Ft Hood Terror Attack

[Michael Hardner]

DoP

Obama's words? Neat trick.

Not Obama's words - Bush's.

What, in your opinion is the goal of Islamic terrorism? To get us to 'respect' Islam (read: fear Islam)? To drive the infidel off of 'Muslim lands'? A planet-wide Islamic caliphate?

Probably the last two options.

I think all three, at least. And no...for the zillionth time: not all Muslims are a problem in this way: bombs, threats, riots, death, et al...anymore than all Germans were Nazis. But, the Muslims who are a problem are a very big problem while other moderate Muslims seem to give only a passing care that terror is being used in Islam's name.

Actually, we saw on this very thread that someone mused about how Muslims would react to the threat of dropping a bomb on Mecca and nobody stepped up to say such actions were unreasonable or to denounce them. I think that most people quietly disassociate themselves from radical ideas but naturally don't feel that they have to say something.

If you recall, it was a small group of about a dozen men that set the entire Final Solution of the Holocaust rolling. No reason to think a small group of Islamo-Nazis couldn't also become a scourage to civilization in the same way given half a chance.

I guess you're saying that they're not a scrouge to civilization now ? Yes, a small group of people can always be a threat I suppose.

Meanwhile, I sense tones of apology from some. This makes for a conundrum in terms of what these apologists are to "them", the terrorists, as well as what they represent in our society. Fifth column comes to mind...useful after the occupation...if we harken back to a WW2 style world-view rather than one laced with political correctness.

Political correctness may be distasteful to you personally, but as I pointed out - conservatives also see the civility in being polite and pointing out that Islam is peace as the President did.

[DogOnPorch]

DoP

Not Obama's words - Bush's.

Just checking.

Probably the last two options.

Why not respect through fear and terror?

Actually, we saw on this very thread that someone mused about how Muslims would react to the threat of dropping a bomb on Mecca and nobody stepped up to say such actions were unreasonable or to denounce them. I think that most people quietly disassociate themselves from radical ideas but naturally don't feel that they have to say something.

It was Wulf and he was indeed musing...and others did point out that it wasn't a possibility in terms of the USA. They don't operate that way.

I guess you're saying that they're not a scrouge to civilization now ? Yes, a small group of people can always be a threat I suppose.

Did I say they weren't a scourage now? The difference is for at least the moment is that you and I aren't being 'selected' on a remote railway siding for work or death. Given a chance, I'm sure the Taliban and their ilk would love to stoke those ovens and sprinkle some Zyklon-B on the infidels.

Political correctness may be distasteful to you personally, but as I pointed out - conservatives also see the civility in being polite and pointing out that Islam is peace as the President did.

PC-ness is distasteful to more than just myself. Plus Islam is in no way a religion of peace. Quite the opposite...it is a warrior's religion...admired by the Nazis and despised by Churchill.

[DogOnPorch]

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

---Churchill

Mohammed knew that most people are terribly cowardly and stupid. That is why he promised beautiful women to every courageous warrior who dies in battle. This is the kind of language a soldier understands. When he believes that he will be welcomed in this manner in the afterlife, he will be willing to give his life, he will be enthusiastic about going to battle and not fear death. You may call this primitive and you may laugh about it, but it is based on deeper wisdom. A religion must speak a man's language.

---Himmler

[Michael Hardner]

DoP,

Ok - you said "becoming a scourge" ... which led me to think that you didn't think it as much of a problem now.

Ok, you find PC distasteful and disagree with George W. Bush on the nature of Islam. Even not knowing your ideas in depth, if I had to choose between you, I would choose him as a recognizable standard-bearer for the mainstream of conservative thought.

[DogOnPorch]

DoP,

Ok - you said "becoming a scourge" ... which led me to think that you didn't think it as much of a problem now.

Ok, you find PC distasteful and disagree with George W. Bush on the nature of Islam. Even not knowing your ideas in depth, if I had to choose between you, I would choose him as a recognizable standard-bearer for the mainstream of conservative thought.

I'm not a conservative either. Harper is a toad. GWB a peanut with power.

[GostHacked]

I blame the opinions of those like yourself who seem to play down the seriousness of the threat we face from fundamentalist/extremist Islamic terrorism.

Sure.

This obsession with fighting a war in a half-assed manner out of a misplaced sense of mercy for our enemies is why the war has drawn on for so long.

You are making some grand assumtions there. It's somehow partly my fault with my attitude towards it all. Again, I agree that we should have done it quickly and with massive force, if we were going to do it at all. But hindsight is 20/20.

There never was shock and awe, what we've seen are half-measures and extreme restraint. The enemy only continues to exist because of our mercy for animals.

I don't have any mercy for them. And you are right, there was no shock and awe. We were promised shock and awe. SHOCK AND AWE !!!!!!! We saw none of that. How does my attitude figure into that?

I made a clear distinction between fundamentalist/extremist Islam (followers and sympathizers and supporters of whom must be annihilated without prejudice) and other forms of Islam.

Correct, you did. However, most do not see it that way. I applaude you for noticing the difference. Only if we can get others to know that difference as well. I think that is also part of the whole battle which most seem to toss to the side in favour of more KILL EM ALL rhetoric. You have to fight the enemies over there, and at the same time fight the ignorance about the endeavour over here.

Unfortunately for civilians, it will often be difficult for us to discern between the various forms during a war.

This is what I was getting at from before. If we are going to win this war, we need to know the difference. Sure they are not making it easy, so we should be changing the strategy. Correct? Only someone who is insane does the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

We don't make policy based on what a few "dupes" might perceive. This obsession with not saying anything that may be taken the wrong way by idiots is a huge problem in our society, and is exemplified with Obama's choice to drop the word "terrorist/terrorism" from his lexicon. Who is he afraid of offending? Let's identify our enemies for what they are - terrorists.

We agree.

Excuse me? Are you disputing what I'm saying? I'm calling you out on your absurd suggestion that negotiation with our fundamentalist/extremist Islamic enemies can yield us any benefits. Our enemies must be destroyed. You advocate negotiation with animals who are opposed to every value we hold dear.

Just to be clear. What are those values?

I don't recall him saying that, but he's not entirely off with that remark.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100775.html

This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization.

It appears that you are the one who is unable to discern between extremist/fundamentalist Islamists and other types of Muslims.

Please go back and read my posts again.

That's not the impression you're giving us all in this thread. You seem to have your head in the sand with respect to the threats we're facing from terrorism.

Yeah, you keep saying that.

What's your point? The animals see weakness, and they attack.

What was our weakness that facilitated the WTC buildings being tossed to the ground? Or was it a matter of our leaders failing to read the warning signs that an attack was going to happen?

This is the result of us not eradicating our enemies and showing mercy.

I agree, we should erradicate them. Have them live by our standards or die. Wait, I've heard this somewhere before.

If we would simply take the handcuffs of our servicepersons and let them do their job, we'd have much less resistance. Forget about winning the hearts and minds of animals, BREAK their hearts and DESTROY them until there's nothing left. We cannot compromise our security by attempting to win over the hearts and minds of those who believe that suicide bombings are legitimate resistance. Our enemies are animals. Period.

I agreed it was done half ass. And it will continue to be done half assed. Not because of attitudes like mine. But because of decisions by our leaders. The Generals in Afghanistan want more troops, how is my attitude preventing that from happening when guys like Obama have the final say? The Generals are BEGGING for more boots on the ground. All of NATO seems to be dragging their feet in this effort. Ask your leaders what is taking so long. Ask them why more troops are not being sent. Ask them, not me. I have no say in the final decision.

[Michael Hardner]

DoP

I'm not a conservative either.

All the better to not use you as the standard bearer I suppose.

[bush_cheney2004]

....PC-ness is distasteful to more than just myself. Plus Islam is in no way a religion of peace. Quite the opposite...it is a warrior's religion...admired by the Nazis and despised by Churchill.

Well, to be fair...neither is Christianity. I don't give a damn about the religious convictions of any enemy, just that they be promptly sent on their way to "God" for sorting.

[Oleg Bach]

They allowed this - those that knew it was about to take place should be charged along with the nut ....that that they used intentionally or un-intentionally to murder.

[DogOnPorch]

DoP

All the better to not use you as the standard bearer I suppose.

Indeed. No sleep lost. But I'm thankful they moved Leno to 10pm...I'm still mortal afterall.

BC-2004: Well, to be fair...neither is Christianity. I don't give a damn about the religious convictions of any enemy, just that they be promptly sent on their way to "God" for sorting.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, Christianity reached its greatest lows. Witch trials in Germany alone accounted for some several hundreds of thousands of victims in a much smaller population than today's. Then there was the 30 Year war...not a picnic. But that was the tail-end of the Middle-Ages. Ancient history. For Islam, the Crusades seem to be just a heart-beat ago.

These days, I'm suspicious of Christianity...in North America in particular...for its desire to trump the Scientific Method.

Atomic bombs work afterall.

This classic confrontation is worth a quick gander re: Understanding DogOnPorch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

Seven parts!! The first one should give you the idea.

[GostHacked]

This classic confrontation is worth a quick gander re: Understanding DogOnPorch...

I swear this chick has posted on this site. !!!!

[DogOnPorch]

I swear this chick has posted on this site. !!!!

Part of the 'teach the controversy' crowd. The big trouble with the Wendy Wrights of the world is that they appeal to fairness...ie: it's only fair to include creationism in a science class. While Dawkins isn't affected, your average PTA meeting would be like lambs to the wolves re: Wendy Wright...just to get out of the meeting you might agree with her.

Damn...won't she shut-up?? The hockey game starts in 10 minutes...

[jbg]

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.

**************************

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.

I agree totally. That's exactly why the U.S. suffered ridiculous casualties in Viet Nam, with nothing to show for it. The Viet Cong were able to play "heads I win tails you lose".

We never asked to be there. We are never responsible for civilian deaths.

Here I disagree. Canada (and my country) are there because of our responsibility to defend Western civilization in general.

[DogOnPorch]

I agree totally. That's exactly why the U.S. suffered ridiculous casualties in Viet Nam, with nothing to show for it. The Viet Cong were able to play "heads I win tails you lose".

Here I disagree. Canada (and my country) are there because of our responsibility to defend Western civilization in general.

The VC/NVA were also remarkably better soldiers than their Arab counterparts. Gave the US a run for their money on all fronts including the air.

[wulf42]

For a religion of peace it doesn t look very peaceful.........i can't believe

Britain stands for this!

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2009/11/12/robertson.london.radicals.cnn.html

[GostHacked]

For a religion of peace it doesn t look very peaceful.........i can't believe

Britain stands for this!

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2009/11/12/robertson.london.radicals.cnn.html

We should not stand for it at all. We should not tolerate extremist views of any religion.

Edit, the other line said the same thing. I gotta learn to keep it short.

Edited November 12, 2009 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

DoP

The VC/NVA were also remarkably better soldiers than their Arab counterparts. Gave the US a run for their money on all fronts including the air.

Who are the Arab counterparts you're referring to ?

[DogOnPorch]

DoP

Who are the Arab counterparts you're referring to ?

All of 'em. Arabs are rotten soldiers.

[Michael Hardner]

DoP,

Since I have very little knowledge of military matters, I'd appreciate it if you could fill in a little more information. Which army and why do you say that ? Is it the men themselves, the organization, the leadership ?

[DogOnPorch]

DoP,

Since I have very little knowledge of military matters, I'd appreciate it if you could fill in a little more information. Which army and why do you say that ? Is it the men themselves, the organization, the leadership ?

Any Middle-Eastern Army, frankly. Poor command control and training plus 'Soviet' ways of doing things on the battlefield. The Arab Israeli Wars are a good example...as is US/Allies vs Iraq. Did you really think those 'Republican Guards' were actually going to stop anything?

[jbg]

If the US bombs Mecca (hypothetically) then you are going to have a whole new wave of people supporting the Jihad. You can't kill an ideology. You can't kill an enemy that does not seem to have borders. Not with guns and bombs anyways.

The same argument could have been made re: the Japanese. They suicide-bombed. They tortured prisoners.

After the events of August 1945 they're the U.S.'s closest non-English speaking ally. And those events were warm, even hot, but not cuddly.

[jbg]

This link explores Daniel Pipes' (not my) views about the applicability of sudden jihad syndrome (his term) to the Fort Hood Massacre (link, excerpts below):

[/indent]Instances of Muslim-on-unbeliever violence inspire the victim school to dig up new and imaginative excuses. Colorful examples (drawing on my article and weblog entry about denying Islamist terrorism) include:

• 1990: "A prescription drug for … depression" (to explain the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane)
  
• 1991: "A robbery gone wrong" (the murder of Makin Morcos in Sydney)
  
• 1994: "Road rage" (the killing of a random Jew on the Brooklyn Bridge)
  
• 1997: "Many, many enemies in his mind" (the shooting murder atop the Empire State Building)
  
• 2000: A traffic incident (the attack on a bus of Jewish schoolchildren near Paris)
  
• 2002: "A work dispute" (the double murder at LAX)
  
• 2002: A "stormy [family] relationship" (the Beltway snipers)
  
• 2003: An "attitude problem" (Hasan Karim Akbar's attack on fellow soldiers, killing two)
  
• 2003: Mental illness (the mutilation murder of Sebastian Sellam)
  
• 2004: "Loneliness and depression" (an explosion in Brescia, Italy outside a McDonald's restaurant)
  
• 2005: "A disagreement between the suspect and another staff member" (a rampage at a retirement center in Virginia)
  
• 2006: "An animus toward women" (a murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle)
  
• 2006: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed" (killing with an SUV in northern California)
  
• Sgt. Hasan Karim Akbar, convicted of the 2003 murder of two fellow soldiers.
  Additionally, when an Osama bin Laden-admiring Arab-American crashed a plane into a Tampa high-rise, blame fell on the acne drug Accutane.
  As a charter member of the jihad school of interpretation, I reject these explanations as weak, obfuscatory, and apologetic. The jihadi school, still in the minority, perceives Hasan's attack as one of many Muslim efforts to vanquish infidels and impose Islamic law. We recall a prior episode of sudden jihad syndrome in the U.S. military, as well as the numerous cases of non-lethal Pentagon jihadi plots and the history of Muslim violence on American soil.
  Far from being mystified by Hasan, we see overwhelming evidence of his jihadi intentions. He handed out Korans to neighbors just before going on his rampage, telling them "I'm going to do good work for God." He yelled "Allahu Akbar," the jihadi's cry, as he fired off over 100 rounds from two pistols. His superiors reportedly put him on probation for inappropriately proselytizing about Islam.
  *********

[/indent]

[ironstone]

Just like some Christians would disagree that killing doctors is bad or many other groups who express stupid behaviour and then group themselves under a certain religion.

This jbg person sounds like a real gem. "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" - Laughing.

Can you tell us just how many doctors have been killed by Christian fanatics?

And can you tell us how many people have been killed by Islamist fanatics? Not laughing here.

[jbg]

Can you tell us just how many doctors have been killed by Christian fanatics?

And can you tell us how many people have been killed by Islamist fanatics? Not laughing here.

<sarcasm>The answer is that Christian fanatics regularly slaughter doctors en masse. It's a daily occurrence.

And Jewish businessmen regularly slaughter other Jews from other "tribes of Jacob". It just doesn't hit the media. </sarcasm>