Gabriel

A general observation of Jon Stewart - he is becoming more and more extreme as time goes on. Did anybody else notice that on his November 9th episode (5 days after the massacre at Fort Hood), he said NOTHING about this current event? Why didn't he ridicule the absurdity of those in the media who were stunned at why Major Hasan committed mass murder? Surely this was a perfect example of stupidity and extreme PC/left-wingishness run amok! Yet Jon Stewart made NO MENTION OF IT. He is so spineless and pathetic. I used to watch his show once in awhile because some of his correspondents are funny, but the show is just getting preachier and more left-wing every day. Jon Stewart is also painfully boring. At least Stephen Colbert has personality. I'll reiterate, I cannot understand how Jon Stewart, and American, can make no mention of this mass murder, how he can't even take one moment to remember the victims of the crime. He is so out-of-touch with the mainstream it is shocking. I also harbour a little resentment to Jews who change their last names to be more marketable. But that's just a minor detail.

The Jim Cramer interview was a perfect example of unbelievably fake grandstanding from a know-nothing like Jon Stewart regarding the financial crisis. It was a transparent attempt at populism, portraying this image of Jon Stewart "taking it to the bad man". Jim Cramer can hardly be blamed for the financial crisis. I was very disappointed with Cramer's performance in that interview, he could have destroyed Stewart (Stewart has what, a high school education?), yet he timidly conceded to Stewart's fake tirade and apologized for not being more careful with his reporting. Cramer has very little to apologize for, aside from not paying closer attention to the danger and shadiness of derivatives.

Yes, I'm aware that in the historical context of conflict, casualties have been greatly reduced (both military and civilians). Still, I strongly believe that the majority of American/Canadian/British/UK/coalition casualties could have been avoided if we didn't show such mercy to animals. Whether it's getting close to potential enemies in Iraq in order to identify whether or not they're combatants, putting the soldiers are risk by getting within range of IEDs in order to discern the truth, or rules of engagement preventing our soldiers from fighting until being shot at, all of our casualties have been the result of mercy and compassion for our enemies. Every time a coalition soldier is shot or killed, he/she dies for the Afghanis and/or Iraqis.

I agree, wolf42. But I wouldn't use the term "excessive force" when describing Israel's military operations in Gaza, most recently. The response by Israel was incredibly reserved and subdued. In such a heavily populated area, to only have one thousand dead is actually an accomplishment. Again, the blood of the civilians lost in that military operation lies on the hands of Hamas and all other Palestinian supporters of terrorism. Half-measures are why we lose lives and why the conflict is so drawn out. It is insane to adhere to rules of engagement that are always use against you in order to maximize harm to your forces and civilians. Terrorists are laughing at us with our morality and mercy.

The enemy is fair game wherever they operate. International law doesn't stop us from protecting ourselves simply because the enemy garrison themselves in a religious site. My mentality is what's required to WIN wars. The only reason we've been a conflict for almost a decade is because we fight half-heartedly. He fight with our hands tied behind our backs while our enemies operate without any adherence to any laws/conventions/rules whatsoever. Take the handcuffs off our soldiers, let our forces destroy our enemies. Break them, destroy them, then the war will be over. They fight with everything they have at their disposal, and we operate under rules of engagement where we can only shoot once we've been fired upon. IT IS INSANITY. Our military might eclipses that of the enemy, yet we don't even operate at a fraction of our capacity. Our misplaced sense of mercy and pity for animals is the reason why we have suffered so many casualties.

I will no longer discuss the absurdity of your statement regarding how we should respond to terrorism. It was a ridiculous statement and you've got too much pride to acknowledge your own silliness. Continuing our lifestyles as they are isn't a response to terrorism. With respect to equating me with the Taliban - this again illustrates your absurdity. I do not WANT to kill civilians. I don't wish harm on them. What I do want, more than anything, is for us to be safe from our enemies. That involves destroying our enemies. Our enemies operate among civilian populations. Our enemies force us to respond, and they put the civilian populations are risk by inciting a response from us where it is virtually impossible to discern between combatants and non-combatants. My heart breaks for CANADIANS and OUR ALLIES. Although it hurts me to see Afghani and Iraqi civilians harmed, I care about them much less than I care about our own and the lives of our allies. If a religious site is being utilized as an operational base for our enemies, it is a fair target for destruction. The safety of our soldiers and country trumps all other interests. We wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for our enemies, anyways.

Well, I am in agreement with you in regards to freedom of speech requiring limitations. There is no doubt in my mind that freedom of speech SHOULD NOT be absolute. That being said, I'm not about to trust Wikipedia's editorializing, as I know Wikipedia if full of left-wingers who lie and misrepresent the records/statements/opinions of those who they disagree with. I will also NOT take you word for it that he ever spewed a hateful diatribe about Muslims. From what I know of Horowitz, he is critical of extremist/fundamentalist Islam. There is nothing controversial of hateful or prejudiced or racist or bigoted about identifying who our enemies are. Extremist/fundamentalist Islam IS NOT equal to other forms of Islam.

Show me what he said recently that demonized Muslims. If he has a radio show I will download it. I see NO anti-Muslim rhetoric AT ALL in the American media. What I do see is extreme left-wing radicals and extremist Muslim/Islamic organizations attacking those who recognize extremist/fundamentalist Islam as the threat it is as prejudice/racist bigots. In other words, I see left-wing extremists demonizing those who make honest, common sense observations.

Come on, let's be serious. George Bush advising Americans to get on with their lives post-9/11 isn't a response to terrorism, it's personal advice from the President. The response is a combination of increased internal security protocols and military campaigns. Stop being obtuse. I support bombing any site in which the enemy is operating. Very often civilians will be killed, but I value Canadian lives infinitely higher than the civilian lives of foreign (and often enemy) countries. It maddens me that our soldiers are killed and injured because of rules of engagement they must follow while the enemy follows no rules whatsoever. A Canadian soldier should never be forced to put him/herself at risk in order to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties in an enemy country. I don't know what happening these days, there used to be a time when we could unflinchingly label a country as an enemy country... but now the enemy is apparently only a "small group" of "extremists" living among civilian populations. All of this ridiculous distinction between who is and who isn't the enemy, and the risks that our soldiers are in when trying to discern the difference, results in way too many casualties on our side. Take the handcuffs off of our soldiers and let them kick ass, and stop asking them to risk their lives to reduce the likelihood that they may kill a non-Taliban Afghani by accident. The blood of every single civilian death in Afghanistan lies with the Taliban and our enemies. We never asked to be there. We are never responsible for civilian deaths.

wulf42 - I reject your assertion that Israel isn't messed with because it responds harshly to attacks from terrorists. Indeed, the opposite is true. Israel's enemies are emboldened because they know Israel always responds with extreme restraint. Israel responds extremely carefully, and compromises the safety of its soldiers in order to minimize civilian casualties among Palestinians. Israel has always fought with one hand tied behind its back, observing laws and regulations of war (which to me seems like an oxymoronic concept) while its enemies break every law/regulation/convention of war. It's a completely uneven war with respect to observance of morality, with one side utilizing every weapon at its disposal, from sickening anti-semitic propaganda to hiding in hospitals and schools among civilians, attacking civilians at every opportunity, while Israel observes rules of engagement, prosecutes its own soldiers when crimes are believed to have been committed, and the demonstration of EXTREME restraint when responding the Palestinian animals. If Israel threw caution to the wind and behaved as its enemies do, Gaza would be annihilated. Every Israeli death and injury is the result of Israel's restraint. Very often I wish Israel would take the handcuffs off of its soldiers, and allow them to destroy the enemies of Israel. The supreme mercy of Israel is what allows to Palestinians to continually regroup and rearm and kill more Israelis. It's been a pattern since day one.

Please tell us which US commentators are demonizing Muslims. I've listened to recent radio shows from both Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, and neither of them said anything remotely resembling an overall demonization of Muslims. They are always clear that they are referring to extremist/fundamentalist Islam.

More lying - YOU'RE the one obsessed with transforming this discussion into one about your perceived perception of prejudice against Islam. It is shocking to me how easily you lie and how easily you think you can fool us. As I've said earlier, and as I've illustrated by my answers to my own questions, I do not see Islam as the issue. Yet you are desperately trying to portray me as some sort of Islamophobe. It's also untrue that thousands of American soldiers have come to Canada to avoid their duties, at least in recent years. Although you're trying to derail the thread down some irrelevant tangent, I think all American soldiers who are derelict of their duty and run to Canada should be arrested and sent back to America immediately. America is not a country you can be a refugee or require asylum from.

I understand, and I'm not particularly opposed to differing lines of questioning being catered to Muslim recruits used in order to identify particular personal issues (religious and/or political) that could manifest into serious integration issues. But I think all recruits of all religions and political affiliations (and everything in between) should be carefully screened for these matters. I'm not convinced the the Muslim population, on the whole, is higher-risk. Extremist/fundamentalist Muslims, on the other hand, is clearly an issue (as this recent mass murder has tragically illustrated).

You didn't answer the second question. Should Muslims be given different considerations if they submit claims of conscientious objection (do you know what that is?) based on their religious views?

Ah, the classic moral equivalence being drawn Israel and our enemies. As if Israel's actions are comparable to those of terrorists. In your view, Israel can never justify its self-defense, and terrorism from Palestinian groups likes Hamas is legitimate resistance. How the hell do we allow people like you into our country? Oh, how I wish we could ship you and all those like you off to Afghanistan to live with the Taliban that you so admire so that we could destroy you. It sickens me that there are Canadians like you in my country.

I literally laughed out loud when I read over the 99.9999% statistic! What a dishonest poster. Well, either he's a pathological liar or beyond stupid. One or the other. Talk about being oblivious to a serious problem we're facing. Honest people of all faiths acknowledge that extremist/fundamentalist Islam is a serious problem and not only manifesting itself in one-ten-thousandth of the Muslim population.

Two questions I'd like to ask out of curiosity: 1. Should Muslim military recruits be subjected to different standards or more/different scrutiny when enlisting and/or throughout their careers in order to qualify their suitability for their positions and to qualify their loyalty to the USA? 2. Should Muslims currently enrolled in the American military be given more leeway to make claims for conscientious objection based on their faith? I say no to both. Absolutely not. Let's see what some of you folks think.

Continuing to do as we do (living freely and pluralistically) isn't a response. If I get attacked outside my office, do I respond by continuing to work? Or should I actually use my brain and attempt to obtain justice? Do yourself a favour and acknowledge that your statement was nonsensical. We will always be free and pluralistic as long as we are vigilant to preserve this quality of our society. At the same time, we must be vigilant and destroy our enemies who wish us harm. These options aren't mutually exclusive, nor are they related to one another. Continuing on with business as usual ain't a response.

What's been happening in the two threads about this story is clear - people such as yourself attempting to mischaracterize those of us who are concerned about extremists living among us (religious and/or political) in sensitive positions by describing us as prejudiced or racist. In other words, when those of us who are observant enough and honest enough to acknowledge that there is such a thing out there as Islamic extremism (often combined with extremist political left-wing and anti-American/anti-Western perspectives) that threatens our security, you and those like you quickly intervene and throw negative labels at us for unknown reasons. Perhaps you enjoy being pathologically dishonest. Perhaps you truly are a simple person incapable of comprehending simple realities. Who knows? I've given up on trying to understand those like you who consistently misrepresent reality and support our enemies. The motivations of this killer are obvious. The investigators (and the rest of us rational and honest observers) know why Major Hasan committed mass murder. What is baffling is why people like you are so desperate to derail this into an issue of prejudice or racism, making victims out of Muslims and/or Arabs. You also said this - You don't think countries like the U.S. and Canada do not profile? Please explain to me how a country profiles any group? This has got to be one of the stupidest statements I've ever read. Perhaps you meant to say that a particular law enforcement agency profiles some groups under some circusmtances? Such as white adult males in their late thirties and older being the profile of serial killers? You could not be any MORE vague. Please explain how a country like Canada or the USA profiles.

Clearly you have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues if you cannot distinguish between Islam as a whole (not some sort of monolithic concept, anyways) and Islamic fundamentalism/extremism as was adhered to by Major Hasan. I have tried at length to make this distinction easily digestible for people such as yourself, but clearly you and other like you will continue on your mission of misrepresenting what's been said and lying about everything. When I make an obvious observation (hardly some sort of intellectual insight) that this man was obviously compelled to commit mass murder based on the his extremist perspectives of his religion/faith and his warped politics, people like you will reply that I am being prejudiced against Muslims or Arabs or whatever. In your malfunctioning mind (or perhaps you are simply a pathological liar), somehow you've conflated extremist/fundamentalist Muslims with all Muslims - even after exhaustive efforts on my behalf to separate these two CLEARLY different perspectives of Islam. Looks like you're the one with serious issues of prejudice to work out, here. Yes, there have been individuals acting out violently who've been motivated by their extreme religious/political views - i.e. abortion clinic bombers, the IRA, etc. But what do they have to do with this story? Absolutely NOTHING! So why in the world are you bringing it up? Why are you defending a society/culture (Muslims/Arabs) that haven't been disparaged? All rational people who support justice and freedom, of all religions and all political perspectives, CONDEMN this killer's actions and CONDEMN his motivations (extremist Islam/extremist politics). Yet you're in here telling us not to blame Islam.... WE NEVER BLAMED ISLAM!!!! For the last time: I NEVER BLAMED ISLAM! NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT OTHER SOCIETIES OR CULTURES! NOBODY IS BLAMING ISLAMIC SOCIETY AND/OR CULTURE! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC FRINGE ELEMENT OF EXTREMISTS WITHIN THIS SOCIETY AND/OR CULTURE! Just as an FYI, I will no longer reply to your posts in this thread. It is beyond frustrating how thoroughly I have to dumb everything down in the hope that you may just understand what's being said. The sad part - nothing I'm saying is complex or intellectual. It's all elementary. Lastly - I've arrived at the conclusion that the type of EXTREME stupidity that we're seeing from people like BC_chick with respect to her perspective on this story is exactly why 13 people are dead with many more wounded. Apparently people will unflinchingly attempt to misrepresent reality and the create strawman arguments no matter what. I imagine the countless people who wanted to raise alarms about the obvious red flags from this Major Hasan were hesitant to do so because of people like BC_chick. If those with concerns were to make OBVIOUS and RATIONAL observations about Major Hasan's extremist religious and political perspectives, people like BC_chick would label them as prejudice/intolerant. This is simply astonishing. And now 13 people are dead, with many more wounded. This is extreme political correctness run amok.

Michael Hardner is basically suggesting that if we get attacked, our response should be to "keep living free and pluralistically". In other words, murder us, and we'll respond by smiling and being happy and all things nice. ABSURD. Freedom and pluralism has nothing to do with keeping us secure. Our society is and will remain to be pluralistic while we destroy our enemies.

NOBODY BLAMED RELIGION! NOBODY SAID ISLAM IS TO BLAME FOR THIS ACT OF MURDER! STOP MISCHARACTERIZING OUR STATEMENTS! What the hell is wrong with you? Can you not read and comprehend what's been said? Nobody has said anything even CLOSE to suggesting that Islam is some sort of evil religion that compels people to commit murder. What some of us DO realize, however, is that some followers of Islam perceive their religious duties in a very extreme and hateful way. These extremist views often overlap into their political/ideological views. In the case of Major Hasan, it is now known that his religious perspectives greatly shaped his political and ideological perspectives - and that these perspectives were the motivations for his criminal acts. Clearly it is much easier for you to imply that we are prejudice or anti-Islamic rather than simply address our reasoned perspectives and analysis. To deny that this man's perspectives of religion and politics DIDN'T compel him to commit this mass murder is the HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY (or massive dishonesty, take your pick). STOP MISREPRESENTING OUR WORDS AND LYING ABOUT WHAT WE SAY! Nobody here is denigrating the overwhelming majority of Muslims who live in harmony in the USA and serve honourably in its military. All we are saying, CLEARLY, is that Major Hasan was on the fringe with respect to his religious perspectives and politics (i.e. equating the war on terror with a war on Islam, a typical extremist Muslim, anti-American, and left-wing opinion). He is NOT representative of mainstream Muslims or Muslims on the whole. You are OBSESSED with shaping an argument that hasn't been made, and then attacking it. It is called a strawman argument.

I NEVER BLAMED HIS RELIGION! What is wrong with you? How can you NOT understand what I am explaining so clearly? Islam did not cause him to kill people. I never said anything even *remotely* suggesting that Islam is responsible for this crime. Islam isn't some sort of monolithic concept, anyways. Islam is and means different things to millions of different Muslims. What's important is to analyze his particular perspectives of Islam and how they shaped his overall ideology. Read the article I linked from Newsweek, where the imam at the mosque he attended has disturbing exchanges with Major Hasan regarding his views on Islam and politics (let's not be naive and pretend that there isn't any overlap between religion and politics in the minds of many people). This man's extremist views and statements would still be extremely alarming if he wasn't a Muslim! I cannot believe how many people, who are clearly able to turn on their computers and utilize the internet (illustrating minimal intelligence, at the very least), vigorously attempt to mischaracterize my statements. It is un-friggin'-believable. Clearly some people are just obsessed with seeing prejudice and racism wherever they look. We'll have to wait and see if there is any evidence of mental illness in this case. I'm going to assume that he is of sound mind, and that mental illness will only be brought up by his supporters/lawyers, without a shred of evidence.

It's quite simple. Allow me to explain again: you are lying because you're posting old videos/reports about this story which have since been corrected. Don't post old videos//reports that have since been corrected as current news in order to mislead those who are in here who might actually be trying to learn a thing or two about this story. There aren't anymore conflicting reports about this story. There are still, however, liars who are attempting to pretend that we don't know why the killer did he what he did. "Why did he do it?" is now a question reserved for idiots with respect to this story. Non-idiots know why this man committed mass murder.

Aside from us clearly going off on an irrelevant tangent, your statement doesn't make any sense. Think about what you just suggested: that we in the free world should combat our enemies (who make no secret of their intentions to continue attacking us with terrorism) by continuing to live in free and pluralistic societies. You couldn't be any MORE nonsensical. How is living free going to protect us from our enemies? Our civilization will continue to be free, prosperous, and pluralistic while we annihilate our enemies. Unfortunately, we in the civilized world feel compassion for our enemies and utilize a fraction of our military capabilities. We also adhere to "laws of war" and "rules of engagement" that all of our enemies use against us. The vast majority of our casualties and injuries are the result of our forces fighting with their hands tied behind their backs. Where they must wait to be shot at before responding. Where we criticize our our forces for using too much force, when the blood of all civilian casualties is on the hands of our terrorist enemies. I'm gonna stop typing, as this subject drives me mad. Every time I read of another casualty and injury, it sickens me that it's happened because we value the lives of our enemies before those of our soldiers. This war is only continuing endlessly because of the half measures we're utilizing to prosecute it.