[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.

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.

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).

Sooner or later, the mass of American media won't be able to skirt the issue, and will have to come to terms that there was a traitor in our midst, fueled by Muslim wacko-ism. But it's very telling how the media is bending over backwards to resist making a common sense conclusion...

[The Final Dakar]

I'm going for popcorn, anyone want any?

[Doofy]

I wondered when someone would mention the fifth column you guys have got going on over there.

[SpaceMonkey]

What? I had no idea this fellow was a Muslim!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by k2director 

an American choosing his warped view of religious duty over this duty to fellow soldiers and his country.

I'm a little curious... Christians put their careers and country above their faith?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by k2director 

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

From the New York Times (emphasis added):

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier became aware of Internet postings by a man calling himself Nidal Hasan, a law enforcement official said. The postings discussed suicide bombings favorably, but the investigators were not clear whether the writer was Major Hasan."

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

[ort888]

I'm really not sure what angle you are getting at anyway. Okay, he was an extremist Muslim... but what does that really mean? How does that change anything? Are you insinuating that he was part of a terrorist organization and that this was a calculated strike? That just doesn't seem to add up based on what we know and how it went down.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm a little curious... Christians put their careers and country above their faith?

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.

I realize that's an uncomfortable fact for many of you, since you so badly want to pretend that all value systems are the same....or at least that a Western value system-- such as Christianity--should never be compared favorably to a non-Western system--such as Islam--since that reminds you of the evils of colonialism, imperialism and racism.

Despite your squeamishness, however, it *is* valid to make comparisons, and let the evidence--not politically-correct dogma--shape the conclusion.

[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

[The Final Dakar]

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.

That has nothing to do with where they place their faith on the ladder, though, does it? Unless you're telling me Christians are supposed to be doing the same thing, but curtail it because it'd interfere with their career & country.

Re: Squeamishness - I think you're projecting your expectations for this thread. If I were squeamish, I wouldn't have brought it up.

[SpaceMonkey]

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.

That's because Christian populations, by and large, have enjoyed all of the social, political and economic benefits of the modern nation-state for the last few hundred years. They don't kill in the name of religion because they have been conditioned to kill for other reasons associated with a broader national identity, something which is still nascent in many other parts of the world.

Despite your squeamishness, however, it *is* valid to make comparisons, and let the evidence--not politically-correct dogma--shape the conclusion.

Just make sure you are comparing the right things. Religious identity is not the only variable.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's because Christian populations, by and large, have enjoyed all of the social, political and economic benefits of the modern nation-state for the last few hundred years.

No, that's NOT it.

When Christians were persecuted and martyred in the first centuries AD, they didn't (by and large) resort to any violent tactics against their oppressors.

It's inherently against the spirit of the Christian faith.

-t

[ort888]

[The Final Dakar]

Sh¡t, I didn't see that coming.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I'm really not sure what angle you are getting at anyway. Okay, he was an extremist Muslim... but what does that really mean? How does that change anything? Are you insinuating that he was part of a terrorist organization and that this was a calculated strike? That just doesn't seem to add up based on what we know and how it went down.

Okay, suppose there's a problem with your house. A problem with your house is not a good thing, it can lead to many bad consequences. But before you address the problem, you need to know what the problem actually is, because different problems need to be treated in different ways. If your house is off its foundation, you want to call a structural engineer, but if your house is infested with termites, you don't want the engineer, you want a pest control specialist. Got it?

Likewise, if an Army soldier kills 13 fellow comrades (unarmed, defenseless, and innocent) because he had a mental breakdown due to combat stress, then that would encourage me to evaluate how we deal with PTSD. Maybe the act was a simple fluke, but maybe we can study the act and learn more about how to better manage PTSD in the future.

But if an Army soldier kills 13 people because he felt it was a religious duty or necessary act, and his religion was the same one that has inspired many other acts of violence against unarmed, defenseless Americans (not to mention legions of other victims around the world), then that knowledge would encourage me to evaluate the religion, its role in the U.S. military, and in our society in general.

Get it? How we perceive and understand this wacko's motivations is very important to learning something useful, which can be applied in the future...

[The Final Dakar]

How about you just cough up the conclusion you've drawn from this event in plain english so we can discuss that, rather than do the waltz of you give us half-assed cryptic metaphors all day.

[olePigeon]

Charles Whitman was a Christian and a Marine. He shot and killed 14 people, wounded another 32. This was shortly after he murdered his wife and mother, making 16 people killed. Nidal Hasan would've killed those soldiers whether he was a Muslim or not.

[osiris]

Maybe this wacko was brainwashed, or at least braindrycleaned.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How about you just cough up the conclusion you've drawn from this event in plain english so we can discuss that, rather than do the waltz of you give us half-assed cryptic metaphors all day.

Wat?

The conclusions haven't been drawn yet because we're missing key data that would enable us to draw a conclusion. Maybe it's a shade of gray, like his PTSD (Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder?) caused him to follow his religious beliefs rather than his nationalistic pride. Maybe he felt betrayed by his countryman because here he was, an educated psychiatrist, being sent to die on the front lines, like any other high school drop out who asked for a gun. The mind is quite fickle, and I'm sure more facts will come out after the investigation.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, that's NOT it.

When Christians were persecuted and martyred in the first centuries AD, they didn't (by and large) resort to any violent tactics against their oppressors.

It's inherently against the spirit of the Christian faith.

-t

I would argue that Christians didn't "by and large" resort to violent tactics during periods of Roman oppression primarily because for the most part, persecution by Roman authorities was sporadic and localized, and even when this persecution became centralized Christians' options were limited. They were ideologically divided and didn't have the numbers for a large, probably spectacularly unsuccessful revolt, and terrorism in the sense of suicide attacks would not have even occurred to anyone at that time. Certainly there is nothing "inherently against the spirit of the Christian faith" about killing in the name of religion, given the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Rather, as I elaborated above, Christianity used to be the dominant organizing feature of European societies, politically and socially, and so killing in the name of religion was perfectly natural. Today is a different story.

[ort888]

Do you think the Army is just sitting around doing nothing? I'm sure they are investigating every aspect of this like crazy. What is the media supposed to do? It's a military incident and the Army isn't going to be giving away any info on an ongoing investigation like this.

At any rate... Let's take this to the extreme. Say he was a member of an organized muslim extremist group and was used as an inside agent to carry out a calculated attack.

Now what? Where do we go from there?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Wat?

The conclusions haven't been drawn yet because we're missing key data that would enable us to draw a conclusion.

The impression I'm getting from k2 is that he indeed has come to a conclusion regarding this incident.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Now what? Where do we go from there?

Shut down all military operations around the world?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Certainly there is nothing "inherently against the spirit of the Christian faith" about killing in the name of religion, given the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

Dude. DUDE !!1!

Just because some wackos (that called themselves Christians) did stuff doesn't mean the Christian Faith condones it.

The Christian Faith is grounded in the Holy Scripture, especially the New Testament writings. You will find *nothing* justifying the crusades and other stuff like it in the NT.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Do you think the Army is just sitting around doing nothing?

Actually, that's *EXACTLY* what Fort Hood did immediately after the incident.

The hole base was on lock down.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude. DUDE !!1!

Just because some wackos (that called themselves Christians) did stuff doesn't mean the Christian Faith condones it.

The Christian Faith is grounded in the Holy Scripture, especially the New Testament writings. You will find *nothing* justifying the crusades and other stuff like it in the NT.

-t

If that wacko is the Pope, and his followers believe that he has a hotline to God, then by definition it does, regardless of what is written in the scriptures.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If that wacko is the Pope, and his followers believe that he has a hotline to God, then by definition it does, regardless of what is written in the scriptures.

Geez, so we're all Catholics now ?

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Geez, so we're all Catholics now ?

-t

During the Crusades they were.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If that wacko is the Pope, and his followers believe that he has a hotline to God, then by definition it does, regardless of what is written in the scriptures.

Nope. The Pope cannot make an infallible statement in contradiction to the scripture, and the Pope has only made an infallible statement once since Vatican I, and that was to define the ascension of Mary as Catholic dogma.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

During the Crusades they were.

There were many dissenting Christian groups, which the Catholic church oppressed.

Don't believe the hype that there only was ONE church until the Reformation.

-t

[k2director]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's because Christian populations, by and large, have enjoyed all of the social, political and economic benefits of the modern nation-state for the last few hundred years. They don't kill in the name of religion because they have been conditioned to kill for other reasons associated with a broader national identity, something which is still nascent in many other parts of the world.

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...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Geez, so we're all Catholics now ?

-t

If you acknowledge that Catholics are Christian and yet have a different belief system, you must also acknowledge that it's possible for Christianity (even absent a central human authority like the pope) to deviate from what you personally believe that Christianity is.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

There were many dissenting Christian groups, which the Catholic church oppressed.

Don't believe the hype that there only was ONE church until the Reformation.

-t

There's hype? Anyway, of course there were dissenting voices, but for the purposes of the issue we are discussing they are irrelevant. The Crusades were religiously sanctioned by the Church of Rome, the overwhelmingly dominant force in the Western European Christian faith at the time, and carried out for what was believed to be a holy purpose. Combatants took religious vows and were thought to be blessed by God.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Certainly there is nothing "inherently against the spirit of the Christian faith" about killing in the name of religion, given the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

Interesting that both of those events were born out of the need to repel muslim invaders, isn't it?

[King Bob On The Cob]

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...

Except for that darned fact that the first terrorists were the French in the French Revolution. (A case can be made for Guy Fawkes, but that was more of a straight up assassination attempt than an attempt to frighten the public into submission).

EDIT: And the form of domestic terrorism that is going on now was following examples that the Irish-Catholic separatist groups and the Libyan terrorist groups set.

[hyteckit]

Time to bomb Texas for harboring a terrorist?

[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?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Except for that darned fact that the first terrorists were the French in the French Revolution.

So, old Mo didn't attack civilian supply trains in order to scare Mecca into joining his new cult then?

[Doofy]

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?

You can't do anything without re-writing the first amendment. You're f'ed, basically.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, old Mo didn't attack civilian supply trains in order to scare Mecca into joining his new cult then?

Siege warfare was not thought up by Mohammed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Siege warfare was not thought up by Mohammed.

You were talking about "terrorism", not "siege warfare".

[SpaceMonkey]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Islamic brand of violence." What do you see as uniquely Islamic? Certainly areas of Central and South America, and the Philippines, have experienced episodes of intense violence by non-state actors, insurgent groups, etc. in the last few decades.

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...

I think you misunderstood my point. Given the level of religiously-organized violence in Christian Europe in the past, I think that the explanation for your point about how you don't recently see "many Christians killing masses of innocent and defenseless people because their religion inspired them to" has more to do with political development than religion. Christianity no longer has the political or cultural authority to marshal organized violence in much of Europe. This is not true in other areas where Islam is dominant today. Because it's indisputable that Christianity used to be able to command organized violence, the explanatory variable here cannot be the essential features of either religion. It has to be some other variable. In Europe I think it is the rise of the nation-state. In other areas of the world there may be other variables.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You were talking about "terrorism", not "siege warfare".

And I'm saying attacking civilian supply trains is done as an aspect of siege warfare. He was using military tactics, not terroristic tactics.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Interesting that both of those events were born out of the need to repel muslim invaders, isn't it?

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

[Uncle Skeleton]

An inordinate number of terrorists are Muslim. But an inordinate number of Muslims are not terrorists. This information doesn't suggest a course of action.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

And I'm saying attacking civilian supply trains is done as an aspect of siege warfare. He was using military tactics, not terroristic tactics.

If a military attacked a the WalMart truck fleet today we'd call it terrorism, not valid military tactics. Same act, different era, different interpretation.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Charles Whitman was a Christian and a Marine. He shot and killed 14 people, wounded another 32. This was shortly after he murdered his wife and mother, making 16 people killed. Nidal Hasan would've killed those soldiers whether he was a Muslim or not.

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.

How could you possibly think--while still calling it thinking--that Hasan would have killed those soldiers whether he was Muslim or not? That's deranged. Again, consider the facts:

** He was a devout Muslim

** He was a very conservative Muslim (ie, refusing to be photographed with women at work; looking for a Muslim wife who would wear a hijab and pray 5 times a day...ie, his values don't sound consistent with the vast vast majority of American values, do they?)

** For months, other army officers heard him justifying Muslims who were fighting and killing American soldiers. Witnesses also say that he was strongly against both wars....even in Afghanistan, which we invaded after that miserable country attacked us....ie, without the dubious or more ambiguous motivation that someone might see in our Iraq war.

** The FBI investigated him for posting statements online celebrating suicide bombers.

** He yelled "Allahu Akbar" as he was murdering people. That's typically what every Muslim suicide bomber yells before they kill.

** And the whole event was triggered when? This didn't happen at a random time. Hasan went on his rampage on the eve of his deployment to Afghanistan. In other words, when he was being shipped over to fight (or assist in the fight) against the people HE ACTUALLY SYMPATHIZED WITH.

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

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If a military attacked a the WalMart truck fleet today we'd call it terrorism, not valid military tactics. Same act, different era, different interpretation.

Depends on how you define terrorism. If you assign terrorism as the broadest form "Unlawful acts of warfare" then yes, this is terrorism. But a Military attacking a Wal-Mart for territorial gain would not strike me as terrorism. Just some military force being a dick that needs to be dealt with. We use the word "Terrorism" to delegitimize a cause, just keep that in mind when you think on a geopolitical level.

[besson3c]

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.

How could you possibly think--while still calling it thinking--that Hasan would have killed those soldiers whether he was Muslim or not? That's deranged. Again, consider the facts:

** He was a devout Muslim

** He was a very conservative Muslim (ie, refusing to be photographed with women at work; looking for a Muslim wife who would wear a hijab and pray 5 times a day...ie, his values don't sound consistent with the vast vast majority of American values, do they?)

** For months, other army officers heard him justifying Muslims who were fighting and killing American soldiers. Witnesses also say that he was strongly against both wars....even in Afghanistan, which we invaded after that miserable country attacked us....ie, without the dubious or more ambiguous motivation that someone might see in our Iraq war.

** The FBI investigated him for posting statements online celebrating suicide bombers.

** He yelled "Allahu Akbar" as he was murdering people. That's typically what every Muslim suicide bomber yells before they kill.

** And the whole event was triggered when? This didn't happen at a random time. Hasan went on his rampage on the eve of his deployment to Afghanistan. In other words, when he was being shipped over to fight (or assist in the fight) against the people HE ACTUALLY SYMPATHIZED WITH.

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

And what, what do we do?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

And I'm saying attacking civilian supply trains is done as an aspect of siege warfare. He was using military tactics, not terroristic tactics.

No. It's only siege warfare when there's an actual siege going on. There wasn't.