Ft Hood Terror Attack

[wulf42]

Wulf,

Israel would never target civilians, and in fact they have to justify targeting soldiers who hide among civilians. Also, they have no problem with Muslims - it's a localized war that they're fighting and they have consistently tried to make peace with those that share their homeland.

No they don t have a problem with Muslims they have a problem like the rest of us

with Muslims extremist's...the main disagreement as i see it is many say there are

only a few Muslims with extremist views but sadly this is not the truth and we all know it!

And no Israel doesn t target civilians, Hama's deliberately puts them on the bulleye and launch rockets

from these sites knowing full damn well Israel will hit these targets

so they can sit back and say "look what the big bad Israeli's have done"!

[Michael Hardner]

Wulf,

I take it you're acknowledging my point about civilians here - thanks.

[jbg]

This is complete nonsense. Attacks like 9/11 don't happen to Israel because their security programs do something we refuse to do. Profile. If you fit a certain profile, you will never board an Israeli airline.

I agree with profiling but I also agree with Wulf42 that a devastating response is a significant deterrent to mischief. The U.S. has not been on the wrong end of a 9/11 type attack precisely because the attack ended badly for the Muslim people. By contrast, 3/11 (Spain) and 7/11 (Britain) went swimmingly. Spain turfed its pro-Western PM and Brown, replacing Blair, retrenched from the U.K.'s pro-Western policies.

And it seems to me, that the several instances of the surrounding Arab countries going to war with Israel would be considered a step up from a 9/11 style attack. But I guess you don't think so.

I obviously am a strong supporter of Israel and decry the unprovoked attacks that started the 1948 and 1973 wars. That being said they are not a "step up from a 9/11 style attack". 9/11 was an attack by people working out of uniform entirely on helpless people in airplanes and buildings. The wars, as despicable as they were, were at least aimed at military forces and military targets. 9/11 was nothing of the kind.

[jbg]

You don't think countries like the U.S. and Canada profile?

If we're not we sure should be.

[jbg]

I say no as well because I don't think his religion was the cause of his decision. I think it had to do with his mental breakdown and his search to justify what he did.

Then why did the Imam exiled from Virginia who preached to him when he was here praise his actions from Yemen?

[wulf42]

I obviously am a strong supporter of Israel and decry the unprovoked attacks that started the 1948 and 1973 wars. That being said they are not a "step up from a 9/11 style attack". 9/11 was an attack by people working out of uniform entirely on helpless people in airplanes and buildings. The wars, as despicable as they were, were at least aimed at military forces and military targets. 9/11 was nothing of the kind.

Exactly right! When the Arab world went to war with Israel maybe it wasn't smart

but they went after as you say Israel's military! What i don t get is how people

think doing nothing is the answer, we are against a determined enemy who believe's

fanatically they are in the right! I guess people in the west have to ask themselves do we believe and cherish our freedom and values as much as or more than these animals want to destroy them and are we just as determined to fight to protect them!

Edited November 11, 2009 by wulf42

[naomiglover]

I agree with profiling but I also agree with Wulf42 that a devastating response is a significant deterrent to mischief. The U.S. has not been on the wrong end of a 9/11 type attack precisely because the attack ended badly for the Muslim people. By contrast, 3/11 (Spain) and 7/11 (Britain) went swimmingly. Spain turfed its pro-Western PM and Brown, replacing Blair, retrenched from the U.K.'s pro-Western policies.

And look at Switzerland. They didn't even get attacked once.

I obviously am a strong supporter of Israel and decry the unprovoked attacks that started the 1948 and 1973 wars. That being said they are not a "step up from a 9/11 style attack". 9/11 was an attack by people working out of uniform entirely on helpless people in airplanes and buildings. The wars, as despicable as they were, were at least aimed at military forces and military targets. 9/11 was nothing of the kind.

Your words of sympathy and your support for the innocence would have more meaning if you did not try to justify the killing of the 1000 civilians in Gaza by the Israeli army.

A selective sympathizer is either a racist or a fake sympathizer.

Edited November 11, 2009 by naomiglover

[DogOnPorch]

Hamas could have evacuated their civilian population out of Gaza City before the Israelis came for them...but it was much more fun to keep the women and kids in the city to use as sand-bags. Any civilians that died in that particular conflict were all Hamas's doing.

[Argus]

Being a Muslim seems to be a good reason to question someone. At least that seems to be the opinion of some of the posters in this thread who will not miss an opportunity to generalize and stereotype Muslims into one group of terror loving psychopaths.

That's discrimination.

One could say that. Or one could say that of the people likely to launch massive terror attacks in the West virtually all are members of a given group - young Muslim men. Therefore, if you are seeking to prevent a massive terror attack, whom do you watch and investigate? Swedish women?

Not all Muslims are involved in terrorism by a very long shot. However, quite a substantial number are sympathetic to the aims of terrorists, and in several polls taken, in the UK, and in Canada, significant minorities among Muslims, anywhere from 7%-30% thought that killing people on behalf of their religion was justified. Many, up to 40% wanted Sharia law and hoped it would one day be brought about in Canada and the UK - and that is one of the ultimate aims of the terrorists. So it's hard to say that there is no sympathy among the Muslim community for terrorism.

In its most startling finding, almost one in three Muslim students polled said it was justifiable to kill in the name of religion. Of that group, most said this was an acceptable action if their religion was under attack, while a small number said it was okay to kill to promote one’s religion

CNews

[Argus]

The underlying cause for this Muslim man's killing of 13 people cannot be blamed on religion, just like religion cannot be blamed for the killing of 29 people by the Jewish settler.

This is nonsense, of course.

I don't think anyone makes the claim that everyone who is a Muslim is likely to go off and blow themselves up. However, there is significant sympathy among the various world Muslim communities for the aims, if not the actions of these terrorist groups. Their violence is being romantacised and praised in mosques and on the internet, and that means, inevitably, that a certain weak-minded segment of that community, usually people who are somewhat lost and adrift, will find themselves responding to those messages and seeking to emulate these "heroic" figures who fight and die "on behalf of Islam".

So to say their violence has nothing to do with religion is simly absurd.

[Argus]

You don't think countries like the U.S. and Canada profile?

Certainly, but unofficially, so as to not offend the left, which means ineffectively.

[Argus]

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.

The problem I have is that a significant number of Muslims appear to believe that their affiliation, if you will, their loyalty, is to the broader world of Muslims FIRST, ahead of their national affiliations. That is particularly so in terms of Muslims living in the West. This is not the first time I've seen Muslims expressing their intense conflict at the thought of aiding the fight, or actually fighting against "fellow Muslims". Oddly, those sentiments never seem to be expressed when Muslim nations fight each other.

However, when a Muslim finds himself resident in a non-Muslim nation, it appears a significant number of them have difficulty with their loyalties when their nation comes into conflict with a Muslim nation. Even one they've never visited and whose language they do not speak.

I would say that Muslims should indeed be subjected to a more intensive examination with regard to how they feel about Islam and world muslims, about their loyalty to fellow Muslims around the world, and how they would feel if they were asked to participate in military actions against Muslim nations.

I would feel the same way about Jewish recruits if the US was at all likely to come into military conflict with Israel. I think a very significant number of Jews in the US military would feel conflicted loyalties in that event.

[Argus]

Adkisson "stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of the major media outlets,"[/b]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872864

This is an old and familiar tactic which fails the test of logic. Yes, indeed, there are wackos in the west who engage in occasional religion based violence. But they're quite rare in contrast to the number of Muslims willing to engage in violence for God.

[Argus]

A selective sympathizer is either a racist or a fake sympathizer.

One could say the same about selective accusers. Like, for example, those who repeatedly, ad nauseum, target Israel for accusations of human rights violations even while completely ignoring far more serious violations throughout the world.

In fact, I have said as much. Many of those, if not most, who are most active in condemning Israel, are Anti-Semites hiding under the guise of someone defending human rights.

[Argus]

I admire neither the Taliban or the Israeli military.

I admire neither the Left, nor Adolph Hitler.

Ain't equivilence fun?

[Argus]

Hamas could have evacuated their civilian population out of Gaza City before the Israelis came for them...but it was much more fun to keep the women and kids in the city to use as sand-bags. Any civilians that died in that particular conflict were all Hamas's doing.

One must recall that in the aftermath of the so-called Jenin massacre it was revealed - the Palestinians made no secret of it - that the Palestinian fighters deliberately sought to draw the Israelis in and then blew up buildings all around them.

After the fighting was done they then cried to the world press and showed all the damaged and destroyed buildings, claiming the Israelis had come in and blown everything up and commited a "massacre".

[Argus]

99.99999% do not and have not interpreted the way this guy has and so it's safe to say that it's a problem with the individual.

Twenty percent of British Muslims surveyed sympathised with the July 7 bombers

Ten percent of Canadian Muslims surveyed sympathised with the "Toronto 18" and said they were justified in their terrorist ambitions.

But out in the Muslim world things are considerably more radical.

Support for suicide bomb attacks against civilians is anywhere from about 14% in Turkey to 57% in Jordan.

I'd suggest you rexamine your numbers.

[GostHacked]

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?

Because it is that freedom that you enjoy that protects you from the bad guys. Unless you want the government to take all your freedoms away? Because that is what will happen if you want to feel secure.

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.

Quite the opposite. There are no rules when it comes to war. Only death, and a winner.

This war is only continuing endlessly because of the half measures we're utilizing to prosecute it.

Something I have been saying all along. And I agree with it. Most of us here had basicly predicted just that. You are not the only one a little peeved about it.

[Gabriel]

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.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

Garbriel,

Actually it is a response. And it was the very response that President Bush proposed after 9/11. Do you remember being told to keep shopping, to keep living a normal life ? I supported the president's initiative here.

We should destroy our enemies, which doesn't include intentionally killing civilians, which hasn't been done (at least openly) since WWII. Do you support dropping bombs on religious sites as well ?

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.

[Sir Bandelot]

Ok, Mr. Canada...

Next User ID please

[Michael Hardner]

Gabriel,

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.

The president really doesn't give personal advice. This was a direct response to his belief that they hated us because we were free from the then-US president.

The president says:

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

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.

By "kick ass" you mean "bomb innocent people", which involves: not kicking but pushing a button, not hurting their asses but ripping their bodies apart with military weapons. You're also blurring the line of my argument, and bringing in the question of killing civilians by accident, which we're not discussing. And you close by saying you're not responsible for civilian deaths, while evading the point we're discussing here of bombing religious sites.

Philosophically, you seem to believe in killing civilians in order to achieve what you deeply believe to be a greater good, and as such you're exactly like the Taliban in my eyes.

[naomiglover]

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.

What do you think of international law? Do you believe it's okay to violate it in such circumstances?

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.

Our western moral standards aside, this mentality you are displaying will never win any wars.

[GostHacked]

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.

We have been there for over 20 years. Afghanistan was used as a place for proxy wars with the USSR. The US helped armed the Muhajedeen, which fought off the Soviets. We've been there essentially longer than the Taliban has.

niaomeglover

What do you think of international law? Do you believe it's okay to violate it in such circumstances?

There really is not International Law. Not one that I can easily recognize. The UN is not about law or any kind of justice.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Philosophically, you seem to believe in killing civilians in order to achieve what you deeply believe to be a greater good, and as such you're exactly like the Taliban in my eyes.

No....it is not the same as the Taliban or insurgents, who expressly kill "civilians" as a primary objective vs. so called "collateral damage" from NATO weapons.

Philosophically, your position would have been most problematic during the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2. Steps have been taken to help reduce the number civilian casualities in such conflicts, but such casualities will never be eliminated. That's why we call it "war".