The FBI and the military investigated contacts between an Army psychiatrist accused of last week's deadly shooting rampage at Fort Hood and a Yemen-based militant over the past year but concluded he didn't pose a terrorist threat, senior law enforcement and military officials said Monday.
The members of two Joint Terrorism Task Forces, including one in the nation's capital, went so far as to contact Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's superiors and review his academic and military records for evidence of suspicious activity late last year and early this year, according to three senior U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials.
But the investigators from the multi-agency teams concluded that Hasan's activities weren't suspicious enough to warrant a more formal investigation, even though the militant imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, had ties to al-Qaida and was the author of a popular Web site espousing jihadist activity, according to the officials.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm never sure of the veracity of these stories. I think far more likely he wasn't busted because they thought monitoring him might bear fruit with respect to intelligence on al Qaeda. And now, understandably, they're not eager divulge the specifics of their strategy.
I'll go with government ineptitude every time -- Hanlon's Razor and variants as applied to government.
I almost always go with the various simplicity "laws," and I almost always discount conspiracy theories or more complicated explanations.
However, I've also always heard that the big, internal debate among investigatory agencies who have people under surveillance is: when do we go in for the kill, thereby putting an end to this intelligence gathering opportunity? So, it just wouldn't surprise me if the reason Hasan wasn't arrested was that in fact he was under surveillance because the FBI was continuing to get (or hoping to get) actionable intelligence from him.
I think that just further underscores the "no political lesson to be learned" point. If he was actually investigated and cleared, it's hard to see how this was preventable without tightening standards for service (which may be something to look into, but presumably the standards are set as they currently are for a reason).
Some people are just evil and crazy.
Agreed.
Even so, this must be unbelievably hard for the families to hear...
"presumably the standards are set as they currently are for a reason"
By this standard, we should never investigate or even discuss anything the government does - we should just assume that they probably had a reason.
What some people are concerned about is that the standards may be set as they are because of political correctness, which is a reason but not necessarily a good one.
No, that's clearly not the case, but I think it would be equally false to say that "standards should be tightened" without looking at what the costs of tightening them would be.
I agree that we should consider the costs of tightening the standards, while we're considering what happened and what alternative standards we might want. We should look at everything without jumping to conclusions.
No, TW, it's the opposite: this underscores that there is indeed a political lesson to be learned. Specifically, that the standards NEED to be adjusted because they are currently incorrect. Even if the precise nature of the standards is determined in a federal bureaucracy, it's nonetheless an essentially political decision.
To put it another way, if the goal of such an investigation is to identify potential terrorists, missing an actual terrorist should be a clue the investigation didn't work properly. If that is NOT the goal of the investigation, perhaps it should be.
First rule of real life - Shit happens. There's no set of rules, procedures, or safeguards that can prevent all evil and crazy people from doing all evil and crazy things. Just because someone shot some people doesn't mean that the rules in place when it happened were wrong.
I see a clear distinction between someone slipping through the cracks, and someone being carefully evaluated for fear of EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, and then given a pass. I don't expect the investigators to nab every potential terrorist. I do expect them to make the right call on individuals who they closely examine. Here, they studied Hasan and decided "no threat". They were wrong, and they need to correct the tools/processes that led to that error.
I guess this turns on whether you think he was a terrorist who has characteristics which are shared between him and other terrorists (which we could then use to identify them by), or just a crazy, evil fuck. I'm in the second camp. I think he was motivated by his religion. But people are motivated to kill--en masse, even--by lots of things: love, despair, isolation, revenge.
The one thing that mass killers of the sort have in common is that something is broken in their moral center. I don't think anything about Hassan will help identify people likely to commit such acts in the future, and in trying to use his example to do so, we'll end up with many more false positives than we will incidents prevented.
I don't see why this would be an "oopsie".
After all, last year he *wasn't* a terrorist or traitor or what-have-you. He was just an innocent, devout Muslim man exploring his spirituality & heritage with a variety of Islamic clerics.
I mean, what exactly would Megan have us do? Investigate *every* Muslim who takes a deep interest in his faith and contacts spiritual advisors to discuss the finer points of it?
Look, being Muslim isn't a crime. Neither is exploring the holy obligation of jihad with noted clerics. Clearly, the FBI agents & others tasked with looking into Hasan realized that it would be the rankest sort of bigotry to subject him to intense investigation for engaging in perfectly legal activities.
I'm somewhat shocked to see Megan declare that they should have engaged with the popular prejudice against Muslims & subjected this at-the-time innocent man to the kind of scrutiny that would have at the very least tainted all of his relationships and perhaps ended his career.
I join Gen. Casey, chief of staff of the Army, in cautioning that perhaps the biggest tragedy of this whole regrettable mishap would be if we let it dissuade our steadfast commitment to diversity even one iota. After all, diversity is strength. We must never let any evidence to the contrary lead us away from that laudable belief.
As Gen. Casey says, the real danger we need to focus on now is the probably inevitable violent backlash against Muslims. I'm sure we all well remember the tens of thousands of Muslims who died in American streets after each of the last few unfortunate abberations tangentially linked by the bigots among us to the peaceful religion of Islam. It is incumbent upon us to prevent that tragedy from playing out again.
Tens of thousands? No, actually, I don't remember that at all. Now, I don't follow the news that closely, but I suspect even I would have noticed large scale massacres of Muslims. Got any support for this claim?
There weren't - blighter is just trying to be clever, that's all.
Katherine - I don't recall the outbreaks of violence against Muslims in the wake of previous attacks either but I assume I must have missed them.
It would be almost disgustingly immoral to be publicly worrying about hypothetical victims of a hypothetical backlash while actual victims of an actual attack are still being buried unless there was a clear reason to expect such a backlash, such as any history of such counterattacks in the past.
Yawn. This guy's rants get more forced and heavy-handed by the day. Contrived irony, thy name is blighter.
Don't listen to them, blighter! I look forward to your comments.
He was just an innocent, devout Muslim man exploring his spirituality & heritage
Rats. I was going to respond with "is that what they are calling it these days?" before I realized that this was a blighter post.
"Clearly, the FBI agents & others tasked with looking into Hasan realized that it would be the rankest sort of bigotry to subject him to intense investigation for engaging in perfectly legal activities."
How is this clear, blighter? They investigated the guy. What evidence do you have that supports jumping to the conclusion that the investigators were afraid of behaving like bigots, and that's why they found nothing?
Obviously, the investigation should be, well, investigated, to see where mistakes were made. But at the end of the day, this kind of thing simply cannot always be prevented unless you're ready to live under a constant police state. And isn't this a libertarian blog?
Hasan's activities weren't suspicious enough
to warrant a more formal investigation.
So now they have a new datum;
will they adjust their model ?
Hint: A Muslim who refuses a direct order
to drive a railroad spike through a copy
of the Koran has no place in the US Army.
What about a Christian who refuses an order to drive a spike through a Bible?
@ Katherine: Christian spikes Bible ?
Yes: Any religious person whose faith
includes the belief that any physical
object is sacrosanct is untrustworthy.
Ditto the belief that "The World is
a Carcass", and women in particular
are unclean. Refusal to be photo-
graphed with women, longing to go
on to a better place, and looking
for an opportunity to do so that
guarantees one a Skybox in Paradise.
Any person who regards belief in the sacredness of objects as proof of untrustworthiness -- is untrustworthy.
I have a better idea: Why not require all those who want to work for Uncle Sam in any way (including elected offices) take a religious test oath?
"It is incumbent upon us to prevent that tragedy from playing out again."
Actually, it's incumbent upon us to prevent that from happening in the first place, you racist scumbag.
Hey, take it easy.
Blighter practices sarcasm. This was admittedly not one of his more clever efforts.
I think he may have been frightened by a satirist as a small child, and is working to overcome it.
Other posters from time to time attempt to emulate him, to greater or usually lesser effect.
I don't think he's dangerous. I haven't seen him posting anything about enormous hedgehogs.
You do realize that blighter gets a nickle for every fish that bites, right?
Oh, goodie! So I guess you gave a nickle to everybody you derided or mocked in the comment section. And I'm giving you a nickle right now - damn!
Corollary - you can't ever respond to idiotic assertions.
Liberal Democrats within the FBI and CIA - the same ones who leaked war secrets to the New York Times - are protecting al Queda agents who are already in the country conducting operations.
Hasan isn't the only one. There are hundreds of others waiting for their opportunity to complete their jihad mission.
They're killing our women and children with our own bullets and liberals inside the CIA and FBI are protecting the operatives.
Time to prune the tree of liberty.
movertyperguy's paranoia streaks promptly remind us that you should put blighter's bigotry and suckiness in perspective.
Paranoia? Name calling? Rules For Radicals #3 - patently transparent attempt to change the subject.
Are you denying that there are liberal Democrats in the CIA and FBI violating intelligence laws by leaking war details to the New York Times? Because the Times quotes them as sources.
Do you need me to Google the stories for you?
Yes, please tell us which secret war documents were leaked to the NYT.
Yes. Let's see the story in which "Liberal Democrats within the FBI and CIA ... are protecting al Queda agents who are already in the country conducting operations."
"Time to prune the tree of liberty."
So should we start with the conspiracy theorists who like to post outlandish theories about how anyone who disagrees with them is supporting networks of government operatives who are secretly trying to take down the government from within because it will somehow lead to the re-election of certain politicians?
Or how about this: you continue to have the right to go on crazy rants about left-wingers, and whistle-blowers continue to have the right to expose actual government wrongdoings.
Let's hope you have the chainsaw to prune, you one-armed bipolar fruitcake.
What rule does that come under?
Basic Fact, you remain a craven, repulsive freak. I honestly don't know why Megan hasn't banned you for your attacks on other commenters. You aren't even redeemed by contributing anything of worth to the discussion. You are filth.
Awww. I didn't know you cared redfly. And I'm not sure why you would, unless you're also movertypeguy.
What bit is incorrect, the one arm, the bipolar, or the fruitcake?
take your time, perhaps answer with another persona.
Sounds like George Bush knew about this and could've prevented it if only he didn't hate Americans.
/kos
Megan:
Aren't you committing a classic retrospective fallacy?
It's entirely possible - even, I would suggest, likely - that the evidence available to investigators as of the first months of this year was not dispositive. Nidal was a commissioned officer in the armed forces of the United States. He had committed no crime. If he had specialized security clearances, these sorts of contacts might have been enough to suspend them, but he was working as a doctor. What should have been done? You can't dismiss a serving officer simply because he holds radical views (which may be a problem, but not the FBI's fault).
There are at least three separate questions here. The first is whether under existing rules the military ought to have dismissed Nidal, or brought action against him. Based on what we've heard so far, the answer is clearly negative. The second is whether anyone in Nidal's chain of command ought to have noticed problems, and steered him toward counseling or sought other solutions. There, the answer is equally clear: it should have happened, and its failure to occur signals major systemic problems. The third question - and to my mind, the most interesting - is whether Nidal sought to leave the service, and if he did, whether he should have been allowed to do so.
So far, that last question just leads to other questions. His family says he tried; the military won't comment. If he did try, the grounds he sought for release matter greatly. And if he did attempt to present himself as a conscientious objector, then these past investigations ought to have been taken into account. But even so, part of the problem clearly lay beyond poor execution - the deeper issue lies in the nature of the rules themselves. Soldiers who, in a time of war, fill a critical need, can't simply walk away from their posts. That's particularly true of those who, like Nidal, received a hugely expensive education to train them in that critical specialty. Even if his application existed, and had been granted, he still would have had to repay the military an enormous sum for his education. He was effectively trapped. So one lesson here is the message Nidal was trying to convey in his powerpoint slides - perhaps it's time to start thinking about giving soldiers who are unwilling to serve a way out.
You seem to be assuming that Nidal didn't really believe in jihad, he just wanted out. But we don't really know that, do we? If Nidal had been allowed to leave the military, perhaps he would have pulled off some other terrorist attack instead, but on civilians.
In other words, maybe he's not just a poor helpless victim that was forced to murder a bunch of people because he couldn't repay his medical bills. Maybe he not only listened to but believed the radical imams who told him that he had an obligation to kill infidels, regardless of his current job title. Al Qaeda called on Muslims to each wage war in their own way, and Nidal answered that call. Why he answered it is still being sorted out, but it's too early to rule out the extremist explanation.
To the contrary. I presume that Nidal was a religiously motivated zealot who committed what he considered to be an act of Jihad. But I don't see why that explanation is exclusive of all others. He'd clearly harbored extremist views for years. In fact, such views are held by a far larger number than the handful of those who translate them into violent acts.
So why did he act as he did, when and where he did? His deployment orders certainly seem to have been the proximate trigger for his acts. So it's not unreasonable, I think, to wonder if the dissonance between his extremist views and his service obligations drove him to put his ideas into action. And, as a corollary, whether removing him from that conflict might have delayed, perhaps forever, such a break.
In other words, the lesson here is that we're to blame for pushing extremists over the edge. Lots of people harbor extremist views, but they wouldn't be acting on those views if only we made more of an effort. Setting extremists loose on the general population, unmonitored, would remove their motivation to act on their beliefs. Problem solved!
Or maybe we need to do more, like setting up a "Make a Wish" foundation especially for Islamic extremists.
Who's blaming us?
Nidal bears the full responsibility for his acts. But those who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to take simple steps to prevent a recurrence, well, they'll have to answer to their own consciences.
Here's what you miss, Ann. I'm not content to sit around and wait for people like Nidal to act on their violent ideologies. I'd rather stop them before they can act. When there's evidence of radical acts, they can be caught and tried. The same holds true for conspiracies. But for giving voice to doubts? Too often, the signs are clear only in retrospect.
But there is one incredibly easy way to prevent such acts, with few deleterious consequences. If someone is sufficiently swayed by Islamist thought that they're reluctant to serve, they should be allowed to leave the military. Encouraged, even. Nidal wanted out, by most accounts. Wouldn't we all be happier today if he'd been able to go?
Ann is certainly part of that group of people that was convinced that Al Qaeda attacked us in 9/11 because they "hate our freedom".
If you ever tried to find out the real reasons for the attack, and particularly of those reasons involved U.S. actions in the Middle-East and Afghanistan, you were "blaming America first" and "making excuses for the terrorists".
A friend of mine had his wallet stolen the other day. Somehow, he managed to believe simultaneously that the thief wanted his money AND that him knowing the thief's motivation didn't make the theft itself legitimate. Isn't that something?
"It's entirely possible - even, I would suggest, likely - that the evidence available to investigators as of the first months of this year was not dispositive."
That's moronic 9/10 lawyer thinking and why Democrats can't be trusted to run the fucking country. It's why Dick Cheney warned us that Barack Obama is making us less safe. He was right.
Intelligence and security are not legal cases. One needn't collect dispositive proof.
Known Facts:
1) Angry Muslim with advanced weapons training
2) emailing radical imams secretly
Barack Obama's FBI had this information. No more evidence needed to be found. This is enough to take action to secure and protect if that is what is important to a person. But it's not important to Democrats.
It's not important to Hussein Obama that we root out al Queda within our midst. What's most important is diversity (just ask General Clark). What's important is that a backlash that has never occurred be warned against.
Diversity. Diversity. Diversity and dead Americans littering the ground.
This is what Hussein brings us.
Man, you're a special type of crazy.
Thanks for posting some constructive questions, Cynic. I'm not sure why this is being interpreted by Ann as a defense of Nidal or as a claim that "we" are responsible for pushing him over the edge. I mean, the one thing on which we should all agree is that the guy should have been removed from military service. Right?
"I mean, the one thing on which we should all agree is that the guy should have been removed from military service. Right?"
Are you saying that we should all agree that this guy should have received special privileges because of his extremist views? Should extremist views become a 'get out of jail free' card? Or are you saying that everyone who gets a free education from the military should then be able to leave at any time, and it's up to us to find a way to let them do it without having to repay their education costs?
If they knew about his extremist tendencies and just sent him on his way with a clean record, what would people say if he later killed a bunch of people at, say, a shopping mall?
I honestly don't know what they should have done. They shouldn't have dropped the investigation and left him essentially unmonitored, which seems to be what happened. But should they have taken someone that was expressing extremist views and simply turned him out on the street? I'd be interested in hearing whether I'm the only one who's not convinced that this would solve everything.
Well, I'm glad that's out in the open now.
Look. You can't lock people up just for corresponding with an extremist. But in the present case, that wouldn't even have been necessary. All the Army had to do was be willing to let Nidal go when he asked.
Yes, there's a chance that some other set of triggers might have set him off, later on. That's life in a freedom-loving country. You don't lock people up indefinitely for the things they might someday do; you try to establish conditions that will lead them not to do it in the first place. I don't know whether Nidal would have acted had he been able to procure his discharge. I do know that, failing to procure it, he did. And I think the families of a good number of soldiers wish that he hadn't.
Some situations present a set of bad alternatives. That's when you've got to muddle through, and pick the least-worst option. In this case, I think that's setting up a mechanism to allow soldiers who are sufficiently seduced by Islamism that they question their mission to leave the military. It's not fair, and it's not perfect - but clearly, forcing them to stay in the military doesn't advance our interests, either.
"Are you saying that we should all agree that this guy should have received special privileges because of his extremist views? Should extremist views become a 'get out of jail free' card? Or are you saying that everyone who gets a free education from the military should then be able to leave at any time, and it's up to us to find a way to let them do it without having to repay their education costs?"
Uh, no. I didn't say anything remotely like that. Nor did I imply that he should have been sent on his merry way with no consequences. But he obviously should have been out of the military. Right? Or are YOU saying that we should ask good soldiers, men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country, to serve with this guy just so the govt gets their money's worth out of him? Don't you care about the safety of our soldiers?? (See, I can draw ridiculous conclusions from your statements too. Of course, you're not saying that, so I wouldn't do that.)
Like you (that's right, we agree!), I'm not sure what should have been done either, and I have no idea how the military deals with soldiers who have become so opposed to serving that they threaten the lives of other soldiers. Doesn't feel so bad to admit that this stuff is complicated, does it?
"Uh, no. I didn't say anything remotely like that."
No. You didn't say anything remotely specific, which is why I asked for clarification. You were implying that this was all easy and clear cut, and I couldn't see it, so I asked you to be more specific.
"I have no idea how the military deals with soldiers who have become so opposed to serving that they threaten the lives of other soldiers"
I would hope that, for one thing, they try to sort out the difference between those likely to kill people simply because they're against the idea of serving, and those likely to kill people whether or not they're discharged because they feel that they have a religious duty to do so. I have a hard time believing that the former group is very large relative to the latter - that there are significant numbers of people who will murder as many as they can if forced to fulfill their commitment, but who will become just nice, normal people as long as they're allowed to stop wearing uniforms.
Perhaps the area of disagreement is that you and Cynic seem to think that continuing to serve in the military is such an extreme and unique trigger that removing this one trigger is likely to render the person harmless, while I think that, if this trigger was enough to set him off, then plenty of other triggers would work just as well, and he'd have almost surely done something sooner or later. If I'm right, then simply turning him loose doesn't fix the problem. We need to find a way to defuse the timebomb, not simply throw it into a civilian area.
I take your point, Ann. The specific thing I said was that he shouldn't be in the military - but that leaves the bigger question of what should have been done had he been thrown out. And on that question, I think we agree - we don't know, but there seems a good chance that he would have remained a threat. Your initial response, however, didn't raise that question. Instead, you put a bunch of ridiculous words in my mouth about giving extremists special privledges.
jegmont -
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I apologize if that's what I did. Debates like this help everyone to sort out what they really think, and how they're seeing things differently from others (sometimes the source of the difference isn't obvious at first).
We certainly agree that this guy shouldn't have just been allowed to continue serving until something happened.
I mean, the one thing on which we should all agree is that the guy should have been removed from military service. Right?
Knowing what we know now, clearly yes. But the question is whether or not enough was known before the shootings to want him removed from the military. The answer there isn't so clear.
Agreed. It's all speculation about what they knew and what they should have done...much of it offered up by people (like myself) who know nothing about military policies around monitoring soldiers, releasing them from service, etc.
Well, of course, Hasan wasn't considered dangerous!
Not when you compare him to the:
AMERICAN PSYCHO
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/american-psycho
Let's be fair: the Obama was too busy investigating those dangerous Tea Parties and the extremists at Fox News. You know, the really important stuff.
Prorities must be prioritized, people!
TallDave, Some people might think you're joking, but that's exactly what Homeland Security head Janet Napalitano has been doing - investigating "extremists" who "want the Constitution enforced."
She's had to make public apologies for wasting valuable intelligence resources investigating loyal Americans - while al Queda murders us in our own country.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/napolitano-apologizes-offending-veterans-dhs-eyes-rightwing-extremism/
Then, to top it all off she issued a press release from headquarters in Abu Dhabi assuring her masters that she's protecting them from "backlash."
They are ON. THE. OTHER. SIDE.
Right. Because everybody knows Muslims are the only kind of actual terrorist in existence, and right wing terrorism is a figment of the imagination of paranoid liberals.
Sigh. Try to engage your limited intellect at least to the point of following the argument. It was over the statement "Right-wing terrorism is far less common and far more ostracized than left-wing terrorism in the US."
What's funny about all this is that there's not one single instance of al-Qaeda organized act of domestic terrorism, and there are a lot of instances of right-wing domestic terrorism.
What's really tragic is that you have to add torturous qualifications to make your point even semi-plausible.
Right-wing terrorism is far less common and far more ostracized than left-wing terrorism in the US.
And Islamic terrorism doesn't have to be organized by al-Qaeda to end up with lots of dead Americans.
In fact, the left wing calls for attacks on President Bush are equally as responsible for and connected to Islamic terrorism as right wing talk radio was reponsible for and connected to Timothy McVeigh.
Why do all your accusations conveniently excuse your clearly more violence-prone ideology?
You display a remarkably bad reasoning.
This is a completely unsupported assertion. But, more importantly, it's not even relevant to the discussion. movertyperguy was whining about Napolitano and right-wing domestic terrorism "while al Queda murders us in our own country".
Well, Napolitano is right that right-wing domestic terrorism (and left-wing too) is more of a problem than Al-Qaeda organized domestic terrorism (there is none so far) or even Islam inspired domestic terrorism.
Christian domestic terrorism has, of course, a much longer history in the U.S. than Muslim domestic terrorism. That's because, in case you haven't noticed, there are a lot more Christians around. So it's naturally a greater cause for concern.
Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are in general much more violent than other main religions. The Koran and the Bible are notoriously bloody sacred books. They both provide an abundance of passages that justify all sorts of violence upon other human beings that we today find unacceptable. Some people have the impression that this isn't so, because it's rare for anybody to read the Bible front to back. So they tend to miss passages like:
Exodus 20:4
for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me
In which God explicitly claims He will punish innocent human beings. Of, course, if you go to the site of the Army of God, you'll find plenty of Bible passages like the one above.
Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are in general much more violent than other main religions.
It would be more correct to say Islam is in general much more violent than any other current major religion.
This is a completely unsupported assertion.
It's a completely obvious assertion. Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon, never apologized, and is still considered socially acceptable enough to employ at a university, help organize political campaigns, and spearhead educational initiatives.
Christian domestic terrorism has, of course, a much longer history in the U.S. than Muslim domestic terrorism.
The body count in the last 20 years is extremely one-sided.
The Weather Underground bombings were responsible for the deaths of 3 of their own members and a policemen. Anti-abortion terrorism alone killed more people - since the 90s.
So when do we start to count? Is it since the 60s? Because conservative estimates put the KKK's lynchings on the 4,700 victims. Of course, the KKK is not a problem anymore. Neither is the Weather Underground - and when it was, is was a much smaller one.
Yes, it is - domestic Christian extremists have killed far more people than their Muslim counterparts.
not one single instance of al-Qaeda organized act of domestic terrorism
Hmm, I seem to recall one. About 8 years and 2 months ago.
"not one single instance of al-Qaeda organized act of domestic terrorism"
I took "domestic" to mean "not overseas". Is that not what you meant?
Martin,
Sigh. The point is not how many they killed. The point is whether they're socially acceptable.
Anyways, if you want to play the numbers game, fine. I see your KKK and raise you Communism. 100 million dead and counting. Still socially acceptable. Hell, you can even get a job at the White House. You can even call Mao your favorite philosopher.
Were the Communist countries Islamic? That's news to me. And we were talking about U.S. domestic terrorism, right? Or shall we throw in all the deaths caused by Muslim and Christian countries?
By the way, some Muslims and Christians have made the argument that, since the Commies were atheists, the godlessness of it must be responsible for all the deaths in Communist regimes. They are essentially using the same reasoning you are with Islam, so I guess you find the argument legitimate.
Sigh. Try to engage your limited intellect at least to the point of following the argument. It was over the statement "Right-wing terrorism is far less common and far more ostracized than left-wing terrorism in the US."
Morons on patrol?
I wasn't aware that "late last year" was when Obama's appointees were in office. I guess I missed the news that he started appointing officers immediately after the election.
Yes, you did miss that news.
So go educate yourself.
For a man who allegedly has one arm, you sure post a lot.
Perhaps you have one arm for each personality.
This is the level of political correctness we have. I don't even know if it's political. It's spineless correctness that people who like to play politics use to exploit spineless people for political gain.
How about this...
If you are talking to, or have ever talked to someone who is allied with an enemy of the United States of America, other than to spit in their eye, you are no longer eligible to be in the military and should be monitored frequently.
Why have we become so spineless as to tolerate our own people befriending our sworn enemies?
This goes far beyond being politically incorrect and just shows we have no backbone and are unwilling to make tough choices. Perhaps it's a natural consequence of post-modernism, there is no right/wrong philosophy...
This is not a rhetorical question - can you provide some facts to back this statement up? And this horrible event is not evidence. I'm talking about written policy and/or evidence that the military doesn't investigate people because they're afraid of being politically incorrect...I mean, there's the whole gay thing...certainly not PC there. I really have a hard time accepting that the military is bastion of political correctness. Prove me wrong.
If you are talking to, or have ever talked to someone who is allied with an enemy of the United States of America, other than to spit in their eye, you are no longer eligible to be in the military and should be monitored frequently.
I assumed this was satire when I first read it, but the rest of your comment makes me think you're serious.
I don't think it's at all political correctness that makes people want to retain freedom of association.
Do you believe that it's good policy for our nation's military to allow soldiers to speak with enemies that have infiltrated us in the past, are infiltrating us now, and have sworn to kill as many of us as possible?
Is it too much to ask that our soldiers shun these people? Obviously that's a tricky policy... people talk to people all the time. I'm not really sure how something could be implemented.
But freedom of association has limits, just as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to own a fire arm.
Freedom of association, especially has limits if you're in the military.
SamX - You still haven't addressed your basic claim - that political correctness led to this tragedy. You're one of several posters here who has made this statement. I'm not spoiling for a fight. I'm sincerely asking you why you believe this.
Is there any evidence of infiltration? Any whatsoever?
Perhaps you can start by stating what you mean exactly by infiltration.
From the evidence that's publicly available, this doesn't appear to have been any sort of infiltration. He didn't go into the military seeking to inflict damage on his fellow soldiers, he didn't see promotions based on what sort of information it would give him access to, or do any of the other things one might imagine someone who was infiltrating the armed forces.
I agree that we shouldn't let foreign forces infiltrate our military, but Hasan's rampage doesn't seem like evidence that they are.
@ jegmont
He's quite correct that political correctness led to this tragedy. Of course, he's completely wrong as to the type of political correctness. The thing that elevated this incident to the level of tragedy and not simply a terrorist incident was the number of deaths, especially considering the location. All real tragedies have an element of comedy to them. In this case, trained soldiers who in any other situation are expected to be able to defend themselves with their weapons, are disarmed on CONUS US Army bases solely for the sake of political correctness. That was the ONLY thing that allowed Nidal Hasan to slaughter army personnel like cattle. Any remotely sane policy would have kept the number of deaths under a dozen, and a properly mandated policy of carrying weapons would have stopped it after one or two.
Ann said
So what conclusions do you draw from that?
Have you ever heard of Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army?
The group adheres to a syncretistic blend of Christianity, Mysticism, traditional religion, and witchcraft, and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and Acholi tradition. The LRA is accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, sexual enslavement of women and children, and forcing children to participate in hostilities. The LRA operates mainly in northern Uganda, but also in parts of Sudan and DR Congo.
They justify their crimes with Christian beliefs. Does anybody doubt that the greatest favor you can ever do to these guys is put them in the same bag as every other Christian in the world?
If the LRA "called on Christians to each wage war in their own way", and a small minority of Christians answer their call,
Islam is the religion of 20% of the world's population. Al Qaeda's numbers are hard to estimate, but they are undoubtedly a tiny group in the Muslim world (historycally, most of Al Qaeda's terrorist acts were directed against other Muslim groups).
Obviously, the more people blend Islam and Al Qaeda, the better for Al Qaeda.
I can't help but LOL at the tiny, virtually unknown violent Christian groups commenters have uncovered.
Muslim extremists actually run the nation of Iran, used to run Afghanistan, made Iraq a huge mess for years, and seem pretty dominant in Yemen, SA, Egypt, etc. The violent crazies in Islam may be a minority, but it's a much larger and more powerful minority than the other major religions seem burdened with. Pretending it's just like all the other religions (except when you're making a disaster movie and don't want to be killed over a scene involving the Kaaba, natch) is what's known as "enabling" in pop psychology, and it does no favor to the Muslim moderates who are attempting to reform their religion at great personal risk.
With rare exceptions, Christian and Buddist extremists tend to be radical pacifists (e.g. Quakers, Amish) who dress funny and occasionally engage in mass suicide (e.g. Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidian). Muslim extremists tend to be violent chauvinists who dress funny and sometimes engage in mass murder.
It's all pretty useless Dave. They all believe in their diversity-god which says Muslims are always A-ok, but let's bash on Christians and Israeli-Jews.
By all means, let's bash them. I'm just not quite as tribal in my bashing as you are.
Sure you are. You're more than happy to bash "The Stupid Right" and "wingnuts."
There is a smart right, but is has been drowned by chicken-hawks, religious fanatics and loons. Whenever I see the GOP actually standing for small government, fiscal responsibility and the free-market, I will be the first to sign up.
Well, perhaps you heard of the KKK.
That almost nobody ever heard of the LRA, in spite of their murders and massive dislocations is, of course, the point. Prior to 9/11, who had ever heard of Al Qaeda? Somewhere in Uganda right now there is a part of the country's population blaming the LRA's actions on Christianity. Which is, of course, preposterous. Other Christians don't have anything to do with their actions. Similarly, we should remember that whenever we talk about Muslims, we are referring to a quarter of the planet's population.
The "Christian and Buddist extremists" expression is so dumb that hardly qualifies as a sleight of hand. Yes, Buddist are pacifists. Christians, not so much. They are, in fact, by far the religion responsible for more deaths throughout History. There are pacifist Christians sects, but there are also pacifist Muslim sects. They are not the rule in any of these religions. That's because, as I said above, Abrahamic religions are and always were far more violent than Buddist, Hinduism, Taoism, etc.
Afghanistan is a curious country - it has been invaded by atheists, and defended itself with the support of Christians. And it is now invaded by the Christians who supported them in the past.
Iran is a theocratic dictatorship, no doubt - but one who doesn't invade any nation since they the country was called "Persia". It has been invaded when another Muslim country, Iraq, was financially supported by a Christian nation, the U.S. The same Christian nation that would later invade Iraq.
Yes, seeing these conflicts purely by a religious prism is stupid and oversimplifying.
That's the point.
"They are, in fact, by far the religion responsible for more deaths throughout History."
Please give some real numbers on this. And before you bring up the Crusades, consider they were preceded by the expansion of the Islamic empire, which was not bloodless. If I was forced to place a bet on which religion had the highest number violent members, Islam wouldn't be an automatic winner but it wouldn't be a bad bet either.
We know almost nothing about early Christianity, so it can be romanticized. But the Roman empire didn't become less belligerent with Christianity. Nor did the the subsequent Christian nations. See The Dark Ages, 1000 years of. Also see colonization of Africa and the Americas. Some tough love there.
That sounds like it was pulled right out of your ass. That's because it was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddām on 19 December – 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."
The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified. Teicher declined to discuss details of the affidavit with the Washington Post shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Again, your ignorance is astounding. Iraq spent TENS OF BILLIONS on arms from different countries. Did you see a lot of American-made tanks and planes in their military?
Iraq's army was primarily equipped with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from France, the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources.[1] The United States sold Iraq over $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war. These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales
And yes, more of their support came from Sunni Gulf states, no the U.S.
Iraq's main financial backers were the oil-rich Persian Gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia ($30.9 billion), Kuwait ($8.2 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($8 billion).[4]
The extent of our "support" was a handshake from Rumsfeld, a few kind words from the CIA, and a few loan guarantees.
Did you somehow miss the MAIN article on support for Iraq?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_combatants_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
No. I actually read it.
The United States sold Iraq over $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war.
The Iraqgate scandal revealed that an Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying largely on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989.
And, of course
The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified.
Oh, and also:
On May 25 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
Now, if you read these articles and wrote
Then, congratulations, you are as stupid as TallDave.
Except that my statement is, you know, true.
If you think the statement "It has been invaded when another Muslim country, Iraq, was financially supported by a Christian nation," makes sense when 99% of Iraq's arms and over 90% of their aid came from other states, congrats, you are as stupid as Martin.
The United States sold Iraq over $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war.
Sigh. Did you finish 5th grade? You do know what percent of Iraq's total arms that comes out to... right?
Maybe you missed this part:
These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales.
Or this:
During the Iran–Iraq War, the Soviet Union sold or gave the greatest amount of military equipment and supplies to Iraq,[1] as well as providing military advisers. Their public position, especially in the early phases of the war, was officially neutral to both sides, although they clandestinely provided a smaller amount of support to Iran. Later in the war, they more visibly supported Iraq, but still maintained an official position of neutrality.
France was the second greatest supplier to Iraq, and tended to supply higher-technology equipment than the Soviets.[2] This does not mean that many other nations did not either provide materials or encourage client states to do so, or that there was not a brisk business by private arms traders.
At the start of the Iran–Iraq War, the Soviet Union stopped overt, and most covert, arms shipments to Iraq while Iraq was on the offensive, for the next 18 months.[3]. This may have been less because the Soviet Union wanted to help Iran, and more due to Moscow's irritation with Saddam, who had refused the Soviets more access to Iraqi ports in exchange for arms. Nevertheless, Soviet prestige was at stake if its arms were defeated, so the Soviets began to provide spare parts and ammunition. They later would replace complete vehicles and weapons on a one-to-one exchange basis.[4]
Or this
Iraq's main financial backers were the oil-rich Persian Gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia ($30.9 billion), Kuwait ($8.2 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($8 billion).[4]
Or this
French support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war was an important element to strengthen Iraq for the Iran-Iraq war. Starting in roughly 1975,[1] leading up to the Iran-Iraq War, as well as the war itself, the greatest amount of military equipment came to Iraq from the Soviet Union, but France was probably second, and generally provided higher-technology equipment than the Soviets. [2]
Or this
Italy provided substantial supplies to Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War. Its greatest impact, however, was financial, with the U.S. branch of the state-owned, largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) in Italy providing several billion dollars in funding for Iraqi military procurement. Italy also was a primary supplier to the Iraqi nuclear program, although that was not of direct effect on the Iran–Iraq War.
Also, the wiki you cited seems to be a bit fringey, with lots of bad links. It's impossible to tell what exactly happened with BNL, so it doesn't like the U.S. supplied even 1% of Iraq's financing, either.
Well, perhaps you heard of the KKK.
How many people have they killed in the last 20 years? Now let's compare that to Islamic groups. Perhaps you've heard of Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, The Islamic Republic of Iran?
The "Christian and Buddist extremists" expression is so dumb that hardly qualifies as a sleight of hand. Yes, Buddist are pacifists. Christians, not so much
No religion is completely pacifist (ask the Koreans about Shinto Buddhism). Christianity pacified the Roman Empire and Europe to a great extent as a point of philosophy: love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, etc. Today, Christian countries have the highest standards of living in the world and are also the most tolerant. Islamic countries, not so much. Homosexuality is still grounds for execution and women's right are a joke.
It has been invaded when another Muslim country, Iraq, was financially supported by a Christian nation, the U.S.
Oh dear God the ignorance. Iraq borrowed 90% of its money from Sunni countries that feared Shia Iran. They received no material "support" from the U.S. During the 1980s Iraq was the largest importer of arms in the world and less than 1% were American-made.
I thought Megan and the Atlantic had already decided on Friday that there was nothing to this case. Ooops!
FBI = always a day late and a dollar short.
As someone who was raised Christian, I can attest to the fact that Muslims certainly have no monopoly on the chauvinism market.
Also, this whole "the group with which I sympathize is less bad than the group with which you sympathize" stuff is nonsense, as are the ignorant, blanket statements about the Muslim religion. (full disclosure, I have no allegience to any organized religion).
Radical right wingers have been responsible for some pretty nasty stuff over the last 15 years - Atlanta Olympics (and subsequent bombings of places like a lesbian bar before the nutjob was caught), Oklahoma City, abortions docs (already covered, I know), the murdered Holocaust Museum guard, etc. etc.
Should right wingers have less rights because of these atrocities...of course not. And neither should Muslims.
That's a fairly broad spectrum of events you're throwing together. The issue seems to be religiously motivated violence, that is, violence predicated on the actor's sincere belief that his religion mandates or calls for the violent act. That covers most violence aimed at ending abortions, and seems to be generally linked to recognizable parts of the "right wing" in the U.S.
Others are just nuts who associate with extremist ideology that can't seriously be tied to either right or left. Timothy McVeigh wasn't right-wing in any recognizable sense, he was a sort of minarchist off of the conventional left-right spectrum. The Holocaust Museum guard was killed by an anti-semite (as best we can tell), not a right-winger. However, while few people have been killed, there continues to be substantial left-wing terrorism in the U.S. by groups like ELF.
Should right wingers have less rights because of these atrocities...of course not.
Should left-wingers be locked up because of the 100 million killed by Communism? Of course not. And neither should Muslims.
Now that we've dispensed with ridiculous strawmen...
See, this is a notoriously difficult point for some people to understand. In movertyperguy and TallDave's world, only actions perpetrated by Muslims are readily generalizable. All the Christian wackos are just the inevitable black sheep in an otherwise benevolent religion.
Movetyperguy's out there, but if I were to get what I understand of Talldave's thesis, it's that they are way more extremists who are both Muslim and state their reasons for killing in terms of their interpretation of the Koran. Extremists groups may have highly religious members yet have non-religious reasons for their actions, such as nationalism or ethnic solidarity. I would buy the argument that these type of groups are roughly distributed among religions, but I would bet Islam has a the greatest number actually see their conflict in religious terms.
bombloader-
Maybe you are right. Maybe you are not. If you are, the next question is, then what? Do you propose limiting the rights of Muslims, or do you just want people to acknowledge your point? (I am truly not being confrontational here, I just want to know).
Shelby-
Most Muslims consider such terrorist acts committed by other Muslims as against their religion, just as most right wingers consider terrorist acts committed by people associated with the right (for whatever reason) as against their own principles as well.
Stereotyping is a b$tch.
Been reading for a while and have enjoyed it. What a great place to learn about and confirm logical fallacies. Staunch independent here.
Anyway...
"Most Muslims consider such terrorist acts committed by other Muslims as against their religion, just as most right wingers consider terrorist acts..."
Says who? Not saying you're wrong, just want to know who's demonstrated the truth in that statement?
It's also interesting to note that in that paragraph, you compare a religion and a political group.
No I don't propose limiting the rights of anyone based solely on their religion. I don't really even care if they stand on a street corner yelling "Death to America," while pissing on an American flag. But if they give credible evidence that they're actually planning to kill people, especially if they have access to a military base, this should be grounds for investigation. And it isn't unreasonable to suggest that maybe fear of appearing bigoted kept a thorough investigation from happening in this case. My point was purely positive-I was rebutting the argument that there is no evidence that Islam is disproportionately more violent than other religions by showing their is such evidence. I think one thing we should be able to do is realize their is a difference between acknowledging that some type of correlation between behavior X and group A, without assuming that this means that group A must automatically be subject to some type of discrimination. In other words, just because someone points out this fact does not automatically make them a bigot with bad intentions. That assumption in itself could be considered a form of stereotyping.
Do you propose limiting the rights of Muslims, or do you just want people to acknowledge your point?
Of course we don't limit their rights, all any sane person wants is to acknowledge the truth: Islam has a unique problem with violence.
We don't lock up Scientologists, even though most of us think they believe some odd things and their leadership are prone to certain illegal acts. OTOH, we don't pretend they're wonderful out of a misplaced sense of political correctness. We openly mock them for their shortcomings.
It's a very strange world where people are deleting scenes from movies because they're afraid of being killed while other people argue Islam has no more problem with violence than Christianity.
When you can view "Piss Mohammed" at an art museum without fear, then we will have arrived at sanity.
In movertyperguy and TallDave's world, only actions perpetrated by Muslims are readily generalizable.
Of course not. The question is their relative prevalence.
The math is pretty basic.
That's reasonable, and very likely true. To be sure, to the extent that either Christians of Muslims see the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan through the narrative of the now infamous Clash of Civilizations, the likelihood of religion-motivated extremist attacks will increase.
Furthermore, the logical conduct of an American Christian religious extremist that wants to fight Islam is simply to enlist. The corresponding logical step of an American Muslim extremist is to do what Hasan did.
What I dispute is that this has anything do do with the intrinsic nature of Christianity and Islam. Relatively developed Muslim countries where there is a sort of a "middle-class", like Malasia or Tunisia, are pretty peaceful and not very interested in cosmic religious battles.
On a more speculative note, it seems to me that Abrahamic religions in general are prone to be more violent, both in their sacred texts and in their History. Christianity is often advanced as one of the causes of greater technological development in the West. I couldn't disagree more.
The West began to form its exceptional character with the Greeks, and later the Romans. Therefore, the first great development of Science and Arts, as well as the first timid steps toward a fairer jurisprudence and non-totalitarian forms of government occurred in societies with a polytheistic religion.
The rise if Christianity more or less coincided with the Dark Ages. Let's not forget that, for a time, some Muslim countries were more technologically advanced than the European nations at the time.
The second great leap in the Sciences and Arts in Europe came with the Renaissance - the re-birth, or return to, the greco-roman values and aesthetics, and the correspondent easing of some aspects of the Middle Age Christian dogma.
As for the sacred books, both the Bible and the Koran supply the extremist believer with a great abundance of passages that justify violence. That's why, in both religions, the fundamentalist elements generally tend to be more literalist. OTOH, the moderate believer has to "filter" the sacred texts in order for these to be acceptable to our present day morality. In a sense, we are today morally more just and "better" than the God of our sacred texts, so present believers have to bend over backwards to make God or Allah look like nice guys.
I would question your lessons of history. The Greeks had "democracy" but it also had widespread slavery and permanent group of non-citizens who were not slaves but could not participate in governance. Greek philosophy is also not terribly useful in the scientific method, as much of it doubted the usefulness of the material world. The Romans were also quite brutal and chauvinistic when compared with even medieval monarchs. In fact, Rodney Stark shows that Christianity was very popular with women and slaves, most likely due to these groups lower status in Roman society. As for the rise of "Dark Ages" this correlates more with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Byzantine endured for approximately 500 more years and continued art and learning under Christianity(What is now called the Orthodox tradition.) It finally fell when Constantinople fell to the Muslims. As for technological advances, that does not correlate with how moral it is. Even if the Soviet Union had more technology than the US, it would not be evidence that its government was not a brutal dictatorship. Of course, in any areas we are morally better, it has been driven by various movements, many of whom cited those sacred books as their inspiration. Of course, you may accuse them of cherry -picking, but then so are you considering you have mentioned nothing of the sermon on the mount, which is foundational to the Christian worldview. In conclusion, if you attempt to make statements about categories of religious belief, you should include positive examples as well as negative.
The concepts of "republic" and "democracy" were evidently highly flawed by modern standards. But they marked the beginning of Western thought, and these regimes were better than what came before or immediately after. The concepts themselves were picked up and perfected later.
The thing with the Greeks is that they allowed for lots of philosophies. I don't quite see the one that doubted the "usefulness" of the material world. Perhaps you mean truth?
If so, you seem to be referring to Plato. Remember that one of his disciples, Aristotle, was one of the earliest proponents of empirical research, as well as the founder of formal logic.
Again, the Romans were brutal by modern standards, but not by medieval ones. Spartan women could hold property. Romans had strict laws against domestic abuse. Roman women could also own land, write wills and even file for divorce. All these limited rights disappeared in the Middle Ages.
Slaves had pretty much the same (absence of) rights in Ancient Greece and Rome and in the Middle Ages - you could do with a slave whatever you wished.
The correlation is perfect. You just described how the Dark Ages are usually defined.
Let me be clear about this - the cherry-picking is a good thing.
I hesitated about discussing the Gospels, and decided to leave them out because the comment was getting long already. Jesus is also considered a prophet in Islam, although not the son of God. Jesus plays a central role in Islam, because he will to return to Earth in the end of days to fight the Antichrist (or false messiah).
That's why the following is written in the Koran:
5:62 If the People of the Book accept the true faith and keep from evil, We will pardon them their sins and admit them to the gardens of delight. If they observe the Torah and the Gospel and what is revealed to them from Allah, they shall be given abundance from above and from beneath.
Some of them are righteous men; but many of them do nothing but evil.
5:67 Believers, Jews, Sabaeans, or Christians - whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does what is right - shall have - nothing to fear or to regret.
My earlier claim was that the sacred texts of the Abrahamic religions all have passages that condone violence for reasons that we consider unacceptable today. I certainly cherry-picked these to illustrate my point - there's nothing exceptionally violent about the Koran, and there's nothing especially enlightened and peaceful about the Bible.
It's silly, and patently false, to claim that Islam is intrinsically a religion of violence and Christianity a religion of peace. It isn't supported by their religious texts, and it isn't supported by History.
You need to study your history better. The Dark Ages occurred largely because pacifistic Christianity enervated the Roman martial tradition to the point that the old Roman provinces were fielding a tenth of their former strength and Christians were less willing than their pagan ancestors to commit the atrocities that held the empire together.
It's silly, and patently false, to claim that Islam is intrinsically a religion of violence and Christianity a religion of peace
It's not just silly and false but incredibly obtuse to pretend Islam does not currently have a disproportionate problem with violence.
LOLOLOLOL
One wonders why the far more devout Byzantium lasted another 1100 years.
Of all the theories about the Fall the Roman Empire, death by Christian pacifism is by far the most ridiculous one I've heard. Thanks for the laugh.
LOLOLLOOL!
Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Pick it up sometime.
Eh. It didn't penetrate the thick layer of stupidity the first time. Let's try this again:
"One wonders why the far more devout Byzantium lasted another 1100 years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire#Neglect_of_Byzantium
Others such as John Julius Norwich, despite their admiration for his furthering of historical methodology, consider Gibbon's views on the Byzantine Empire flawed and blame him somewhat for the lack of interest shown in the subject throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. This view might well be admitted by Gibbon himself: "But it is not my intention to expatiate with the same minuteness on the whole series of the Byzantine history.
There's a pretty big section devoted to demolishing Gibbon's theory. This is just the section concerning the problem I had already mentioned.
Oh, and the book's name is "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
Finally, Gibbon's book is more than 200 years old. You should really look for fresher, less thoroughly debunked sources. But let's be honets, it's not like you read the 6 volumes anyway...
Furthermore, the logical conduct of an American Christian religious extremist that wants to fight Islam is simply to enlist.
Why isn't it to take over the government and establish a theocracy? That's the goal of most Muslim extremists, after all.
Are you starting to see the difference?
What I dispute is that this has anything do do with the intrinsic nature of Christianity and Islam.
I frankly do not care why Islam is more violent. I just wish left-liberals could be a little less pigheadedly PC about the issue, with grand equivocations like "both the Bible and the Koran supply the extremist believer with a great abundance of passages that justify violence" and context-free variations on "Hey, Christianity used to be violent too!"
Why Dave, I would suggest that political tradition in each country matters. Are you saying that Christianity is more democratic than Islam? Did you manage to miss all those European kingdoms?
I know. That's part of the problem with wingnuts. They are incurious, and that's why they lap up sophisticated answers like "they hate our freedom".
Maybe. I'm not a left-liberal. But, I can't help noticing that the latest talking point of the Stupid Right is "We can't be PC". That's what Michelle Malkin is saying on the TV, along with some rant about "Worshiping the false God of diversity". So sure enough, some people are bound to mindlessly repeat it.
Were the FBI agents "too PC"? We actually have no idea. But hey, let's just repeat the expression "too PC" 1000 times while not suggesting anything concrete. And let's also ignore the fact that there's almost no history of Muslim domestic terrorism in the U.S., so starting a witch hunt over one instance of violence is almost certainly an extremely bad idea.
Dave, I would suggest that political tradition in each country matters.
Martin, I would suggest the political tradition is dependent on the religious tradition.
Are you saying that Christianity is more democratic than Islam
Clearly.
Did you manage to miss all those European kingdoms?
For God's sake, THAT WAS HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO.
I know. That's part of the problem with wingnuts. They are incurious, and that's why they lap up sophisticated answers like "they hate our freedom".
Oh dear God you're stupid. First off, I'm a libertarian. Second, my point was that pragmatically it doesn't matter WHY Islam is more violent, what matters is getting brain-dead people like yourself to even admit there's a problem in the first place instead of blathering about the Dark Ages and the KKK.
This coming from the recognized king of stupidity on this blog. Or perhaps President? Anyway, people call you STD (stupid TallDave), so I imagine you have a rather long tradition of being exceedingly stupid around these parts.
Hundreds of years ago? Really? LOL
Shrug. Actually, secularism was the main driver for democratization around the world. Nothing democratic about Christianity.
There's more to being a libertarian than being in favor of the free market. You seem more a nationalistic xenophobe looking for a label to cover your tribalism. There's nothing particularly libertarian about that.
Which makes it unsurprising that you insist on being dumb. Of course it matters. If you want to stop a phenomenon, you should know its causes.
But, of course, our problem with Islamic domestic terrorism is vastly smaller than our problem with just about any other source of domestic terrorism, which makes the whole discussion about "suicide by PC" ludicrous.
This is what puzzles me the most about these guys. If you believe that Islam is a religion in which followers are required to wage war with the West, well, then we should simply forbid Muslims from entering our Armed Forces. Maybe even deport them all.
Of course, no one actually spells these things out. Rather, they say stuff like "we shouldn't worship the God of diversity". Well, at least have the fucking courage to spell out what you think should be done.
This coming from the recognized king of stupidity on this blog.
Projecting a little, are we?
Nothing democratic about Christianity.
Riiight, it's just a coincidence that liberal democracy emerged from the Christian countries, and is still strongly correlated to Christianity today.
You seem more a nationalistic xenophobe looking for a label to cover your tribalism.
You seem like a moron who labels empirical facts "xenophobia" to give yourself a false sense of moral superiority. "Ooh, look how inclusive I am! No tribalism for me! Except my tribe of PC moral relativists!"
Well, at least have the fucking courage to spell out what you think should be done.
I have. We should have frank discussions about the problem of Islamic violence.
Of course, that requires getting past this moronic cult of political correctness that says we have to pretend there is no problem with Islamic violence.
In the wake of this attack the left is officially INSANE. Here are the reasons:
1. They won't call it a terrorist attack
2. They won't say it was Islamicly motivated
3. They would rather talk about faux Christian terrorism
4. The left thinks Obama is handling the situation beautifully
Keep it up lefties, at this rate Obama will be impeached by 2011.
Yep, and they can't even figure out why anyone would object.
Instead they accuse anyone who dares notice a correlation between radical Islam and violence of wanting to violate the rights of all Muslims.
These people give new meaning to the term "ideologically blinkered."
Iowahawk has the definitive roundup:
NEWSWEEK:INEVITABLY, ANOTHER SOLDIER SNAPS
Distraught pacifist conscientious objector tormented by horrors of war, as far as you know
Newsroom experts: stress, violence, stupidity, tragedy a way of life for GIs
LAT: Fort Hood: Another Black Eye For Teabagger Movement
Connecting the dots: 2006-8 Tax returns show anti-government extremist carefully itemized deductions
MSNBC:Investigation: Ft. Hood Killer Had Access to Fox, Talk Radio, Right-Wing Blogs
Receipts show killer's apartment had cable
'03 Nissan registered to Hassan had AM radio
Defiant Palin rejects calls to apologize
Boston Globe:
Hassan: NRA poster boy
GUN GOES ON RAMPAGE IN TEXAS
Experts say shootings could have easily been prevented if guns did not exist; others argue bullets must share blame
Gun facts: scary, loud, shoot people
1. It was clearly religiously motivated. Whether it was religiously caused is a far different question. That's the question that is more important to most of the claims being made by right-wingers.
2. It wasn't terrorism by any useful definition of the term. This guy is a terrorist in exactly the same way that Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, and Charles Manson were terrorists. If you want to extend the word "terrorist" to cover these types of events, be my guest. But be aware that my resistance is not ideological, but conceptual. It harms our understanding of what makes actual terrorists tick.
3. Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground were terrorists. So was the Unabomber. Just so you know this isn't an ideological thing.
4. Obama was not involved in any of this. If your complaint was that he didn't immediately stop everything to announce the event, fine. I don't really have an opinion one way or another. But even if Obama deserves criticism, he has taken so much unjust criticism that this doesn't even dent the meter.