| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Ralph Peters vs. Deadly Political Correctness |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. “But Hasan isn’t the sole guilty party. The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood. Given the myriad warning signs, it’s appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor. Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone with the simoon. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities. Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption. There’s another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who’ve been assigned to his care? And he’s not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on? “ http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fort_hood_xjP9yGrJN7gl7zdsJ31vnJ#ixzz0W6qNBJmR I have difficulty understanding how people could have known for at least six months there was problem and do nothing serious about it. |
||
| © Copyright 2009 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I don't think anybody like to admit they made mistakes. This guy was apparently trouble from very early on, and he was asking for discharge from very early on, and the army was ignoring him from very early on. It's one of those cases where I think there's more than enough idiocy to go around. Our armed forces have a history of downplaying the seriousness of stress disorders that goes back at least as far as world war I. Your scholar, Mr. Davis, talks about the forces that held the Greek phalanx together in the Peloponnesian War. The lack of some of these same forces damage unit cohesion today, lack of uniform origin, lack of similar occupation, sense of living or dying together depending on counting very clearly on the behavior of the other parts of the unit and so on. Once the Arm had selected this man for advanced training, it acted as though it couldn't back down without losing face or perhaps believing the man had taken advantage of its advanced training programs and was now simply trying to get away with putting one over on the army. It might also have felt itself trapped in the terrible political correctness, John, that you mention. "Deadly" was your word, and I certainly have to accept that. Or they may have simply thought the man a coward, attempting to avoid the rigors and dangers of war. We can let ourselves get locked into very limited ways of seeing other people. Clearly, he was not suited for the military, and the military was perhaps "overly rigid" in their evaluation of his own assessment of that. He was not suited to the military in spades. Whether he was a coward or not is not a simple question. I suspect that he felt himself driven to the wall with nothing to lose. When you really feel you have nothing to lose, the whole notion of hero or coward simply stops making sense any more. I think he was beyond desperate. And I think the army is used to ignoring signals like this from its people because most of the time it can get away with it. This is one of the things that happens when you feel you can treat people as if they were things and disposable, to be used up and discarded more or less at whim. Many of these army troops were going back to Iran for second and third tours, and more. There are, I'm told, a fairly high number of suicides among the troops, a high rate of depression, a high rate of PTSD and the organization has had to adapt to these things. They have gotten used to functioning as though the situation of emergency was the situation that was normal. Now this guy will be charged, if he survives, and will deserve whatever punishment he gets, pretty much. But if the armed forces actually succeeds in blaming political correctness for this repulsive set of events, they will be giving away an enormous amount of power here. If they can look at this coldly and decide what parts of it they are doing wrong, they they have the power to make some changes and make the armed forces function in a more useful fashion. Then they can figure out what parts were political correctness, and use a bit of the refreshing military frankness to deal with that more directly. But not before they figure out what their part in the fiasco is, so they can at least take some benefit out of a horrible tragedy. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree, John, that political correctness is the key here. Not only does one have to identify a problem these days, one must also look at the race, the creed, the religion or anything else that could give one an opportunity to scream prejudice and figure that into the equation and decide whether or not it's worth taking the risk to report it or take action. Thank our ACLU for that...... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I don't think there's enough information available yet to form a useful opinion. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, Good point. Thanks for making it. I was probably a bit too quick, though I think I can stand by a lot of what I said anyway. Dear Mike, The ACLU is neither liberal nor conservative. I, for example, as a Liberal, tend to thing of the rights of the child as being paramount, while for the most part the ACLU in custody situations will go with parental rights. That seems to be the underlying constitutional principle, and that's what they believe they're in the business of defending. The reason that I can live with the ACLU is that I believe that, whether I agree with their stance on something or not, I also happen to think that they're doing their best to uphold constitutional principles against assaults by any comers, left, right or lunar. I did not want the George Lincoln Rockwell nazis to march through a Jewish section of Chicago in the late sixties. I was upset when the ACLU took the other side in that brouhaha. Constitutionally, though, they were right. I didn't like it any better, but I understood the difference. Simply because the ACLU takes a position, doesn't mean it's right, but you can pretty much take it to the bank that they think they're taking the side of the constitution in the matter. They show up in surprising places taking surprising positions, but not to win popularity contests on the left or right, only to defend the constitution. I believe that in one of Rush Limbaugh's legal run ins on drug charges, the ACLU filed an Amicus Brief in support of the man. If the ACLU and shows up on the other side of the table in legal proceedings, Mike, it's not because they're Liberal, nor is it because they don't like Conservatives. They could care less. It's because whatever it is that you're doing is something that they see as dangerous to the Constitution, and they're willing to put in scant money and resources to try to let that be known. To my mind, the fact that the ACLU hasn't been after the Democrats more shows what wimps the Democrats have been in recent years (To be fair, they've been out of power for a while and so are still acting much too cautiously in terms of sticking close to the center and not stretching their power bases enough to draw some authentic wrath. They've not tried any Supreme court packing or anything really outrageous yet.) than how Liberal the ACLU is. The Republicans have been doing a lot of the legislation for a while now, so they've been getting a lot of ACLU attention. What a coincidence! Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (11-07-2009 04:38 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I get the feeling from your post that you think I am against the ACLU because I consider them liberal when, in fact, I;ve never said anything about any political affiliation of theirs and that point has no bearing on my opinion of them. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "I don't think there's enough information available yet to form a useful opinion." Would that work for a WASP male or is he the only one that doesn't get a pass? As far as PTSD, Hasan was never over, so maybe he got it from listening to stories or maybe books or maybe some scary movies . . . Is that how it works now? Who knew. PS " "Deadly" was your word" ? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It wouldn't matter if he was a green south African pygmy John - without sufficient facts any opinion formulated ends up as nothing more than pure speculation, and that's about as useful as a chocolate ashtray. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind speculating on unimportant things where little damage can be done, but in this case I believe that the people affected by what happened kind of deserve to know the truth about why this happened, not some random guess based on nothing more than speculation. I think they deserve at least that much. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, PTSD is very often used to describe what was once called combat fatigue. There were other names for the condition in other wars, as I'm sure you know. You do not have to be in combat or even in the army to have PTSD, however. Folks who've been in plane crashes and natural disasters show the disorder as well. The range is much much greater than that. The basic mechanism of a lot of brain function hasn't been worked out very well as yet. But in more general terms, people try to keep the gnarly bits cordoned off from their everyday regular selves in an effort to go on functioning as normal. More and more energy goes into keeping that barrier functioning. The brain is essentially running two systems, one for the isolated pieces of experience and the other for everyday functioning, instead of a single system with the savings in energy. The stress on the whole shebang makes the everyday functioning tend to deteriorate during times of difficulty even more drastically than usual because there isn't enough energy to do both systems at the same time, and there is leakage between the two systems. In many cases this shows up as flashbacks, or hallucinations. Often the whole person feels exhausted and their general ability to function declines sharply. Treatment is designed to help get those sealed off areas plugged into the everyday functioning self again in such a way that the everyday self can process it and digest it through more or less normal means, such as dreaming, which seems to help folks integrate and digest experience and learning. Over the past 10-15 years a method called EMDR has emerged that seems promising. It's much more behaviorally based than talking-based and can be especially useful if treatment is instituted as quickly afterwards as possible. It's more effective than many PTSD treatments and is used in some places by the VA for treatment of combat vets. It's also useful for treatment of Rape and incest survivors and survivors of child abuse and the like. Simply because the guy in this hideous shooting incident appears and may in fact be unsympathetic doesn't rule out PTSD in many of its forms. Nor does it rule it in. As Grinch has pointed out so evenhandedly, we don't have enough information here to do anything but man the usual positions in the usual entrenched positions and start blazing away with the machine guns before we have any notion of there actually being an appropriate target in sight. I have come to understand that it's probably wrong to do so. Colonel Peters, as a trained soldier and as, I believe, a West Point graduate should know as well as anybody that it's simply imprudent to start blazing away at your intuitions, and that what might be out there could as well be a school bus as a bunch of terrorists. Shooting first and asking questions later is a good way to keep a Colonel from ever getting to Flag rank, if I understand my military history. It's a wonderful thing that Colonel Peters makes such a good living writing fiction. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Yes, that much is certainly true. It would be curious if it were not true. We are a country that is profoundly uncomfortable with ethnic and religious differences and yet have tried to be widely open and welcoming to it, I don't know that we started that tradition in the world, but I think that we may have been close to the first people to have made a point of it, and a lot of the learning processes and a lot of the mistakes, as a result, have been made right here. When we are at our best, I think the world forgives us for them because they know that we keep doing it, and are working on that ongoing experiment. To ask everybody in the country to feel comfortable about the process at all times is asking a bit much, I think. Having the process enshrined in law is enough. Being serious about the law is enough. To call the enshrinement of those expectations into law "political correctness" seems an apt description of exactly how bitter and difficult this internal struggle can feel for us sometimes. It's never come easy for us, and I don't think it's about to start now. The armed forces has been historically one of those places where this struggle has been fought and won, though it's been a bitter fight there, too. A lot of Jews were disproportionately glad that Barry Goldwater got to be a General, Blacks when Colin Powell became the head of the JCOS and so on. It's where a lot of these struggles go on, sometimes for centuries, and it may be part of the reason why it's so important to the gay population today. The armed forces are a special marker for minorities. It doesn't come as a shock to see the army as one of the places where the struggle for acceptance by muslims is easily spotlighted. The armed forces have experience with dealing with minorities. They're actually, I think, somewhat better about it than the rest of us, because they're used to making mistakes and understand there's no way of getting through these things without doing so, probably over and over again. And that the first mistake is trying to know what you're talking about before you have the facts. And that's why, in the same article you quoted above, the Army Chief of Staff actually took some of those other factors into consideration. quote: Now that doesn't mean that political correctness may not be a factor. I'd be surprised if it didn't have some part to play here, even if it were to be limited to that of a snap judgement on the part of the far right. It's simply that there's such a thing as settling for a fast answer because it's easy. Sometimes it's easy and right; then everything's great, but when it's only easy, you're in trouble. So, were there signs anything but an the easy answer needed to be considered? Well, there was the information I offered about PTSD in an earlier posting, but let's set that aside as not worth consideration for right now. In the article that you quoted, Mike, there were some things mentioned. quote: Well, you know, that could prove to be difficult. The British didn't particularly want to sent British/Jewish troops to fight in British Palestine. It would have been, well, basically stupid. It would have been a potentially agonizing conflict of interest, and they didn't do it. It would have been asking for trouble, both in Palestine and, well, at home, too. Even while we had Japanese interned in concentration camps here in the United States, the Japanese mean, many of them, pushed to be sent overseas to fight. The US agreed, but they didn't send them to fight the Japanese. Why? Oh, yeah, it would have been stupid. Even if the Japanese had been willing, and many of them said they were, it would have put them into a terrible situation. We sent them to Italy and the 442nd did a wonderful job. No doubt you can think of other examples yourself. To send Muslims to fight in a war that's been hyped as a crusade, and in many quarters has been talked about a war of Christians against Muslims for much if not most of the time it's been going on may or may not be ultimately a great thing to do. But in the short term, I think it's designed to produced major conflicts in Muslim troops. Call me a wild-haired guy who is just pulling this one out of thin air, but that's the way I'd call it. And that's if Hasan had all his poultry marching in rank and file to begin with, geese included. Which fairly obviously, he did not. Saying this is political correctness may be true in part, but it also sounds like some massive policy failure brought on by lack of personnel in the all volunteer army. A sane policy would never have put really really healthy troops in a situation like that, would it? And now more from your article, Mike: quote: Well, there is that, isn't there. That is, people who look up to you and count on you for advice because you're one of them and at the same time an officer in the army come to you and want to know what to about being asked to do something that's feeling well — what's that word? — wrong. So probably 99% of them are total goof-offs trying to get out of this army and hoping for an easy touch from a Muslim officer that they wouldn't get from somebody of another faith? Maybe there's one of them in that hundred that's actually got a real question? Or maybe more of them than that have a real ethical question about the matter. I think they're real American soldier, and capable of having real feelings about real things that are worth listening to with real concern, myself. That's really all a lot of them need, not a jolt of electricity, or a dose of pills, but some serious listening and a decent comment from a guy who's actually heard what they've had to say. That's what a lot of psychotherapy comes down to, the willingness to shut up and actually listen. Much more difficult to do than you'd think. And if you actually do it right, both people walk out of the room different. Not simply the patient, you know. If you really listen, you really have to feel what the other person's saying, it changes you, sometimes forever. It's not a mechanical process. That's why a lot of psychotherapists end up with what they call secondary PTSD, simply from listening openly to all that stuff. On some level, the brain doesn't know the difference between the stuff of dream and the stuff of reality. They're processed the same way. You should be having on-going supervision while you're doing therapy, especially if you're working with difficult folks. Sop all those real questions that those patients had have got to be real questions for Hasan as well. The military is great at a lot of things, and military medicine is good for a lot of things. Supervision of countertransference has never been one of them. Nor, for that matter, has been dealing with depression. And once again from the AP article, Mike: quote: A lot of people seemed to notice. It would be nice to see some people actually take responsibility for what happened instead of pointing fingers everywhere else. Yes, political correctness. Now, what else, specifically, so that we can do something about the issues instead of finding something to blame. Don't forget, that in this case the political correctness is essentially the fear of having a black mark in one's file for saying something that isn't popular but which is necessary to say. The actual fact that (at this point) 13 soldier have died and 40 have been wounded points out that this is cowardice. More than a platoon has been wiped out as a result of what amounts to cowardice by people who say that they are willing to put their lives on the line for each other. Those who reported Hasan did their jobs. Those who failed to pass those reports up the line with the proper endorsements may be guilty of "political correctness." If so, they are also guilty of putting their careers ahead of the good of the service and ultimately the lives of their fellow soldiers. Conservatives are frequently the ones who talk about not needing extra laws to take care of crimes already covered. If there is a crime here, it is cowardice. Political correctness can be dealt with. Cowardice in people who are in so many ways not cowards, is much more difficult, isn't it? With considerable confusion, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "The US agreed, but they didn't send them to fight the Japanese. Why? Oh, yeah, it would have been stupid." Japanese Americans did serve in the Pacific behind the lines as interpreters and translators. The reason they weren’t then at the front, (unescorted), was the legitimate concern that they might be mistaken for infiltrators. That wasn’t a problem with German Americans who served in significant numbers fighting and dying against the Nazis in Europe. In neither case was there a concern they would turn weapons on their own fellow soldiers. If you wish to argue otherwise as regards Japanese Americans you will also then legitimize the internment camps. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I do not wish to justify the concentration camps. I fail to see how I'm obligated to do so by your construction of events. "If you wish to argue otherwise, then. . ." links together two non-causally related events as though there were a link between them. If our government had wished to do so, it could have sent large enough forces of Japanese Americans against the Japanese in the Pacific that confusion of forces would not have been an issue, or used them in actions that were limited in scope so that the correlation of forces would not have been a problem. It was very nice to have interpreters running around, escorted; but they were escorted for much the same reasons that or Indian code speakers were escorted. To control the possible leak of intelligence by shooting the translators before they fell into enemy hands. The risk of having linguists close to the lines is that of the revelation of intelligence resources, not the protection of intelligence of replaceable assets. It is nice of you to try to put a smiley face on a regrettable necessity of war, though. I doubt either the Indians, the Neisei or the Sansei would have had similar illusions about their actual situations. They were unlikely to have the luxury of being so naive, and their caretakers would have been likely to remind them, given the actual feelings many troops had about anything Japanese. Don't you think? I might also suggest that there weren't any units made up entirely of German Americans, though there were of Japanese Americans and of Black Americans. As I recall, both those racially restricted units had white officers, though I may well be mistaken about that. I would, in fact, be greatly cheered to learn that there were many more Black and Japanese American Officers in command positions than I had been aware of. If you've run across such information, I'd appreciate knowing. It'd make me believe that America was further along at the time that I thought. I also believe that America was probably as far if not further — lest I be misunderstood — than other countries in that conflict. I still do not believe that sending Muslim Troops to fight Muslims in a war that has been (unfortunately) characterized (by our own side, no less) as a crusade, and which has been continued to be hyped as such by many of the far right religious elements in our society without a firm clearing of the air by either the Bush Administration or the current Obama Administration is a really really really great idea. No no, I still do not. I believe you've meant well by your comments here, but I know they don't convince me for reasons that I've detailed above. And if they don't convince me, you may have trouble convincing at least a reasonable minority of the Muslim troops involved that there isn't something to the potential paranoia they could be feeling. A lot of the Muslim-American community, by the way, seems to agree with you, if what I've seen on TV and heard on the radio has anything to it. I think that says a lot about the country and the basic good-will we've generated. That needs to be acknowledged, and I do acknowledge it here. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, Bob, Bob.... You had me smiling all through your last reply...in a very good way. I was in complete agreement with your comments and the ways you laid them out. I was already planning on the glowing reply I was going to reward you with. Conservatives are frequently the ones who talk about not needing extra laws to take care of crimes already covered. ....and then you have to, for no reason I can see, cap it off with a politically biased generality. Why didn't you quit when you were ahead?? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Probably because I don't always agree with you. But it's nice to see that we can be on the same page once in a while. I think I'll most keep Bob, Bob Bobbing along, though. BK [This message has been edited by Bob K (11-09-2009 12:23 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Grinch, It's a duck. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program,” reports the Washington Post. Hasan went a different way. He opted to give a bizarre PowerPoint presentation in which he defended suicide bombing, explaining that non-believers should be beheaded, be burned alive, and have boiling oil poured down their throats (presumably not in that order). He argued that all Muslims should be discharged from the military. One slide concluded: “We love death more then [sic] you love life!” According to the Post, the medical staff in attendance was deeply disturbed by the incident. But there’s apparently no record of anyone’s reporting it to authorities. That would be insensitive and discriminatory. The following year, intelligence officials discovered that Hasan had been sending e-mails to Anwar al-Aulaqi, a prominent American-born radical cleric now based in Yemen with ties to al-Qaeda. The FBI concluded it was no big deal and dropped the matter. “Investigators,” reports the Post, “said Hasan’s e-mails were consistent with the topic of his academic research and involved some social chatter and religious discourse.” Ah yes, his “academic research,” which was laid out so rigorously in his PowerPoint presentation. Hasan also reportedly expressed joy over the murder of an Army recruiter in Arkansas. His views were not a secret to his colleagues, nor apparently to his patients, whom he tried to proselytize.” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2FjZjA5YjMxYmM2ZmNhZjQ3ODQ4MzQ0OWVmYmFhZjE=&w=MQ == . It’s a duck. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Definitely quacked.... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "The FBI and other federal authorities are reportedly still trying to figure out Maj. Nidal M. Hasan’s motive for opening fire at Fort Hood. Let’s take a look at Hasan’s June 2007 50-slide presentation to senior Army doctors to see if we can unravel this mystery." http://weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp . You can view the presentation through this site. Notice it didn't take six months to find it. "@philipaklein If Hasan's slide presentation were authored by a neocon, it would be branded "Islamophobia." 11/10 1:53 P.M. - http://bit.ly/46jutx " . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I didn't find it very much of a mystery that the man was against deployment of Muslims in Iraq; as you point out, he made no secret of the fact. The mystery to me is why the Military insisted on retaining him, and insisted that they thought it would be a bright idea to send him there given everything he had said and done to make sure they knew otherwise. Unless you're also accusing him of stealthy duplicity at the same time, in which case I would have to tell you that I beg to differ. Not only was the man a fairly obvious example of trouble on its way to happen, but from some of the reports earlier in this thread, there were many reports of exactly this that were submitted. Who submitted them and to whom would be useful information, if it didn't endanger confidentiality and security. At any rate, at some point these reports evidently either stopped being passed up the line (by whom would also be interesting to know) or fell upon deaf ears. (Whose? and why were they deaf?) If the major was a time bomb, and I think it's clear that he was, somebody both knew that he was and refused to remove him for reasons that are at least in hindsight not good enough. . . . There are always folks like the Major about. There are sometimes things that can be done to identify them in advance, and prevent some of the explosions that follow in their wakes. One of these might include not sending muslims troops to fight muslims, by the way, especially in muslim territory. We spoke of this briefly above, as I recall. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
At any rate, at some point these reports evidently either stopped being passed up the line (by whom would also be interesting to know) or fell upon deaf ears. (Whose? and why were they deaf?) That's the question of the hour, Bob...and do you think that perhaps accusations of prejudice could have stayed their hand? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. " There are sometimes things that can be done to identify them in advance, and prevent some of the explosions that follow in their wakes. One of these might include not sending muslims troops to fight muslims" Or Christians to fight Chistians or . . . . or . . . or . . . Just who is it fighting and dying in Pakistan, Muslims against Zen Buddhists? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, If you're trying to suggest to me that we should require anybody to fight anybody, you've got the wrong guy. I lucked out on the lottery in my draft year and qualified for a deferment for asthma, and despite both I demanded Conscientious Objector Status instead. Because my lottery number was so high, I wouldn't have had to serve after I got it, which I did, but I worked for years afterward in a CO type job. I'm a fairly convinced pacifist. There is a fairly serious Muslim prohibition on Muslims warring upon other Muslims, and logically or not, they do take it seriously. That doesn't mean that the Iranians and the Iraqis haven't fought wars, some of them pretty awful, and that there haven't been other muslim wars. But many of them are doctrinal and are specifically about religion. Does that make them better — not to me. But if you're devout, it can make a very large difference. And, frankly, if you're living in the middle of a society that is not treating your religion in a friendly way, then this will often bring out this sort of turning in from the folks who've been isolated and picked on. How did you feel as a marine returning from Southeast asia at the end of an unpopular war and not exactly welcomed? Did this make you wish to reach out and embrace those who were giving you a tough time, or did it force you back more into the company of those who had shared the experience with you in the first place? This is basic sociology. This is basic humanity. Beyond that, Christianity doesn't have the same sort of prohibition that Islam has in these matters, not as absolute certainly, and the Government has made provision for most Christians and many of other faiths actually to opt out in the way that you are being so scornful about, as if it didn't exist. It is the very same Conscientious Objector program that I spoke about earlier. In previous wars, it was possible to apply for such status even from within the military and to get it. Sometimes proper legal representation was needed, and sometimes you might have to go to jail or suffer penalties, but that status was available, if you felt it was important enough. With Major Hasan, we don't at this point know what counseling he got and what options he explored or was able to explore, but we do know that he was very much against this war on moral principles. What we don't know is how much of this could have been headed off if he'd gotten the proper support and counsel in an attempt to get CO status or in an attempt to work through some other solution. I hold Major Hasan responsible for his actions. He is as responsible for essentially wiping out a platoon of soldiers at Fort Hood as he would have been responsible for wounding and killing a group of Muslims in a foreign country. I see these both as crimes. I want to know why the Major had to be retained at all costs in the Armed forces, however. Somebody was evidently willing to take a chance that something like this would happen. Whatever happens to Major Hasan, and I believe there ought to be consequences, I think we ought to make sure that we don't encourage this sort of situation to happen again. At least two people knew that Major Hasan was a ticking bomb and they were perfectly willing to let him go off without taking action to stop it. The Major himself was one of them, and he did everything but take out ads in The New York Times. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Just what is the track record for Vietnam vets, all those murderous crazy baby killers; did they do this sort of thing; I forget? Japanese Americans in WWII got mentioned; when and where did any of them on a base blow away a bunch of American soldiers? Could Hasan have just walked off base and not come back, or go to a newspaper? It's a duck. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
yep, that's a thought. Wonder if Kerry is around somewhere today at a Veteran's Day gathering talking about those baby killers and murderers. From some of Obama's words during his campaign run he would probably back him. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
So after thirty years, neither of you guys seem to have any feelings of betrayal or upset from the way you were treated and weren't bitter at all. And of course that would blow my theory completely out of the water, because it was predicated on people actually having severe and long-lasting reactions to stuff like this that might last for long periods of time, and which might cause somebody to feel large amounts of resentment and bitterness. I sympathize with both of you. At least one of the reasons that you didn't have members of the 442nd going off in this fashion is that they were not being sent to fight the Japanese, which might have caused similar conflicts; or perhaps not, of course, because I really don't know, any more than you do. As for troops from Vietnam, I spoke of those in a different context than you are using here, that is, as a bunch of folks who were on the receiving end of unjustified ill treatment. I felt that at the time and I still feel that today. Your belligerent response is understandable, of course, and in many ways is one of the common responses of people who've been on the tough end of prejudicial comments. In your case you quote some, which I won't repeat here. It doesn't sound like you're happier with them now than you were at the time. This would be one of the things you and Major Hasan would have in common, being on the butt end of nasty comments with minimal connection to reality. Major Hasan went on to change that. You didn't. One other distinction between you and the Major is that both of you, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) served overseas in combat, and Major Hasan did not. My understanding is that combat troops by and large are a much more disciplined bunch of people, less given to such things, than are less experienced troops. So the example you would be searching for is sort of an apples and oranges sort of thing, combat troops versus non-combat troops. The example you'd be looking for is probably more famously portrayed in the incident at Kent State, where a detachment of National Guardsmen killed five students. I don't know what the number of wounded ran to, if any. If you wanted to look at returning soldiers, you might consider Tim McVeigh, who killed 168 government workers in attempting to start a race war by following the scenario laid out by the Right Wing White Supremacist novel The Turner Diaries. The casualties were higher, the right wing christian fundamentalist religion connection seemed to be fairly direct and it was a terrorist attack. That flowed out of the First Gulf War, as I recall. McVeigh, if I understand correctly, was hoping to get the administration to use the army to crack down on right wing gun owners to get the gun owners to rise up in a civil war. The fact that there were no large number of military folk killed (were there military inside the building at the time? I don't remember) if any was not the point. Had McVeigh had his way, large numbers of them would have been. McVeigh could have had a V-8 instead. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's — a terrorist?, a religious nut?, a man who felt he had nothing to loose?, a guy with secondary PTSD? — what? Which of these is your "Duck," John? All of them? part of them, something I haven't thought to mention yet? Or are you simply using the word "duck" as a semantically meaningless placeholder for something approximating a political thing you loathe but don't know how to describe? I don't see anybody saying Major Hasan is a swell fella, and one that you ought to raise your kids to emulate. So what are you trying to say? It sounds like you're trying to say that only a Muslim could be this bad. If you're saying that, I disagree with you. It sounds like you're saying that nobody else has done stuff like this before. If you're saying that, I disagree with you. It sounds to me like you're saying that only Major Hasan bears responsibility for this. If you're saying that, I disagree with you. I won't say that he shouldn't be tried, and that the amount of his responsibility shouldn't be determined, and that appropriate action shouldn't be taken. It should be. To lay all responsibility at Major Hasan's feet, however, is irresponsible, because it leaves the institutional conditions that can lead to this sort of thing in the future untouched. Even if you wish to focus narrowly on the good of the service — and this is not a bad place to focus, though limited — it's a good idea to be able to see where the service can change policy to make incidents like this less rather than more likely in the future. And Mike, you're talking about Kerry and Obama. I happen to find both guys interesting, but I think you forgot the Millard Fillmore connection. I think all three of them were talking with the Illuminatti about the xyz affair. Please, fill me in on how this all ties in with Ralph Peters vs. Deadly Political Correctness when you get a few moments. Inquiring minds are waiting with bated breath. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, after your comment, I would not waste my time trying to fill you in on anything related to this. You are so far off the wall trying to relate to it that your comments, comparisons, deductions and attempts at justifications for despicable actions are fantasy. Forgive me if I don't bother. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "This would be one of the things you and Major Hasan would have in common, being on the butt end of nasty comments with minimal connection to reality. Major Hasan went on to change that. You didn't." Well Mike, we've been found out: no guts! . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Guess so, John. Actually, I though that "being on the butt end of nasty comments with minimal connection to reality" referred to here in the Alley!  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Major Hasan changed it by committing mass murder. He justified the various nasty things said, at least in reference to himself. Neither of the two of you, far as I know, did anything to justify any of the unjust things said about you. Just the opposite. I must say, there's nothing like being quoted out of context to make a guy's day. Thanks, fellas. Mike, I was a great pains to say that Major Hasan did loads of despicable things. I refuse to believe that you find reason impossible to deal with. I refuse to believe that you find it impossible to respond to the points I'm making. If you believe that I've said anything untrue or unreasonable, specify it and say why, please. That is a reasonable request. John, if I thought either of you lacked guts, I would have found an unambiguous way to say so. I think both of you are fine with your courage, thank you. I have been clear about admiring that about you before. Admiration does not equal agreement in every case, and it apparently doesn't here. Mowing down unarmed men doesn't seem to require courage at any rate, as Major Hasan did, though he may well have believed he was going to die at the end of it. It does seem to require a massive sense of grudge. I would still like to know what the actual odd sort of duck you see Major Hasan representing here may be. I went into a little detail about that in my last posting, only to find that you've suggested I've called the two of you gutless. The people who should have acted to get Major Hasan out of the Army and did not let the army down. Were either of you one of those people? Were either of you in a position to stop the thing by sending the complaints about the man's behavior up the chain of command with an endorsement? Were either of you in a position to register a complaint yourself and fail to do so? I didn't think so. I do have my reservations about the folks who were in a position to do something and didn't do it. John, you asked about people who acted in similar crazy ways after returning from combat. I pointed out that I didn't think the problem was with returning combat veterans — although prejudice has often been turned against them with minimal justification, and not only after Vietnam — but with people on their way overseas. This was Major Hasan's situation. I did go to some lengths to answer your question. I mentioned the Ohio National Guard in relation to Kent State. These were folks who were worried about possible deployment overseas and their roles as soldiers. Then I mentioned Tim MCVeigh as an example of a returning soldier. Mr. McVeigh was also a fundamentalist white power Christian who believed his actions hight set off a race war and bring down the government. He hated Blacks and Jews, among others. He, too, like Major Hasan, seems to fit on the cusp of religious fanatic, terrorist and mass-murderer/spree killer. I suspect you didn't consider the situation long enough to understand that there really were counterexamples, or what the counterexamples might mean. I would actually like to talk about that; I think it'd be an interesting discussion. One thing they do not mean, I feel sure, is that Major Hasan needs special slack to be cut for him. I don't believe he does. He needs to be tried and to have a punishment decided by a court-martial, if that is the appropriate forum. We need to know what he did wrong, and he should be held accountable for whatever the decision is on that. We also need to know where procedure went wrong in dealing with Major Hasan, and we need to fix those things too. We might also find it useful to inquire how much of this incident is in fact a terrorist incident and how much is something else, like a school shooting incident, or a postal shooting incident or a Texas Tower sort of thing. It may look like a duck, quack like a duck and be a common cold; or it may look like a duck, quack like a duck and be the beginning of pneumonia or the flu. You can claim it's a duck all day and all night, and you'd be smart to start legal proceedings against it right away, but you'd better wait until you get the lab results back before you claim you've ruled out everything else but duck. Anything else would be fowl play. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, Bob, I hadn't planned on wasting the time but I'll try to explain my comment. I'm not going to beat the dead horse ad nasuem, though. So after thirty years, neither of you guys seem to have any feelings of betrayal or upset from the way you were treated and weren't bitter at all. Bob, you are not in a position to know our feelings - or to be able to even understand them....and by the way we were treated by who? The Army? The Viet Cong? The government? The American public? God? Who, Bob? and which might cause somebody to feel large amounts of resentment and bitterness. Toward who? The possibilities I listed above? I spoke of those in a different context than you are using here, that is, as a bunch of folks who were on the receiving end of unjustified ill treatment. Unjustified treatment by who? I'm not getting your point here. in many ways is one of the common responses of people who've been on the tough end of prejudicial comments. Prejudicial comments by who? The only prejudicial comments I have endured came from politicians like Kerry, in his search for votes, those like Hanoi Jane, and the American people, who turned their heads the other way. My understanding is that combat troops by and large are a much more disciplined bunch of people, less given to such things, I have no idea where that understanding comes from but it's wrong. This would be one of the things you and Major Hasan would have in common, being on the butt end of nasty comments with minimal connection to reality. I have not seen anywhere where Major Hasan had been subject to nasty comments prior to his actions. Ifyou have, show me. The example you'd be looking for is probably more famously portrayed in the incident at Kent State, I don't see where Kent State has any connection at all. True, I wasn't in the country when that happened but it was my understanding that the National Guard fired on protesters, which I agree was a ridiculous thing to do. But how is that comparable to a soldier loading his pistols and going out and shooting as many people as possible? Is that what the National Guard did? Advanced on the Kent State campus and just started shooting students to see how many they could kill? If so, then I see your comparison. If you wanted to look at returning soldiers, you might consider Tim McVeigh, McVeigh, if I understand correctly, was hoping to get the administration to use the army to crack down on right wing gun owners to get the gun owners to rise up in a civil war. No, McVeigh was a duck. McVeigh was evil. McVeigh killed almost 200 people in hopes to get the administration to do something? Are you serious? Or are you simply using the word "duck" as a semantically meaningless placeholder for something approximating a political thing you loathe but don't know how to describe? John describes it very well by saying duck. SOmetimes you need to recognize what's in front of your nose, without coming up with excuses, justifications and made-up scenarios. Should Muslims be given special attention? Well, let's see. Muslims... (1) carried out the first attack on the WTC (2) attacked the US Cole (3) attacked the American embassies (4) brought down the WTC (5) was arrested for trying to light his shoe to bring down a US plane (6) were just arrested on multiple charges for proposed bombings in the US in the near future. Is it just me or is there some recurring theme that unites those actions? SHould they be given attention if something comes up to warrant it or are you one who feels that we need to check at least one 85 year old grandmother for every Muslim boarding a plane, so as to maintain the political correctness of the situation? If the authorities that be came up with evidence that the Major was in contact with Al-qada and had made derrogatory remarks against the US military, along with other things, wouldn't it be a good idea to pay special attention to this man, regardless of any calls of "political correctness" that they could provoke? Yes, Bob, I would check every Muslim in the military....call me a xenophobe. SHould the day come that blondes become responsible for every major terrorist attack against the country, I would start paying more attention to blondes. It sounds like you're trying to say that only a Muslim could be this bad. I suggest you have a problem taking the sounds that enter your ear and translating them into cognizant thoughts. For the life of me I cannot understand how you could come up with that one. A duck is a duck, Bob, regardless of his nationality or religion. If you can't recognize that, you have my condolences. Please, fill me in on how this all ties in with Ralph Peters vs. Deadly Political Correctness Why now? Majot Hasan had a lot of support, thanks to people like Kerry and even Obama or anyone eho badmouthed the military and called them murderers and baby killers. They helped him justify his actions. "fowl play"...I give you points for that one  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Really? That doesn't sound like a good idea Mike, unless you believe that only Muslims are capable of committing such acts. I'd check anyone who showed any signs that they might be a danger to other people. quote: Yet you'd still only check the Muslims.. There's a word for that Mike. quote: Let me get this straight, people who kill babies can't be called baby killers if they're in the military - sounds like political correctness gone mad if you ask me Mike - if it walks like a duck.. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Don't bother, mr. grinch... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “My understanding is that combat troops by and large are a much more disciplined bunch of people, less given to such things, I have no idea where that understanding comes from but it's wrong.” I’m sorry Mike but in this case I must disagree. We in the Marines at least understood it was not the grunt serving in combat but the typists and PX clerks that represented the greatest danger. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Let me get this straight, people who kill babies can't be called baby killers if they're in the military -" Just how many of those who served were that? ................... In the name of full disclosure, I have to admit my criminality, in that I without any sense of guilt, though any court would find me evil, freely gave my C-rat cans of ham and lima beans to children. I was young which in the end is no excuse. It’s a burden that weighs upon me to this day. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, John, I'll accept that. They are certainly the ones that can cause the most damage. DOn't worry about grinch. He's just baiting....again. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
C-ration lima beans have a reputation even in the civilian world, John. What were you trying to do to those poor kids? Save them from starvation and impose a fate worse than death all at the same time! Kidding or not, Grinch has a point about language and language sensitivity. It's off base to call returning G.I.s that sort of thing on the basis of clearly screwball behavior by some out of control units. It wasn't the norm or even close to the norm. To blame all muslims for the behavior of radical jihadis is the same sort of logic. It doesn't work. I understand Mike's explanation for the walks like a duck and quacks like a duck comment. I don't think it fits the facts very well, and the blanket indictment of Muslims is irrational. If Mike were to issue a blanket indictment of all those who urge violence as an element of religious faith, I might be willing to go there, especially if he were able to supply the history to go with it. Then, of course, we'd have to weed out those whose violence seems to have been pretty much in the past, like Lutherans during the Hundred Years War, or Church of England folks, during the 16th and 17th centuries, and some of the internal heretical witch hunts within Catholicism and Islam. There aren't a lot of folks left when you do all the historical sorting. People who raise the cry of Crusade or Jihad would make the list on any side, but these are really pretty much a minority in any religion. Locating evil in the form of the Muslims is simply not good use of categories. It isn't good enough because it isn't parsimonious enough. It wouldn't have gotten Tim McVeigh off an airplane, assuming that he would actually be careless enough to try to ride one with all the explosives he was driving around. It wouldn't have stopped that Egyptian airlines pilot several years back from diving his plane into the ocean, nor would it have stopped Whitman from climbing up into the Texas Tower. The trick is to come up with explanations that work, not with explanations that look good and leave us feeling swell. This is why doctors have conferences after patients die in hospitals. They want to know why it happened, and they want to know if there's something about the system that could have prevented it if the system were different. Nobody wants to acknowledge mistakes so they might be understood and corrected. The military is no different from any other institution in this regard. This doesn't mean Major Nadal isn't at fault. We need to understand how and where he is at fault, and then figure out how come the system didn't work well in this case. If you wish to lay blame on political correctness, then it needs to be specified how the political correctness got in the way, and what things would have happened if it hadn't been there. The idea is not to squeeze your eyes tight and stick your fingers in your ears so as not to understand what went on, and to blame it all on the new kid on the block. That's not the problem. There are always new kids on the block. How is this new kid different or getting treated differently so that the result is different? Otherwise, you're simply scapegoating, and you don't really need people for that. All you need are goats. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Time’s Joe Klein decried “odious attempts by Jewish extremists . . . to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.” While none could match Klein’s peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular storyline was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. They suffered. He listened. He snapped. Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents? And what about civilian psychiatrists — not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics — who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder? It’s been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic. But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious. And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won’t find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as “compassion fatigue.” The poor man — pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity. Have we totally lost our moral bearings?” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZlOWRmZTQ1MWZhZWUwNjY5NDhlZjU0NThiYjhlNGM= It is this habit of pointing to rather than ignoring the obvious that has me reading Krauthammer. . |
||
|
Poetal Member
since 2009-11-09
Posts 74Texas, United States |
In a nut shell it's Satan's world and anything goes until Jesus steps in and puts an end to it all. |
||
Mysteria 
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
I have difficulty understanding how people could have known for at least six months there was problem and do nothing serious about it. I have difficulty with this too. When human lives are at stake, I would sure throw my political correctness right out the door. A lot of us up here are waiting to hear how this fell through the cracks. So very sad. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
To blame all muslims for the behavior of radical jihadis is the same sort of logic. and the blanket indictment of Muslims is irrational. I agree completely, Bob. Who do you suggest is blaming all Muslims? WHo is issuing a blanket indictment? If you are referring to me or John, please point our your evidence to suport that charge I agree that anyone who triggers a red flag needs to be checked out. The major triggered several red flags. What I am saying is that, if red flags were triggered by a Muslim, at a time that every terrorist attack in the past decade against America or Americans has been conducted by Muslims, or radicals using the Muslim faith to condone their actions, that would be on a high importance level, definitely moreso than Aunt Sadie in Poukeepsie. Should a thorough investigation turn out to show innocence, then fine. There are tens of thousands of Muslims who are indeed innocent and do not support such activities. To NOT give it special importance, however, is not only foolhardy, it borders on criminal neglect. We can thank our lucky stars that the four men just arrested for the planning of future bombings in the U.S. were given special scrutiny due to the red flags they tripped. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. This, and the decision regarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed . . . I think there’s a good chance that the West as we knew it may one day lie under a stone marked not with “R.I.P.” but “T.S.T.L.” Too Stupid To . . . It puts me in mind of the story of the Warsaw Ghetto where Jewish leaders collaborated with the Nazis in rounding up their population until almost the end, by which time it was too late, because despite the evidence provided and that before their own eyes they refused to believe what was actually happening.. It’s a consolation that I will most likely be dead before that stone, relatively soon in historical terms, is laid. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Don't even get me started on that decision, John. The stone will have a lot of validity. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, These are from your posting # 30 on this thread. I am glad to hear you say that you don't condemn Muslims en masse. You can see from these quotes, I think, why I might have thought you were doing so. quote: Despite my requests, by the way, you should notice, neither one of you have seen fit to actually clarify what you mean by the term in any way that would be a satisfactory dictionary definition, one where I could see what you meant and understand it as a non-prejudicial comment. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, Bob, I see nothing there to indicate I condemn muslims en masse. There was no condemnation there, only a comment that they should be high on the list of those being investigated or watched until such would indicate either innocence or something else. That should be a normal thought process, I would think. If a muslim carried out every terrorist activity for the past decade and you had information that there was the potential of a bomb on a plane and there were three muslims on the plane, who would you be paying the most attention to? If you say anything but the three muslims you are either lying or drunk. We do very foolish things. In order not to single out muslims, we decided to check passengers at random in order not to show prejudice. Therefore Grandma Mabel might be randomly checked and a muslim not, even though all terrorists have been muslims. Make sense to you? The major was not investigated more, even after the red flags, because no one wanted to run afoul of the political correctness. That make sense to you? If all terrorist activities were conducted by left-handed people, would it not be prudent to be concerned about left-handed people more than right when red flags pop up, even though there are millions of lefties who are not terrorists? I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If that isn't targeting Muslims simply because they're Muslims Mike I don't know what is. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think going out of the way to be more careful about people of a particular religion or cult is justified when that religion or cult is one in which many members are presently terrorizing the world. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So far, as best I can tell, all the terrorists have been men. That's clearly the group we should be targeting. And yet, when I'm at the airport -- or shopping for groceries or just walking down the street -- I seem to watch the women much more closely than all those potentially dangerous males. Must be I'm either lying or drunk? Maybe both. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Unfortunately that covers just about every religious group and cult Ess - including Christians. You could narrow your focus slightly, as Mike suggested, and concentrate on the group that, statistically, has committed the most terrorist attacks on American soil. In which case you'd be looking to target American males. I'd suggest a different tactic - I'd suggest you ignore every group bar two when looking for potential terrorists. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Diversity” is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think. Likewise, a belief in “multiculturalism” doesn’t require you to know anything at all about other cultures, just to feel generally warm and fluffy about them. Heading out from my hotel room the other day, I caught a glimpse of that 7-Eleven video showing Major Hasan wearing “Muslim” garb to buy a coffee on the morning of his murderous rampage. And it wasn’t until I was in the taxi cab that something odd struck me: He was an American of Arab descent. But he was wearing Pakistani dress — that’s to say, a “Punjabi suit,” as they call it in Britain, or the shalwar kameez, to give it its South Asian name. For all the hundreds of talking heads droning on about “diversity” across the TV networks, it was only Tarek Fatah, writing in the Ottawa Citizen, who pointed out that no Arab males wear this get-up — with one exception: Those Arab men who got the jihad fever and went to Afghanistan to sign on with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In other words, Major Hasan’s outfit symbolized the embrace of an explicit political identity entirely unconnected with his ethnic heritage.” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGYzZTExZWU0NjZhYTM2ODdiNmU2NDMyNzUzMTk5NzY=&w=MQ == I would check every duck in the military. But that was done in this case . . . and now fourteen are dead, (there was an unborn child). . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
How do you get onto a military base with civilian weapons? Why couldn't the FBI even look at Hasan's gun purchases? Wasn't the discussion just a few weeks ago that a crime is a crime is a crime -- it doesn't matter what motivates it? Isn't this more a case of how hard it is to fire a Doctor than about his religion? If they had processed him out of the military -- wouldn't he have just walked into McDonald's and opened fire there? (Because -- he's batcrap crazy?) Isn't this more about the mental health crisis in our military? Isn't this more about the ease of access to weapons by lunatic Psychiatrists? Why was a civilian police officer the first one to get to Hasan at Ft. Hood? These are just questions. I'm just asking. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch, quote: Not compared to the extent of Muslims being involved in violence. No other popular religion presently meets that extent. But if it ever does, then, indeed, people involved in it should be watched more carefully as well. By the way, I agree with focusing on males more than females as well. Gender is not a choice as religion is, but to approach the danger of violence and terrorism as if females are just as likely to be involved is just as ridiculous as pretending members of every other religion are just as much involved as people under the token of being Muslim. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Really. In that case I must have misread the data I got from the global terrorism database I use, either that or you've got access to a better source. Care to share? I'm always on the lookout for new data sources for comparison. quote: Being female is no guarantee against terrorism. For instance female members of the Tamil Tigers committed up to 40% of the total suicide attempts of that organisation and almost all terrorist organisations have realised that females are less likely to be stopped so that trend is likely to continue. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch You can probably enlighten me better than I can enlighten you. In which way are Christianity and Buddhism, for example, presently involved in these kinds of acts of terrorism or to any such extent? quote: I agree. That is an exception. The general rule though is that males are more predominant and that is unlikely to change any time soon. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, Since you can define "duck" in whatever way you wish, and change it whenever you want to mean something else, you have just made a meaningless statement, but done so with the pretense of great wisdom. Should this be your intention, I must congratulate you on your brilliant success. If you were trying actually to solve a real problem, then you still have before you the need to do the thing you have been avoiding for some few days now. That would be defining what you mean by "duck," and telling us how you would distinguish this particular "duck," which is, presumably, of some threat, from everybody else. There have been women in Palestine, by the way, who have blown themselves up; this is not exclusively a male preserve. Would that it were. And Mike, I fail to see the distinction that you try to set out in much the same way that Grinch does. I understand that you sincerely do not mean to make blanket statements about all Muslims. Honest, I get that, and I believe that. I don't think that you understand that the way you've stated things contradicts your intentions, however, and that you've been left saying and meaning two different and opposing things. How you deal with that is a puzzle to me, as is your inability to see the contradiction. I'm certainly willing to believe that the misperception is mine, but because Grinch also notes it I think it is worthy of your consideration. No more than consideration, but consideration. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, There are White separationist groups that celebrate identity Christianity. Tim McVeigh was a member, and so are many of the far right prison separationist groups and a lot of the militia groups and a lot of Klan members. A lot of the right wing violence in this country, including McVeigh's violence, had very extreme separationist religious views mixed in with it. Extreme religious views are not the special provence of Muslims. Sad to say. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Thai Buddhist terror groups have been operating and active for some time, though in the terror league they're not major players, Christians? If you use the global standard definition of terrorism they're among the biggest perpetrators worldwide. The perception among Americans that Muslims conduct more terrorist attacks than any other group is understandable, terrorist attacks that don't involve or affect Americans are rarely reported in the American media unless the loss of life is substantial. Even then the religious or political affiliations of the perpetrators rarely gets headline billing. For instance how many terrorist attacks do you remember from 2008? How many people died as a result of those attacks? The numbers may surprise you: The total number of terrorist attacks in 2008 was 11,770 With 15,765 fatalities. Of the fatalities 19 were American - they're the ones you're naturally most likely to remember and on which your perceptions are, presumably, based. quote: That's a really dangerous assumption to make Ess. The nut jobs that plan terrorist attacks may be a lot of things but they certainly aren't stupid, if you target shifty looking Arabic men or even men in general they'll switch quicker than you can say Black Widow. While you're questioning Cat Stevens at terminal 2 Miss Osama will be boarding the plane with a quarter pound of semtex stuffed in her bra. . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cpX1ZjuaiA [This message has been edited by Grinch (11-14-2009 04:58 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, You might try looking up some of the details yourself. The Wikipedia article is interesting, and as a researcher and a scholar, you'll be able to make very good use of the articles and the bibliography to fill in the details. It would be silly to say that any one religion is worse or better than any other, I think, in regard to the quality of its crazies. Crazy is by definition crazy, and they're not going to be acting the way the most centered thinking of any religion says it ought to be. I include the Christian Science Monitor article because, as usual, the CSM has gone about two steps further in their thinking about a difficult subject, and what they have to say about terrorism and our particular way of dealing with it is well worth thinking about. Even if you disagree with them. I'd be interested in your thinking in general. Sincerely, Bob Kaven http://www.commonplacebook.com/current_events/politics/christian_terro.shtm http://www.iri.org/newsarchive/2008/2008-10-01-News-CSM-Pakistan.asp http://marranci.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/terrorism-in-the-name-of-jesus-everybody-ignore/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
if you target shifty looking Arabic men or even men in general they'll switch quicker than you can say Black Widow. Actually, they don't have to, even though the obviousness of muslim terrorism against the US is obvious. They see muslims going to flight training schools, not caring to know how to land an aircraft, and it's not questioned. They see grandmas being checked at airports to not present a prejudiced interest in muslims, they see the ACLU screaming bloody murder at the drop of the hat and they know that they are safe because Americans are stupid. They see politicans and political groups screaming invasion of freedom when the government monitors phone calls and e-mails going to middle east terror organizations and they laugh. They don't need to change anything. They just sit and watch us be ourselves.... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. All this is so reminiscent of the self emasculating responses of what became the Western Allied powers to Nazism prior to September 1, 1939. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And who is the dictator, we are appeasing, John? Which country would that be? Perhaps Ducksylvania? It is a moody and insupportable conclusion without a national entity to hang it on to make the analogy complete. Which nation is it that has it out for us, John? Is there some other central body — the Elders of Zion, perhaps? The Illuminati? The Odd Fellows? — that is pressing this ominous agenda? World Capitalism? The Communist Conspiracy? The Shi'ia? The Sun'i? Perhaps all of them have put their quarrels aside, and decided that the only thing to do is tackle the United States? We're doing a marvelous job getting other people upset at us on our own. We don't need to have any major enemies out there; we're doing a pretty good job of creating them as it is with our foreign policy, if you look at the article I quote above from [i]The Christian Science Monitor.[i] I include President Obama in the enemy creating business, by the way. Bulging Basketballs, Batman! Define your terms! Otherwise, you'll simply drive me hoopy! Apparently you're seeing ducks everyplace, and still won't specify what they are! Countries, Dictators, appeasers, aggressors, religious partisans, psychiatrists, Nazis bent on Aryan world domination, or homegrown advocates of political correctness. I'm beginning to see a pattern here, however. "Ducks" are apparently the same as "they." "They" are waiting for us to tear ourselves apart, is what Mike was suggesting. They might open a business with the slogan, "They" be "Ducks." or "Ducks" R "They." I know it needs some tweaking, but I think I'm onto something really right wing here. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The obviousness is obvious is it? I'm always a little sceptical when people say something is obvious, and doubly so when they say that the obviousness is obvious, what they generally means is that they don't really know and are hoping you won't ask. So I'm asking - if you put all your little ducks in a row and count them Mike how many terrorist attacks by Muslims occurred in the US last year? In comparison how many were perpetrated by domestic terrorists? quote: So they're sitting around and watching us are they? I thought it was obvious they were all busy committing terrorist attacks. So which is it Mike, are they terrorising American citizens on a daily basis or are they sitting around laughing? I'll help you out on this one - it's both - but they aren't doing it by committing terrorist acts on a daily basis and they aren't doing it unaided. People like you and Huan are doing a great job helping them perpetuate the myth that every Muslim is a terrorist and every Mosque is a potential bomb factory. They aren't planting bombs in your shopping malls on a regular basis Mike, or blowing up your pubs at a rate that even gets close to the terrorist attacks perpetrated by the IRA on mainland Britain, they don't need to. If the majority of Muslims really wanted to do that your morning paper would be full of the evidence. An RPG will take down a 747 just as easily as Blackhawk and one nut job with eight foot of water pipe and a couple of pounds of black powder could keep Fox news busy for a year - ask Theodore John Kaczynski. They're laughing because they don't have to terrorise Americans Mike, you're doing such a good job of it without them. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
People like you and Huan are doing a great job helping them perpetuate the myth that every Muslim is a terrorist and every Mosque is a potential bomb factory. Once again, you will not find anywhere where we have said that every Muslim is a terrorist or every mosque a potential bomb factory. Trying to switch the blame over to us is a poor attempt at shifting focus. if you put all your little ducks in a row and count them Mike how many terrorist attacks by Muslims occurred in the US last year? In comparison how many were perpetrated by domestic terrorists? What does last year have to do with anything? Expand your base to the last decade to get a more realistic view. Let's see....we have the obvious 9/11. We have the shoe bomber who would have brought down a plane filled with passengers had he not been thwarted. We have the gentlemen recently arrested for future terrorist attacks which would have occured had they not been caught. We have the Major. What do all of these people have in common? Gee, that's a tough one..... Going outside the US, since it is a global situation, we have the terorist attacks on London, on India, on Pakistan, on Spain, etc, etc, etc. What do the perpetrators of those attacks have in common? Another toughie... You only see condemnation of muslims by me and John because you want to. What we are saying is that, should red flags be raised indicating possible links to terrorist activities, organizations or philosophies, that person being a muslim should not cause our authorities to bury them out of fear of being called zenophobes. but I think I'm onto something really right wing here. Bob, you can find something "really right wing" in anything . Perhaps you studied under Hillary? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think the Major's actions have shown, or should have shown, that Muslim terrorism and domestic terrorism are not mutually exclusive. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: quote: Would you do that just for fun Mike? Because, statistically speaking, you're more likely to find a terrorist by checking the white males. quote: Fine Mike, I've got access to data going back to 1970 - how many examples do you need? Let's see what have you got so far, five examples in 10 years? Two of which are highly questionable. I'll see your 5 and raise you 311 in 10 years. In the last ten years Mike The World Church of the Creator have committed more acts of terrorism in the US than Muslims. quote: Which bit of bad news do you want first Mike? Spain has the Catholic Basque separatists ETA which carried out 166 of the 357 terrorists attacks all on their lonesome, so they aren't going to be much good as an example of Muslim terror - though they did have 8 attacks by Muslim groups. India? Again not much use - the ULFA are the major terrorist there - they're predominantly Hindu. London? It's a city not a country so it's only had 47 attacks in the last ten years the majority by white Catholic males with Irish accents. Pakistan? Finally - the majority of terrorist attacks in Pakistan are perpetrated by Muslims, unfortunately the targets are also predominately Muslim too - which is no surprise given that 95% of the population is Muslim. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
grinch, you can double-talk it any way you want...really doesn't matter to me. Are we at a war with muslim terrorists? Yes. Have muslim terrorists claimed to destroy us? Yes. Have muslim terrorists made attacks all over the world? Yes? You want to spend time checking out all males instead, be my guest. For my part I would check out Army majors that have Soldier of Allah printed on their business cards. Checking out is not the same as accusing, even though you are indicating they are. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If you use the minimum of religion being involved in terrorism at all, then yes, there are some people of all or most religious groups that reach that minimum and may surpass it in one way or another. But that is not what I was getting at earlier I am talking about the maximum that Islamic terrorism is reached in our times. To suggest all other religious groups are bringing out anything near to the high maximum Islamic terrorism has set is a misrepresentation. The statistics seem rather worthless in this context, because they ignore the level of zeal and willingness to destroy or kill, and the actual level of destruction and slaughter that may come, where one or two attacks by one group waving the flag of one religion, may surpass in violence and deaths a hundred attacks by many groups under different religions. Nevertheless, none of this makes me think religion is even a superior thing to go by. It would be further down my list than how people are speaking out and treatings others. But the extent of Islamic terrorism would certainly make me more on guard and careful about a Muslim than an average man. [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-15-2009 05:06 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: quote: quote: From all the information I have seen and heard -- it is apparent to me that Hasan was a disturbed individual who was not unlike any other of many disturbed individuals who turned to a religion or ideology and found justification for acting out in an extreme fashion. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yeah Mike it's a well known fact that all terrorists have Soldier of Allah on their business cards whereas all non-terrorists have soldier of God on theirs. I hope the Muslims don't pick up on that soon otherwise we're stuffed. Checking the business cards of soldiers sounds like a plan though - a stupid plan granted - but a plan nonetheless. Personally I prefer the method adopted by every security force in the world, the one where they ignore race, sex and religion and simply target two groups: Those that waddle and those that quack. quote: What's an average man Ess? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yeah Mike it's a well known fact that all terrorists have Soldier of Allah on their business cards whereas all non-terrorists have soldier of God on theirs Interesting that you know so many non-terrorists that have Soldier of God on their business cards. I don't know any and have apparently been remiss in putting the phrase on mine! Thanks for going so fall off the wall your comments are easily dismissable. Must have been the Mensa in you that created such a profound statement Ess, be careful. You are making too much sense. From all the information I have seen and heard -- it is apparent to me that Hasan was a disturbed individual who was not unlike any other of many disturbed individuals who turned to a religion or ideology and found justification for acting out in an extreme fashion. LR, I think that is a very valid statement. Now, when you turn to a religion or ideology that we happen to be fighting in multiple countries, that are creating terrorist acts around the world, that killed 3000+ on 9/11 and continue to vow to destroy us, wouldn't it be a reasonable idea to watch out for red flags for connections between people in the US and those organizations? Hasan raised those red flags. They were ignored. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: That is the first time I have been accused of that |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: You're putting the cart before the horse though Mike. The big red flag was supposed to be that he was DISTURBED! Even other mental health professionals he worked with stated that they had wondered whether or not he was psychotic -- but never had him evaluated. Being disturbed -- it wouldn't have mattered if he was a Freemason, a Republican, or a Shaker -- but the problem Mike is that if Hasan read your statement -- he would feel vindicated in his actions. If by red flags you mean communications with persons associated with terrorists -- I'd agree -- but I wouldn't agree that they were ignored -- because the FBI looked into those communications. There were numerous failures in the Ft. Hood shootings -- but the religious connection seems merely an irritant and not the indication. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Even President Bush called it "the war against Terror" and not "the war against Islamic Terror." You seem to be changing facts to fit your present day preoccupations. The definition of "duck" changes every time a new notion takes you or John. Because you never bothered to define the term "duck" in the first place, you can define it however you want — today Muslims, tomorrow Catholics, Jews the day after, and who's to tell the difference? They're all simply "ducks" to you. Pay no attention to those facts that Grinch brings up so inconveniently that undermine your assumptions. More violence by Irish folks than Muslims in London? What! Let's ignore that posthaste! It doesn't fit! Maybe we can call Grinch some names along the way to hide the fact that we conservatives actually have to deal with his figures and his facts if we didn't indulge ourselves in a personal attack in a failed attempt to rebut him! What's that phrase you use, Mike, The one you generally use, plugging my name into it? Oh yes — Mike, Mike, Mike! You have bellicosity on your side. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I guess you don't know many Army Chaplains Mike, they're quite attached to the title. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3SgjfyKs3I quote: No problem Mike, I don't mind finding the facts for you to dismiss without offering any real argument, in fact I'm getting quite used to it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course they are attached to the title, grinch. It is their profession. SHow me where Hassan's profession was being a soldier of Allah or anything to do with the muslim faith and I'll agree with you. Besides, you didn't limit your comment to chaplains. whereas all non-terrorists have soldier of God on theirs. That's what makes it so dismissable. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
More violence by Irish folks than Muslims in London? What! Let's ignore that posthaste! Bob,Bob, Bob....sarcasm is not one of your stronger suits, I'm afraid. OK, let's take the Irish, as an example. If the English were in a war against terrorism against the Irish at this time, and one of the Irish members of the English Army, a major, was in contact with the IRA, had business cards that read Soldier of Ireland, gave speeches to other military personnel about how the IRA was more willing to die for their cause than the English were to live for theirs, among other things, do you really think British intelligence would not pay special attention to the fellow? Would not conduct some kind of investigation without concern for being branded prejudiced against Irish? Even the English aren't that foolish. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch If you don't mind, I will use a situation to explain what I meant: If there were a group of soldiers and one of them were noticeably Muslim, but the rest were not noticeably religious, then the Muslim would stick out more, yes, because of his religious aspect, and the others would be the "average". On one hand, I would be more careful toward him to be more sensitive about his religious beliefs. But on the other hand, I would also be more careful to watch out for signs of his religious belief going too far and becoming extreme, not because he is involved in the Muslim religion in and of itself, but because the Muslim religion has become so involved in terrorism. Not because being a Muslim is to blame, but because the extent to which Islam is abused is to blame. Who can look at how much abuse of Islam for violence is going on and say that it is unreasonable to be more vigilant and careful about Muslims, especially when they enter important offices to serve the country? [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-15-2009 08:32 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Being disturbed -- it wouldn't have mattered if he was a Freemason, a Republican, or a Shaker -- Really? So a person who is just disturbed versus a person who is disturbed, a member of the military, a person in contact with a terrorist organization who has to declared to destroy the United States, a person who declares himself a soldier of the faith terrorists are using to declare their jihad against America, would be a wash, with none of that mattering? Interesting. Sure, the FBI checked him out....and, somewhere along the road, some power-that-be decided to back off and not pursue it, quite probably for political correctness reasons. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The only difference any of those things make Mike, is the target and the opportunity: quote: quote: This is totally devoid of logic Mike, considering your aforementioned point that we're in a war with Al Quaeda and the numerous terrorist rings and plots foiled by the FBI. Doesn't really make sense does it? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/20/2009-05-20_fbi_arrest_four_in_alleged_plot_to_car_bomb_bronx_synagogue.html http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/15/2009-09-15_queens_terror_raids_part_of_fbi_probe_into_denverbased_cell_plotting_attack_on_9.html http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/nyfo071609.htm http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/nyfo092809.htm http://www.nowpublic.com/world/fbi-foils-terror-bid-attack-india-and-denmark |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My point, LR. It makes no sense at all. I doubt that the FBI had anything to do with squelching the findings. It was more likely done by our sterling politicians somewhere up the ladder...and whoever they are, or whichever side of the aisle they sit on, they should be required to write letters of apology to all of the victims' families to atone for their stupidity. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: It doesn't appear that the investigation ever went to the level of a 'politician' Mike -- no matter how much I'd like to blame Bush!  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: In a Free society, Mike, it really shouldn't. In a free society people aren't sanctioned for thoughts or affiliations with organizations of ducks — for example the Republican Party, or Jews, or Short People. They are sanctioned for actions and deeds. This is why you are the natural ally of people who would attack the freedoms of this country in many ways, because you're so ready to ditch the freedoms and become more and more like those people who hate the basic freedoms that this country once stood for. Freedom of association and freedom of assembly being among those freedoms, but freedom of speech being part of the package as well. Why wouldn't such a person as Major Hasan still have those freedoms? The fact that nobody thought it was worth listening to the man and perhaps getting him out of the army or providing Conscientious Objector Status for Muslims in his situation goes over your head. Sometimes you can ignore complaints without consequences; and I think you've grown to count on that. Sometimes, you can't. There is Conscientious Objector Status available for almost everybody in this country, and for good reason. There should be provision made for folks like Major Hasan — not that I think in his case it would have made significant difference, but I think that it would help in the cases of other Muslims in similar situations. Hasan should have been weeded out of the service. His right to hold the opinions he holds, in service or out of service are part of his freedom as an American. You take it for granted for yourself. The only reason you can take it for granted for yourself is that it is a right granted to all Americans and jealously safeguarded. It isn't only the right of the people who agree with you. I disagree with you a lot of the time and still support your right to have your own opinion. That's not because I agree with it or think it's a harmless opinion or one that isn't on many occasions a dangerous opinion. It means that that's the nature of the American social contract. If you think that somebody is dangerous and can prove it, then you have options. Danger to self or others is generally grounds for involuntary commitment in this country, which must be reviewed on a regular basis depending on State Law. In Massachusetts, the state that I'm most familiar with, it used to be reviewed every six months. If there had been thoughts that Major Hasan was a danger to himself or others, that would have been an avenue to follow. I have known Psychiatrists that such actions have been taken against, the same as I've known other people such actions have been taken against. Rather than following perfectly straightforward avenues such as this to protect self and others, you suggest that we attack the constitution that protects everybody and thus reduce us to a society without liberties governed only by the fear of freedom. It is a position that is well worth rethinking. Yes, really. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
This is why you are the natural ally of people who would attack the freedoms of this country in many ways, because you're so ready to ditch the freedoms and become more and more like those people who hate the basic freedoms that this country once stood for. Why, thank you, Bob. I didn't realize that about myself. To get my response to that statement you will have to read my mind because I wouldn't dare print it here. I;ve come to like the place a little too much for that. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. To understand the nature of the problem, a quick look at the origins and evolution of Islamic extremism in America and its sponsors is essential. Radical Islam made its first appearance in America in 1963 at the University of Illinois with the founding of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) by group of Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimin) immigrant activists with money from the Saudi front organization Muslim World League (MWL). In the decade following the founding of the MSA, many of today’s self-proclaimed leading Islamic organizations were spun off from it and began acting independently — though neither the ideological nor the organizational ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and its Saudi paymasters were ever severed. These included the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and a number of smaller groups. In the 1990s, this network was augmented with a number of other radical-Islamist organizations affiliated with the Brotherhood, such as the Muslim Political Affairs Council (MPAC) and the above-ground incarnation of the clandestine Brotherhood, registered in 1993 as the Muslim American Society (MAS). What they all had in common was adherence to the hate-filled Wahhabi-Salafi Islamist ideology and a visceral dislike for America and the West, leading at least some of them to see their ultimate objective as “destroying Western civilization from within,” as an internal Brotherhood document put it succinctly. To understand the magnitude of the problem, it is worth recalling that as early as the period of 1980 to 1985, according to the Muslim World League Journal, some 60 American Islamic organizations were financed by Wahhabi interests. In 1991, the Brotherhood counted 29 American Islamic organizations among its allies; the MSA, which openly lionizes Osama bin Laden, now boasts over 1,000 college chapters in North America. With the help of huge inflows of mostly Saudi money, these radical networks, which should more appropriately be seen as branches of the same organization run by a few dozen individuals through a system of interlocking directorships, have made radical Islam the dominant idiom of the American Muslim establishment, despite the fact that most American Muslims are well-integrated, economically prosperous, and not given to extremism. Taken together, this network, which controls a majority of American mosques, Islamic cultural centers, charities, and schools, is nothing short of an Islamist fifth column radicalizing large numbers of American Muslims and increasingly capable of infiltrating our government and key institutions including the military. Unfortunately, neither the U.S. government, nor the FBI, nor the military understands that what this fifth column is engaged in is not religion but political sedition and the subversion of our constitutional order under the guise of religion — both of which are prohibited under current U.S. law. A gentleman by the name of Abdurahman Alamoudi provides a typical example of the Islamist modus operandi. In October 2004, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison for terrorism-related activities, and he is currently serving his sentence in a federal penitentiary. Prior to that, Alamoudi had been a kingpin of the Islamist network as a key official in a dozen top Islamist organizations and five charities suspected of funding terrorism. Despite that, Alamoudi evidently enjoyed unimpeded access to the White House under Presidents Clinton and Bush, and also served as a State Department “goodwill ambassador” in the Middle East and a U.S. Information Agency speaker abroad. Most important, as a founder of an organization called American Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council (AMAFVAC), this radical Islamist became the first exclusive endorsing agent for Muslim chaplains for all branches of the U.S. armed forces and was able to place Islamist extremists in the military virtually at will. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODUxNjdkN2M0MzRlYmMzOWFmMDcwMjVmZDA0MmFiZjI= . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, I just had a look at the piece in [i]The National Review[i]. It was another piece in [i]The National Review[i] with the name of "The Enemy" changed, but the message the same. It could have been "The Spanish" a hundred years ago, and then "The Unions," and then "The Communists" and so on. I think that some of the enemies are real and represent real evil, and others simply aren't. Some are results of our own blundering. We might have had World War II if Versailles wasn't such a cut throat piece of work as a treaty — nobody can say — but then we might not have, either. The United States wasn't all that thrilled about it. Your comments about Muslim extremists are hard to respond to. First, you hide behind a smoke screen of obfuscation about "Ducks," and then you offer a piece of somebody else's comment. It's as though you're tossing chum in the water. In this case, however, you've said that the majority of the mosques are radical, and the majority of the members are not. I think it's reasonably clear from the reasonable calm we have in our streets that the majority of the Muslims in this country are not radical. The truth of how radical the mosques and the clergy may be is not something that I believe from your NR posting. My thinking is like this — if the clergy was radical and preaching radical Islamic Wahabi theology, there would be a lot more angry Muslims in the streets. There aren't very many. Overall, we are likely to have as many Identity Christian nutcases running around (or Meyer Kahane wannabees, for that matter) as fanatic Muslims. Having spent a lot of the last 40 years or so in Boston, I can tell you that there were an awful lot of IRA sympathizers and fundraisers pumping dough back into Northern Ireland, and very happy to do so. Perhaps you think those bozos weren't connected with your Muslim terrorist friends. I say that going after Muslims is an attack on Freedom of Religion and on the Constitution. If anybody steps out of line, there are laws about that. As for Major Hasan, he should have been spotted, and he should have been treated. Armed forces policy about its folks is not what it should be in offering mental health services, and the way the service is currently structured is a virtual demand for troops to have major problems. The troops, once again, have not been given enough support. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
