Bahu Virupaksha Bahu Virupaksha

Major Nidal Hasan and the Killing at Fort Hood, Texas

▼

Major Nidal Hasan and the Killing at Fort Hood, Texas

Identity based politics leads to crime

from JoeUser Forums

The horrific incident at Fort Hood, Texas, should come as a wake up call to all those in the American academia who promote identity based politics:Gays, lesbians, minority, sexual preference, etc etc. Now the Muslim identity is becoming increasingly problematic in the USA and I believe that years and years of promoting identity politics has left the country without the means of even admitting to itself that the islamic identity clashes head long with that of a secular nation state. The US media is already concluding that Major Hassan's crime does in no way reflect upon the patriotism of the Muslim-American population. May be so. My point is that the growing alienation of the Muslims from the mainstream of western collective life is contibuting to the sense of unease and the killings in Fort Hood stems from that feeling of unease.

Let me at the very out set condemn in the strongest possible manner the violence against the  armymen and women at Fort Hood. My point is not to justify the crime but to say why it happened. Major Nidal by all accounts was being radicalised and his peers at Walter Reed had drawn attention to a presentation he made in which he seems to have justified suicide bombings. If thiswas indeed the case why did the Army not pay any attention. The practice of identity based sensitivity forced the authorities to turn a blind eye to the increasing radicalisation of one of their own. In a conflict between secular law and identity based fith based customs the Army must enforce the secular law and in the name of minority rights it cannot permit the radicalisation of its members.

Major Nidal seem,s to have been harassed for his muslim beliefs and humiliated for praticing his religion. By the same token, if an armyman or woman is humiliated the authorities concerned must make a full and complete inquiry and set right the fraying human relations. This is absolutely essential in a heterogenous army.

Finally, it would be a good idea not to deploy Muslims in the Army to serve in Irq and Afghanistan as they would have to fight fellow muslims. Secularists may not understand this, but practicing Muslims put faith above politics and the State.

major nidal fort hood army war terror
17,255 views 90 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

You're not the 'bad guy in the room,' Arty.  Just one of the wrong guys. ;)

Connecting a specific incident to a broad-based generalization about an entire group of people is always a dangerous proposition. Why? Because context matters.
End of quote

Agreed.  But the comments & concerns here have been specifically about Hasan, in a specific context.

Let's take a look at Jim Adkisson. He walked into a unitarian church and started shooting people specifically because of a hatred of gays, liberals and democrats.
End of quote

He was a domestic terrorist.  In fact, he fit Napolitano's definition better than Hasan does.  But please provide documentation that any of the people he actually killed were gays, liberals or democrats, and that Adkisson had specific knowledge of who was what beforehand.

He was a dyed in the wool conservative who followed the writings and media of O'reilly, Hannity and Savage religiously.
End of quote

Please provide one, just one, quote from any of O'Reilly's, Hannity's or Savage's writings which advocates the killing of anyone, much less gays, liberals and democrats.

Does this incident mean that the "conservative identity is becoming increasingly problematic in the USA"?  Not at all.
End of quote

Agreed.  Otherwise, Michael Chertoff would have been immediately issued a warning about a potential anti-conservative backlash.

But using the same logic for the Hasan shootings, it does.
End of quote

No, it doesn't.  The two situations were entirely different - as you said, context matters.

Look at Timothy Mcveigh. His actions killed a whole lot more people than either Adkisson or Hasan. Using the same logic that is being applied to Hasan, this would mean that any caucasian U.S military veteran should be barred from owning or bearing any kind of arms and be monitored by the State
End of quote

What 'logic' are you saying is being applied to Hasan here?  McVeigh was a domestic terrorist, no question, but what logic is being applied that, if applied to McVeigh, would dictate that all veterans be treated in the way you suggest?

Now, I'm not meaning to make folks angry here but stating that what Hasan did is indicative of Islam in general is using a pretty damn big brushstroke.
End of quote

No one is generalizing Hasan's actions to all Muslims.  To radical, jihadist Muslims, yes.  To Muslims who, while not advocates of or active participants in terrorist acts, nonetheless praise them, yes.  The charge that all Muslims are being painted with the same broad brush is a straw man.

The local recruits also face a major problem- they actually live in-country with their families, which means they are a huge target for the enemy. Anyone who's signed up to be a translator in Iraq and Afghanistan knowingly puts not just themselves but also their family in harm's way, so you could say they're taking a major risk and doing a very gutsy thing to help out the Americans.
End of quote

And to whom is it that they place themselves at risk?  Only the radical, jihadist Muslims, not to the overwhelming majority of Muslims, if indeed they are as peace-loving as you (and they) claim, something I believe to be true.

I seem to remember this CRAZY thing in Spain called the inquisition (church has just a teensy part to play in that) and the decimation of millions of aboriginals in the America's (north and south) in which we were just doing our Christian duty of spreading the faith to a supposedly backward people.
End of quote

Since context is the thing, what do these historical events have to do with Hasan?

Hasan appears to have had very specific beliefs incompatible with service in the US Military and, according to many first-hand accounts, spoke of them openly.  He identified himself as a 'Son of Allah' on his business card, no less.  He did not just 'snap' in the heat of battle or some other acute stress, notice laser-guided semi-automatic weapons in his pocket and begin firing them at whoever happened to be nearby.  He prayed, then went to a location where he knew large numbers of unarmed soldiers would be in a confined space, may have declared 'Allahu Akbar!' (reports vary) then began methodically murdering as many innocents as he could, including a woman and her unborn child.  If he was not an Al Qaeda sleeper, he was most certainly a wannabe.  If you truly believe that Hasan is no different than Adkisson or McVeigh, which apparently is going to be the official position of the US Government, then you and all of America are condemned to suffer more, perhaps many more, Hasans.  If we as a nation cannot scrutinize or question those who might do us harm, for fear of offending the sensitivities of Muslims who claim to be peaceloving and should be supporting us in such efforts, we will eventually be overrun by an enemy with no such PC queasiness.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

Especially, considering the media plays Iranians chatting "Marg bar Amreeka" WAIT WAIT! If you listen to most of the videos they're not saying that because that's in Farsi, they're saying "Al mout li Amreeka" which is in arabic. Hmmm strange how most Iranians speak Farsi.

End of quote

It's even stranger considering that those in Iran who do speak Arabic are the oppressed Sunni minority at the Persian Gulf who have better things to do then shout "death to America". Their extremists hate the Iranian regime, not the Americans (or even the Israelis).

Those are foreign Arabs imported to protest for the regime which is popular among certain Arab circles but not among Iranians.

When the revolt was going on violently a few months ago students from Tehran reported that their dorms were under attack by Arabic-speaking "security" people. Apparently Iran found a use for imported Hizbullah trainees. (Hizbullah is trained and equipped by Iran.)

It is apparent that the Iranian regime simply doesn't have enough actual Iranians who are willing to shout "death to America" these days.

Iranian (actual such) protesters are also busy shouting "death to the dictator" and "death to Russia" and burning Hizbullah flags at the moment. Very popular is also the shout "Not Gaza! Not Lebanon! Iran!". Iranians feel that the Iranian regime sends lots of money to those Arab groups while actual Iranians cannot buy petrol. (Note that fighting Israel has no value to most Iranians.)

The western media might just be trying to hide these things from viewers so as not to destroy the image of the America-hating evil Iranian.

The only America-hating evil Iranian is the one Obama wants to be friends with.

 

Star Control: Origins
Reply #53 from Stardock Forums Top

Daiwa

What 'logic' are you saying is being applied to Hasan here? McVeigh was a domestic terrorist, no question, but what logic is being applied that, if applied to McVeigh, would dictate that all veterans be treated in the way you suggest?
End of quote

I was responding to the OP's statement:

The horrific incident at Fort Hood, Texas, should come as a wake up call to all those in the American academia who promote identity based politics:Gays, lesbians, minority, sexual preference, etc etc. Now the Muslim identity is becoming increasingly problematic in the USA and I believe that years and years of promoting identity politics has left the country without the means of even admitting to itself that the islamic identity clashes head long with that of a secular nation state.
End of quote

 He has specifically said that the "islamic identity clashes head long with that of a secular state"

I was simply arguing that that is not the case. I was using the case of Adkisson and Mcveigh to demonstrate that the actions of one or two batshit crazy people should not be used to justify discrimination of an entire cultural or ethnic group. And the proof is in the pudding. Let's look at the numbers.

Since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars started (going on 8 years now) how many incidents have occurred in which Muslim members of the U.S forces have turned on their comrades???

Two. 2 incidents over 8 years of warfare. The first was around the beginning of the Iraq war when an army sargeant killed two officers and wounded 14 others. The other was the incident that we are talking about most recently.

Now, let me be clear that in no way am I justifying or condoning their actions. Quite the contrary. But, if you were to look at the number of "fraggings" that occurred in Vietnam... an interesting sidenote is that the combined U.S combat mission to Afghanistan and Iraq has now gone on longer than your involvement in Vietnam... that the amount of intentional fratricide carried out during that shorter period was much, much higher. Does this mean that the uniformed members who killed their comrades in Vietnam were "domestic terrorists" and indicative of a problem with "identity based politics"?

No, it doesn't. And yes, I'm fully aware that I'm comparing apples to oranges in the differences between Vietnam and Iraq (what with the whole unhappy conscript thing)

But let's look at Major Hasan's case. He was born, raised and educated in the U.S. He was in the army for years...you don't become a major overnight... and if this cafeteria shooting rampage was a planned act of terrorism that was part of a bigger plan, then the planner is a complete and utter retard who wasted a once in a lifetime opportunity. -IF- Major Hasan was actually a terrorist, he would have gladly deployed overseas as he could have done far, far more damage as a high ranking officer deployed in a combat zone. Nothing could kill more servicemembers than a traitor in their midst either passing sensitive info to the enemy or actively working with them.

Or, if he didn't deploy and was meant to be used as a domestic terrorist, again, what he did was the most idiotic thing imaginable. Groups like AQ would have killed (literally) for the opportunity of having an officer with a relatively high rank situated within their enemy's military. Rank has it's privileges and the higher you go the less questions tend to get asked as to what you're doing!

Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

But let's look at Major Hasan's case. He was born, raised and educated in the U.S. He was in the army for years...you don't become a major overnight... and if this cafeteria shooting rampage was a planned act of terrorism that was part of a bigger plan, then the planner is a complete and utter retard who wasted a once in a lifetime opportunity. -IF- Major Hasan was actually a terrorist, he would have gladly deployed overseas as he could have done far, far more damage as a high ranking officer deployed in a combat zone. Nothing could kill more servicemembers than a traitor in their midst either passing sensitive info to the enemy or actively working with them.

Or, if he didn't deploy and was meant to be used as a domestic terrorist, again, what he did was the most idiotic thing imaginable. Groups like AQ would have killed (literally) for the opportunity of having an officer with a relatively high rank situated within their enemy's military. Rank has it's privileges and the higher you go the less questions tend to get asked as to what you're doing!
End of quote

Are you trying to say that his religion had nothing to do this?  Let me get this right for it seems you feel that him going to war and unfairness of that is the reason he snapped?

Do you even understand what any Islamic extremist groups main goal is?  Most Islamic extremist don't view Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, or Israel/PA conflict as different seperate wars but as one war on many different fronts.  What you might feel is a lost may not be a lost.  

The media is playing right into their hand. To keep pushing that Islamic extremist (in reality they're the fundalmentalist) are not the problem.  That this is just a 'few' individiuals who have hijacked a 'peaceful' religion.  When I read the hadith I see nothing 'peaceful' about this religion.  The only 'peaceful' thing I see about it is if they get what they want (which they won't). 

Islamic extremist are getting what they want in Europe.  In 2007, in the Netherlands about 20% percent of the population are foreign Muslims (these are radical).  You probably don't know this because most people in the states don't, in France there have been several big riots (2005,2007,2009) all done by Muslims.  In parts of France, they already have Sharia law in place.  In Michiagan, there are several cities pushing for it and already exact it.  I could continue down the list, but oh wait this is just some random individuals.

While you can go and say that this was just some random flake.  When are you going to STOP BEING SO DAFT and open your eyes to reality instead of listen to make-believe?

Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sounds like we (sort of) agree, Arty.

Whether AQ was formally involved is not the issue, though I hardly think it is beyond possibility - asymmetric, isolated acts of terror such as this massacre would seem to fit their publicly espoused desire to instill fear through random, unpredictable violence in places of presumed safety.  I'd also have no difficulty accepting that AQ operatives could fool the living shit out of our so-called security experts.

He held a jihadist point of view, whether or not he had any formal ties with AQ (how 'formal' would you expect such ties to be, BTW?), and appears to have acted upon those views & beliefs.  That qualifies him as a terrorist.  I agree that doesn't implicate all Muslims as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.  It does implicate that subset of Muslims with a similar set of beliefs, however - the paint brush indeed reaches that far.

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

Footnote: As for the 'snapped' theory, it appears he never counseled troops 'returning' from the theater, only troops about to be deployed.  So PTSD-by-proxy, a contagious disease of dubious legitimacy if there ever was one, is out.  If he had any stress, it had to do with him personally, with his own fears or desire to avoid deployment.  Someone who is stresed about someone else being stressed doesn't murder them to save them from that stress.  That's twisting logic way past the breaking point.

Another point as to his rank and the notion that promotion means he must have had something going for him - with physicians, promotion is a formality (not competitive) up to a certain rank (usually 3 bars) and pretty much automatic, coinciding with certain milestones such as graduation from medical school and completion of a residency (unless things have drastically changed since I was in).  You'd have to screw up pretty badly to miss essentially 'scheduled' promotions up to 3 bars.

Reply #58 from Stardock Forums Top

Do you even understand what any Islamic extremist groups main goal is?
End of quote

Well, in the case of AQ, yes I do. Bin Laden gave a rare live interview in the 90's in which he laid out his position quite nicely. He stated that he was going to carry out terror attacks on the U.S, and that he was hoping this would provoke a reaction from the Americans who would respond by invading at least one (or, in his mind, hopefully more) Muslim countries. This would give his and other fringe groups wonderful recruiting opportunities as well as targets, as well has turn public sentiment in many arab countries against the Americans.

And look how it's turned out. In Afghanistan, AQ fled (you never got the actual guy responsible for 9/11) and now the U.S is engaged in a long term battle against the Taliban that is unwinnable. In Iraq you've claimed "victory" after buying off the felows who were shooting at you but the Iraqi government has passed a law stating that U.S combat personnel have to leave the country in just under 3 years time, meanwhile the government is majority shiite that is heavily influenced by Iran. And never mind the total 3 trillion dollar cost of the whole thing (all on VISA with compound interest) or the 35,000 and counting U.S casualties.

So far, the U.S has quite literally played right into the hands of those who attacked it on 9/11, as worldwide sentiment is no longer on it's side. The U.S armed forces have been stretched in so many areas (both personnel and materiel) thanks to the longest continuous combat deployment in the history of your nation, with some servicemen having conducted 3 or 4 tours overseas. If you include returning servicemen with PTSD as casualties, then the number swells to well over a hundred thousand or more young men and women who will no longer live normal lives and, unfortunately stand a good chance of ending up in prison or on the streets.

Islamic extremist are getting what they want in Europe. In 2007, in the Netherlands about 20% percent of the population are foreign Muslims (these are radical).
End of quote

20% of the Netherlands population are radical Muslims?!?! My Gods, it must be a veritable hell-hole over there!

Wait, hold on one second..... isn't Amsterdam part of the Netherlands? And, can't folks in Amsterdam purchase and smoke weed in cafe's and take a stroll through a comely little place called the red light district where one can make the aquaintance of a nice gal (or guy) for a reasonable price????

Methinks Sharia would not look too kindly on that.

Oh, wait, I just remembered. One of my childhood friends is also from the Netherlands. He goes back there every few years to visit family and do the vacation thing. I'll go ask him what an utter hell-hole the Netherlands is.

While you can go and say that this was just some random flake. When are you going to STOP BEING SO DAFT and open your eyes to reality instead of listen to make-believe?
End of quote

Well, I'd like to know what your reality is. Tell me "the people's party"...... how many radical muslim terrorists do you know on a first name basis? This has to be someone that lives in your town and that you talk to every day, not a picture you saw on the web... and not someone you "think" is a terrorist but someone who actually is.

Let me tell you my story.

I work with several Muslims. In my department at work, we have one fellow from Yemen, three from Pakistan, two from India and one from Bangladesh and also one from Sri Lanka. Also working for the same company are at least 2 Palestinians and 3 Lebanese, all of the above are Muslim. We also have Phillipinos (spelling?)  Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Polish, Chinese and so on and so forth. We're a veritable united nations!

The most tension or problems in the group has been between the folks from India and Pakistan when it comes to Cricket matches. I don't follow the sport so can't say what the hubbub is about.

About the most dangerous thing I've seen any of my Muslim co-workers do is when they had me over to smoke Shisha and have some of their home dishes. FYI, Lebanese food is good but make sure you take small portions because you'll be expected to have several courses.

Oh, and when we have a pizza day we make sure to get a couple of pies that have no pork on them, which is the same consideration we would have if there was a Jewish person in the group.

Outside of work, I know even more Muslims. My local coffee shop is owned and operated by Muslisms and there's a very nice couple who own and run a mean falafel house just down the street. These are all people I consider to be my friends and would not in any way consider to be "radical".

So, I can honestly say that I don't know any terrorists on a first name basis, but yet all of the Muslim folks I've met seem to be pretty decent human beings. 

Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, I'd like to know what your reality is. Tell me "the people's party"...... how many radical muslim terrorists do you know on a first name basis? This has to be someone that lives in your town and that you talk to every day, not a picture you saw on the web... and not someone you "think" is a terrorist but someone who actually is.
End of quote

I lived in Gaza Strip.  I'm not some neonate. Need I say more but this is just a pissing contest. You try to push it off with the Amsterdam comment as if I don't know that? So just because a culture is open to everything MAKES IT PERFECT for Muslim Extremist.  Hitler got power by using democracy to his advantage.  The more open a society it is the easier it will be to get to what you want.

You know the 9-11 hijackors some of them were in Florida in place near Panama City.  Since, I'm guessing you're not from the States, Panama City is where spring breakers go.  Essentially, the five-o (aka the police) are just there to make sure no riot breaks out.  At night, everything else is essentially alright (you know except for the obvious murder). 

I will respond more later I have to get up early tomorrow.  Yes, to your question about Terriorist and yes to your question that I know/have friends that are Muslim.

Maybe you should just pick up and read the hadith (which I'm sure you googled it when I first mentioned it). NOTICE HOW I DIDN'T SAY THE QUR'AN.

On a final note, you try to use a few personal connections to defend your point? As if that's logical.  Again, maybe you should read the hadith.

 

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

In Iraq you've claimed "victory" after buying off the felows who were shooting at you but the Iraqi government has passed a law stating that U.S combat personnel have to leave the country in just under 3 years time, meanwhile the government is majority shiite that is heavily influenced by Iran.

End of quote

You are aware that the Iraqi government is fighting Iran-supported militias?

 

And never mind the total 3 trillion dollar cost of the whole thing (all on VISA with compound interest) or the 35,000 and counting U.S casualties.

End of quote

Having been born in Germany I cannot share your enthusiasm for letting dictators live because pf the high cost of removing them from power.

 

So far, the U.S has quite literally played right into the hands of those who attacked it on 9/11,

End of quote

You think Al-Qaeda wanted to hide in caves while the Shiites become a world power?

 

as worldwide sentiment is no longer on it's side

End of quote

Was it ever?

 

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

Maybe you should just pick up and read the hadith (which I'm sure you googled it when I first mentioned it). NOTICE HOW I DIDN'T SAY THE QUR'AN.
End of quote

How quaint! I didn't realize that "the" hadith was a single document. Oh wait, it isn't!

There are several hadiths, some of which are only considered by the Shia, some by the Sunni and so forth. So, please, clarify for me which hadith(s) you are talking about.

In regards to personal connections, I was using that as my empirical basis for stating that, of the muslims I know personally, who come from all over the planet, they have all fitted in fine with the multi-cultural community that I live in here in Canada. Ergo, I find no fault with their religion.

Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sirat Rasul Allah 576-579 "allah and his servant overwhelmed the cowards.  allah honored us and made islam victorious.  We were glorified and destroyed them all.  allah humiliated them in the worship of the satan. By what muhammod recites from the qur'an and by our swift horses, I liked the punishment the non-believers received. Killing them all was sweeter than drink.  We galloped among them panting for more spoil.  With one loud voiced army, muhammod's forces advanced....."

Surah (that's from the qur'an since you have so many friends that are muslim I'm sure you know that) 9:29 'Fight those who believe not in allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are of the people of the Book (referring to the Bible), untile they pay the jizya (that's a tax) with willingness submissionn, and feel themselves subdued.'

Surah 4:89 ' They but wish that you should reject the faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they are: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of allah from what is forbidden.  But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

Surah 8:39 'Fight them until there is no more persecutions and islam is for allah.'

Sirat Rasul Allah 587 'Our onslaught will not be a weak affair.  We will fight as long as we live.  We will fight until all have turned to islam.  We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of allah and islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace'

Al-Bukhari 4:386 'Our prophet, the messenger of our lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship allah alone, or you pay the jizyah (a tax); and our prophet has informed us that our lord says: 'whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr there's shall be Paradise to lead such a luxurious life......'

Surah 8:15-16  'O you who believe!  When you meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.  If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own) - he draws on himself the wrath of allah, and his abode is hell0 an evil refuge!'

Tabari 9:69 'We were the first to respond to the call of the prophet.  We are allah's helpers and the viziers of his messenger.  We fight people until they believe in allah.  He who believes in allah and his messenger has protected his life and possessions from us.  As for the unbelievers, we will fight them forever in the will of allah.  Killing them is but a small matter to us.'

Sirat Rasul Allah 208 'When allah gave permisison to muhammod to fight, the second al-aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first al-aqaba.  Now we bound ourselves to fight against all mankind for allah and muhammad.  The promised reward in paradise for faithful service.  We pledged ourselves to fight in complete obedience to muhammad no matter how bad the circumstances.'

If you want I could go on. As you can see I just didn't stick with the qu'ran.  When you look at the life of muhammad you get a clearier picture. Obviously though, you're versed in all of this considering you have friends who are muslims.

What can a person gain by reading the texts that islam calls to be holy.  I'm sure that you've thoroughly have read them and have come to your conclusion.

The terrorist faction in islam may not be shared by most muslims but it can't be denied as being a part of islam and is prevalent in countries that have an islamic theocracy. Islamic fundamnetalists can not be ignored or denied.  Certainly it is true that not ALL muslims are terrorists.  The majority of terrorists are muslim as you can see from this text.  That was one of the reasons Ashraf, who was a jewish poet, who mocked muhammad was killed.  Sirat Rasul Allah 368 ' We carried his head back to muhammad during the night, saluted the prphet as he stood praying, and cast Ashraf's head before his feet.  The prophet praised allah that the poet had been slain, and complimented us on the good work we had done in allah's will.  Our attack upon allah's enemy has cast terror among the jews, and there was no jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.'

Again, what do I know, I've just studied their holy texts for 8+ years.

 

 

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

Here's the most bizarrely funny 'analysis' I've come across yet.  The shitpile just gets deeper each day, as more nutjobs cower in fear of the 'backlash'.

Reply #64 from Stardock Forums Top

tHE REACTION HAS RANGED FROM THE PHILOSOPHICAL TO THE BIZZARE. WHEN I BLAME IDENTITY POLITICS FOR THE CRIME I AM SAYING THAT THE VALORISATION OF IDENTITY OVER OTHER ASPECTS OF AN INDIVIDUALS'S PERSONALITY BECOME THE RESOURCE THAT CAN AND IS USED TO MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO DO THINGS THAT THEY WOULD OTHERWISE NOT DO. ALSO IDENTITY POLITICS, BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIVIDUAL SELF EXPRESSION, ONLY ENCOURAGES EXTREMIST IDEOLOGIES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRAINT. NOW EVEN TIMOTHY McVEIGH WAS, I BELIEVE A PRODUCT OF IDENTIRY POLITICS EXECPT THAT HE WAS INFLUENCED MORE BY SURVIVILIST CULTS THAN ISLAM.

Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'd venture to say that McVeigh was influenced more by anger & hatred over Waco than anything else.

Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top

Bahu, caps typing is really annoying to read - and it does not emphasize your argument at all. You raise an interesting issue, one that has kept people busy in the past - the struggle between culture and personal identity. It's hardly a new topic, though. You can trace it in litereature centuries back, one prominent example from the 20ies is Zora Neale Hurston's "Their eyes were watching god". You could find it in chicano literature in the US, I am sure there are many other examples that I am not aware of. It's a bit easy to blame a policy, don't you think?

Reply #67 from Stardock Forums Top

Hi the_peoples_party;

What can a person gain by reading the texts that islam calls to be holy. I'm sure that you've thoroughly have read them and have come to your conclusion.
End of quote

As you didn't address in my earlier posting, please elaborate on which sects of Islam believe these hadiths? The reason I ask, is, as I'm sure you're familiar, different sects of Islam condone different hadiths. The Shia and Sunni certainly don't agree on the same ones. Furthermore, certain groups, like the Wahabi (an artificial religion actually created with the help of the British) have utterly barbaric and backwards customs yet I do not consider someone who is a Wahabi to be indicative of all Islam, anymore so than I would consider anyone who is a polygamist off-shoot from the mormon church to be indicative of all Christians.

But, let's not split hairs. If you want to talk about holy texts indicating a problem with a religion, then Christianity and Judaism have a big ol' bullseye thanks to books like Leviticus.

Have you read Leviticus in the bible?

Quick recap;

God kill's Aaron's sons on the spot simply because they brought the wrong incense to the altar.

Slavery is openly condoned, although it explicitly defines that Jews can only take slaves that are non-Jewish.

All kinds of offenses are defined which MUST result in the death penalty:

9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

- all the "shall be put to death" statements go on and are quite interesting, but include such oldies but goldies as incest, bestiality and so forth. Oh, let's not forget homosexuality-

13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

And, just to throw into the mix, one of my favs:

27: A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

So, if you're a wizard, watch out!!!

Anywho, as you're a studied scholar I'm sure I don't need to go on. Suffice it to say, that just as you have used the above hadiths to "prove" that Islam is a barbaric religion, I too would then like to present the book of Leviticus as proof that Christianity and Judaism is also equally barbaric, what with the multiple forms of capital punishment, multiple offenses which include eating particular types of seafood and so forth.

Oh yeah, and one last thing. At the end of Leviticus, God makes it very clear that if you don't follow all the rules he sets down:

"31: And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.
32: And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it.
33: And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.
34: Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. "

Oh, yeah, there was a bunch of stuff before that where he also stipulated that offenders would have to resort to cannibalism and suffer

"wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your highways shall be desolate."

So, the peoples party, if Islam is truly such a threat then so is Christianity and Judaism, and we should all work together to abolish all three!!!!

 

Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quick recap;

End of quote

You come from a Christian background and therefor perhaps don't know...

The Tanakh, what the Christians call the Old Testament, is only half the Jewish holy book. The other half was transmitted orally and written down from 200 CE. The three books of the Tanakh are called Torah (Instruction), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). The other half, the fourth book, is called the Talmud (Study).

Most of the below are explained further in the Talmud and ancient Israel never carried out any of the death penalties (because the oral tradition forbade it).

Also note that the Hebrew for "shall" doesn't exist. There are only two tenses in Hebrew, perfect and imperfect. What is translated as "shall xxx" is really an imperfect and could also be translated as "may xxx" or "will xxx".

 

God kill's Aaron's sons on the spot simply because they brought the wrong incense to the altar.

End of quote

No problem. G-d is allowed to kill people. This is not a guideline for us to follow but an explanation of a death.

 

Slavery is openly condoned, although it explicitly defines that Jews can only take slaves that are non-Jewish.

End of quote

Slavery is also limited and regulated. Slaves are entitled to days off and have to be released after a certain number of years. It is also not condoned, but merely dealt with.

Slavery existed, Jewish law regulated it. That was a big improvement. At no point does the Bible insist on slavery being legal. It merely says that if it is, it has to be practiced in certain ways. Note that that laws was updated later. It only applied over 3000 years ago.

 

All kinds of offenses are defined which MUST result in the death penalty:

9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 

End of quote

Again, "will die", not "shall die".

The oral tradition made the distinction very clear.

 


10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

End of quote

Don't know what the Hebrew text says there, but this is again something that rarely happened because enforcing it would contradict the oral law.

 

- all the "shall be put to death" statements go on and are quite interesting, but include such oldies but goldies as incest, bestiality and so forth. Oh, let's not forget homosexuality-

End of quote

Yes, those statements go on and on, and the "shall" issue remains.

(This applies to some statements in the Quran as well. Arabic also only has two tenses, perfect and imperfect.)

 

13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

End of quote

You won't find many Jewish communities who practice that.

 

And, just to throw into the mix, one of my favs:

27: A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

So, if you're a wizard, watch out!!!

End of quote

I don't see that as a problem. Harry Potter is not real. And "wizards" back then were not what you imagine today.

 

Anywho, as you're a studied scholar I'm sure I don't need to go on. Suffice it to say, that just as you have used the above hadiths to "prove" that Islam is a barbaric religion, I too would then like to present the book of Leviticus as proof that Christianity and Judaism is also equally barbaric, what with the multiple forms of capital punishment, multiple offenses which include eating particular types of seafood and so forth.

End of quote

I think his point was that there are Muslims who actually follow those hadiths, not that the mere existence of the words proves that much.

We have gay members in our congregations. If there were a movement to execute them I would have noticed. I do the security at the door.

And yes, certain types of seafood are forbidden for Jews. And I believe that I will die when I eat them, eventually. But I will also die if I don't. Religious and traditional Jews follow religious laws out of love for the Creator and because it binds Jews together, not out of fear of divine or human-administrated punishment.

 

Oh yeah, and one last thing. At the end of Leviticus, God makes it very clear that if you don't follow all the rules he sets down:

"31: And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours. 
32: And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it. 
33: And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. 
34: Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. "

End of quote

And I am sure He will if we go too far.

I grew up in a city that went too far and was made waste. Of course G-d didn't have to do it Himself...

 

Oh, yeah, there was a bunch of stuff before that where he also stipulated that offenders would have to resort to cannibalism and suffer

"wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your highways shall be desolate."

So, the peoples party, if Islam is truly such a threat then so is Christianity and Judaism, and we should all work together to abolish all three!!!!

End of quote

I am all for it. Let's violently oppose any community that actually thinks these laws have to be enforced by us (and not G-d alone).

But I am already doing that, am I not?

 

 

Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top

What do you mean, Harry Potter is not real?! 8C

I couldn't resist.

Your most current debate does not really have to do anything with Hasan.

I don't know if there is a solution to the problem of defining ones identity if the choice is either or. Evidently, Hasan decided that he was not an American but rather a fundamentalist muslim, and that his religious identity trumps the constitution and everything else. But that general problem of who you are and what defines a person is not restricted to religion, as I tried to point out (edit: Their eyes were watching god was published in 1937). This book does not really parallel this case, but the problem is not so different. Zora Neale Hurston was even strongly criticized by her contemporary black writers that her character wasn't black enough because she dared to write a book about gender issues rather than ethnicity. It's a book about a woman who happens to be black and not  the other way around. 

What does that have to do with anything about the debate regarding the nature of Islam and Hasan? On the surface, nothing.But this whole debate comes down to the question, was he an american muslim or a muslim who had an american passport - and that question is transferable to many other issues. It would be more productive to look for answers and solutions to negate the huge devide between the two that evidently exists instead of debating wether Islam is violent or not and who has more knowledge and friends to prove their statement.

Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top

Evidently, Hasan decided that he was not an American but rather a fundamentalist muslim, and that his religious identity trumps the constitution and everything else. 

End of quote

You mean his evil identity,

There is nothing "religious" about murdering unarmed people.

 

Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top

Duh Leauki. There are numerous examples throughout history to show that religion has been used as carte blanche to murder unarmed people. If those actions were true to religion or not doesn't really change the facts for me - because it had been sanctioned in the name of religion at the time and the people committing those acts had believed it. Right now I am thinking about the crusades (an obvious example) and more specifically against the Katharer/Albigenser in South France.

 

Allegedly, Hasan derived his identity from however precieved religious faith and that had more importance for him than say, being an US army office and all that goes with that.

Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top

"What can a person gain by reading the texts that islam calls to be holy. I'm sure that you've thoroughly have read them and have come to your conclusion.

As you didn't address in my earlier posting, please elaborate on which sects of Islam believe these hadiths? The reason I ask, is, as I'm sure you're familiar, different sects of Islam condone different hadiths. The Shia and Sunni certainly don't agree on the same ones."

Quoting Leauki, reply 68
I think his point was that there are Muslims who actually follow those hadiths, not that the mere existence of the words proves that much.
End of Leauki's quote

 

Yes, that's what I meant Leauki! You can go to any to the hadiths and read them.  You see how Muhammad behaved.  You see how your suppose to live like Muhammad.

 

Quoting Artysim, reply 67


Have you read Leviticus in the bible?

Slavery is openly condoned, although it explicitly defines that Jews can only take slaves that are non-Jewish.

 
End of Artysim's quote

 

Leviticus, what's that? Sorry couldn't resist.  Most of Leauki's points are well and I just wanted to highlight on this one.  People in today's society we have this superiority complex when it comes to people from the past.  I've notice people living today think that we are intellectual elist society because we have airplanes, nuclear bombs, we can talk on mobile phones (aka cell phones), and we have something called the internet (thank you Al Gore).  People also feel that our society is much more civil than those ancient barbaric societys. 

We bring society up to our time thinking some how we are so superior and great compared to them.  This annoys me because first of all of our technology is based off of past technology.  Second, there are somethings that these 'ancient barbaric' people did that we can't do/replicate.  An example of this is a roman/greek era metal spears.  The craftmanship is so much more beyond anything we can replicate.  We've tried to replicate them and we can make them but not at the quality that they made these metal spears. 

Now with the whole slavery thing as Leauki stated:

Slavery is also limited and regulated. Slaves are entitled to days off and have to be released after a certain number of years. It is also not condoned, but merely dealt with.

Slavery existed, Jewish law regulated it. That was a big improvement. At no point does the Bible insist on slavery being legal. It merely says that if it is, it has to be practiced in certain ways. Note that that laws was updated later. It only applied over 3000 years ago.
End of quote

G-D constantly was telling the Isralites to be kind to their slaves for they too were once slaves.  If you go to any of the surrounding countries and compare how the Isralities treated their slaves and how the surrounding nations treated their slaves the Israelites treated their slaves way better.  Particularly setting them free after so many years.

Most of the things that G-D had the Israelites do the surrounding nations did not do.  During that time period, what the Israelites were doing was radically different than the surrounding nations.  That was the purpose to be light to all nations.

All the verses that you pointed were DIRECTED TO THE ISRAELITES and HOW THEY WERE TO ACT.

There is no comparison between that and the point that we have been discussing for they are two different things.

 

Quoting Artysim, reply 67
Hi the_peoples_party;


What can a person gain by reading the texts that islam calls to be holy. I'm sure that you've thoroughly have read them and have come to your conclusion.
As you didn't address in my earlier posting, please elaborate on which sects of Islam believe these hadiths? The reason I ask, is, as I'm sure you're familiar, different sects of Islam condone different hadiths. The Shia and Sunni certainly don't agree on the same ones. Furthermore, certain groups, like the Wahabi (an artificial religion actually created with the help of the British) have utterly barbaric and backwards customs yet I do not consider someone who is a Wahabi to be indicative of all Islam, anymore so than I would consider anyone who is a polygamist off-shoot from the mormon church to be indicative of all Christians.
End of Artysim's quote
.

If you talk to most Christians that read their scriptures on a regular bases they do not consider mormons christians, but that is neither here nor there.

 

Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top

I tried to get my quotes out of your quotes but its not working.  I even deleted the area that said such and such person quote and it insists that its still there.

I gave up and just bolded my quotes.

Its currently has gone fubar.

My sincere apologies for the reading monstrosity that I have created. 

Utemia, my point to the discussion was you need to get the root cause.  The root cause is in their holy texts for some of these show how Muhammad lived.

I do understand what you are saying but that's just an underlining issue that is caused by the root issue.  Again, that is why I've state what their holy text has said and not saying well my friend Afzal says this and he does this.

Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top

Duh Leauki. There are numerous examples throughout history to show that religion has been used as carte blanche to murder unarmed people

End of quote

And you are adding to that by referring to evil as "religion".

 

Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Shia and Sunni certainly don't agree on the same ones. Furthermore, certain groups, like the Wahabi (an artificial religion actually created with the help of the British) have utterly barbaric and backwards customs yet I do not consider someone who is a Wahabi to be indicative of all Islam, anymore so than I would consider anyone who is a polygamist off-shoot from the mormon church to be indicative of all Christians.

End of quote

You are right that Wahabi'ism is artificial. But what do the British have to do with it? Muhammed Ibn Abd Al-Wahab never had any contact with the British, did he?