituals they do that resemble exactly what you hear about muslims doing.

Just because your favorite news doesn't tell you about it doesn't mean it isn't happening all over. unfortunately news just isn't the same if someone isn't yelling " Allahu Akbar !" To me the stuff that goes on in central america makes what "terrorists" do look like child's play. And it shouldn't even need to be said that the term 'terrorist' is just a rhetorical term to demonize rally people against anyone who rebels/disagrees/interferes with the European/American way of doing business. And it fits as a nice label for those muslim bad guys that nobody understands.

Religion isn't the motivation for terrorist attacks. People who don't fit in resort to criminal acts. And logically they need to reconcile their actions with their religion.....all people find a way to reconcile their actions with their religion and morals, whatever those actions may be.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Old Testament sure as hell does.

No it doesn't.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No it doesn't.

There are plenty of stories where God sets the example by exacting some rather harsh punishments on unbelievers and uses his followers as weapons of that punishment.

[hyteckit]

'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' (1st Sam 15:2-3)

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

There are plenty of stories where God sets the example by exacting some rather harsh punishments on unbelievers and uses his followers as weapons of that punishment.

That is all correct in a very tight nutshell.

But there is nothing in the old testament or new, that directs "us" as Christians today to attack people in the name of God. The key word is "stories". Their are some stories of people who God warned for hundreds of years about their ways and what he was going to do, and who still decided to say bring it on.... So God did.

They are stories to Christians, and fables to atheists; not irrelevant, yet not orders for us to carry out.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you saying there's evidence connecting Nidal Malik Hasan with these attempts?

Oh boy.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So far we have no firm evidence that Hasan subscribed to a radical, violent sect of Islam or had otherwise unusual religious beliefs. Where is the spade? There is no clear evidence that Hasan's religious beliefs motivated the attack any more than there would be evidence that a killer who attended a Christian church, with no unusual beliefs other than obvious piety, was a "radical Christian"

Fort Hood suspect warned of threats within the ranks

The final three slides indicate that Hasan referred to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, suicide bombers and Iran.

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"

Sounds like Pre-TSD to me.

By the way, for all the peeps who kept on with the "But what do we do? What do we do??" noise, the answer in a case like this is pretty obvious. If the guy really wanted an early discharge- GIVE IT TO HIM. And for anyone else currently serving, yapping/writing/whatever about "the infidels" and "enemies of Islam" and "Muslim Soldiers should not *whatever*" how about we say, "Thanks for your service. Goodbye."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you saying there's evidence connecting Nidal Malik Hasan with these attempts?

Wasn't it clear enough for you? Clearly all cases of Pre-TSD.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

for all the peeps who kept on with the "But what do we do? What do we do??" noise, the answer in a case like this is pretty obvious. If the guy really wanted an early discharge- GIVE IT TO HIM.

But what about stop-loss? Do we let everyone leave who wants to, or only those that pretend to be jihadists?

And for anyone else currently serving, yapping/writing/whatever about "the infidels" and "enemies of Islam" and "Muslim Soldiers should not *whatever*" how about we say, "Thanks for your service. Goodbye."

You mean if they are Muslim (and they do that)?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But what about stop-loss? Do we let everyone leave who wants to, or only those that pretend to be jihadists?

It's not complicated. Anyone who makes veiled threats about killing infidels or how their crazy belief system may make them shoot up their own countrymen rather than the enemy- discharge them. Now. Why would we want such people in the military?

By the way, did this jihadist pretend to shoot a bunch of people too?

You mean if they are Muslim (and they do that)?

I can almost sense that your PC-meter is just dying to find something to feign outrage over and your knee is probably poised to smack your own chin, but it's not complicated. ANYONE who does that.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sounds like Pre-TSD to me.

Sounds like a presentation on special concerns that other mental health staff in the military need to be aware of in dealing with Muslim soldiers. It says little directly about Hasan's beliefs (i.e. "will vary!").

It's refreshing that you are open to incorporating new evidence as it appears, days and days after the attack. You wouldn't have been able to cite this article yesterday, of course, when you made your unfounded statement.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

But there is nothing in the old testament or new, that directs "us" as Christians today to attack people in the name of God. The key word is "stories". Their are some stories of people who God warned for hundreds of years about their ways and what he was going to do, and who still decided to say bring it on.... So God did.

It's OK to teach to punish unbelievers as long as they're given hundreds of years of warnings about the punishment?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Sounds like a presentation on special concerns that other mental health staff in the military need to be aware of in dealing with Muslim soldiers. It says little directly about Hasan's beliefs (i.e. "will vary!")

All of this was known before the first post of this thread. You were too busy knee-jerking to read it, and some PC-gone haywire silliness kept you from acknowledging it if you did.

"We love death more then [sic] you love life!"


Sounds exactly like a presentation on special concerns. (Is that the new excuse now?)

Like I said though, this total inability of some people to acknowledge the obvious because it may challenge some dippy PC-belief they have, is truly fascinating!

I look forward to a torrent of further excuses made on this guy's behalf, rather than you owning up!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

All of this was known before the first post of this thread. You were too busy knee-jerking to read it, and some PC-gone haywire silliness kept you from acknowledging it if you did.

Known by you? The article is dated November 10.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Since you're clearly unable to go back and read:

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

* A devout Muslim
* Sought a wife that wore a Hijab and prayed 5 times a day
* Had disturbed other army officers by saying that Jihadists fighting American soldiers were justified
* Had been investigated by the FBI for making extremist statements on web sites, celebrating Jihad and suicide bombers
* And, worst of all, yelled "Allahu Akbar!" (Arabic for "God is Great") every time he shot one of his victims.

The first post is dated November 6th.

There's attempted excuse #1! The date-game!

Keep at it!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

Sounds exactly like a presentation on special concerns. (Is that the new excuse now?)

Like I said though, this total inability of some people to acknowledge the obvious because it may challenge some dippy PC-belief they have, is truly fascinating!

I look forward to a torrent of further excuses made on this guy's behalf, rather than you owning up!

I'm not making excuses, I'm asking you to present evidence. Please present direct evidence that Hasan believed because of his religion that he needed to commit murder. What you have cited here is evidence that Hasan thought that Muslim soldiers might feel morally conflicted in fighting people who are responding to a religious call to fight. That's not the same thing.

As I said before, you may end up being completely right, but so far we're not there yet. It's offensive that you are jumping to conclusions and trying to call people out for not rushing to judgment. There's no need for haste here.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Not sure if that counts as #2. Sounds like just a rehash of the same spiel. Keep spinning!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Since you're clearly unable to go back and read:


The first post is dated November 6th.

There's attempted excuse #1! The date-game!

Keep at it!

Okay, where is the pre-Nov. 6 evidence supporting the statement? Were you basing your opinion on someone else's uncited remarks here in the thread, or on the article you cited? Either way, you were arguing out of ignorance.

EDIT: And contrary to what k2director wrote in his first post, the article you cited does not say that Hasan felt that "Jihadists fighting American soldiers were justified." In the article, it says that Hasan wrote "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." In other words, extremist groups could use whatever conflicted feelings that Muslims might have about serving in the military to convince them that the U.S. is an enemy of Islam. He's not saying here that this should be their correct interpretation.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Not sure if that counts as #2. Sounds like just a rehash of the same spiel. Keep spinning!

Try making an honest argument and responding to my point instead of being a snide, condescending jerk.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Old Testament sure as hell does.

Foolish atheist dog.

Sometimes I don't know why I bother.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Okay, where is the pre-Nov. 6 evidence supporting the statement? Were you basing your opinion on someone else's uncited remarks here in the thread, or on the article you cited? Either way, you were arguing out of ignorance.

What's pre-Nov. 6th got to do with anything, other than you are desperate? The event happened on the 5th, and some news reports (in sources interested in doing actual journalism, not PC damage control and excuse-making) were full of information by the 6th, including everything in the OP's list, the shooter's ties to Anwar al-Awlaki (who today called the shooter a 'hero', but hey, don't call it radical Islam), etc. You just weren't paying attention to anything but sources that weren't reporting any of this, or making things up to appease your PC sensitiveness.

So now you're going to try and spin that the OP made up his list, even though items on it match what I quoted in the Washington Post?

Once more- fascinating stuff this level of willful denial!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What's pre-Nov. 6th got to do with anything, other than you are desperate? The event happened on the 5th, and some news reports (in sources interested in doing actual journalism, not PC damage control and excuse-making) were full of information by the 6th, including everything in the OP's list, the shooter's ties to Anwar al-Awlaki (who today called the shooter a 'hero', but hey, don't call it radical Islam), etc. You just weren't paying attention to anything but sources that weren't reporting any of this, or making things up to appease your PC sensitiveness.

So now you're going to try and spin that the OP made up his list, even though items on it match what I quoted in the Washington Post?

Once more- fascinating stuff this level of willful denial!

Sorry, I was editing as you were posting. See above regarding the OP.

As for the importance of the date -- it's important in terms of establishing that you were arguing out of your arse. My point being that you are jumping to conclusions and I am waiting for the Army to conduct its investigation. Now that Hasan is conscious I'm sure we'll find out lots of important information, but it's all information that was previously unavailable to you as you made your snap, unfounded judgment based simply on his religion.