Posted by Tina
It will be awhile before anything "official" is decided regarding the attack that killed and wounded American military personel at Fort Hood but investigations by journalists have resulted in some very disturbing news:
From the Telegraph (UK):
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year. ** The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. ** Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree. ** As investigators look at Hasan's motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. ** He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July. ** Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe. ** Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."
From the Wall Street Journal:
"Lieberman Suggests Army Shooter Was 'Home-Grown Terrorist'," by Brody Mullins - Wall Street Journal
A senior U.S. senator on Sunday said the shootings at Fort Hood could have been a terrorist attack, and that he would launch a congressional investigation into whether the U.S. military could have prevented it.Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist" who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress.
Leftist sentiment is expressed in the Guardian (UK):
"Obama acts as anti-Muslim anger threatens to engulf US," by Paul Hood
President Barack Obama yesterday sought to head off a potential anti-Muslim backlash from the Fort Hood shootings by praising the ethnic and religious diversity of US armed forces. ** Obama devoted his weekly radio broadcast to the massacre in Texas. "We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing," Obama said, "But what we do know is that our thoughts are with every single one of the men and women who were injured at Fort Hood." He added that memorial services held by the military worldwide revealed how diverse the organisation was. "They are Americans of every race, faith, and station. They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers. They are descendants of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America," Obama said. ** The comments were aimed at defusing any potential backlash against American Muslims in the wake of the shootings. Some conservative commentators and rightwing Christian evangelicals have broadcast anti-Islamic comments on radio stations. Callers to talk radio shows have wondered if Muslims in the US military should be subject to some form of special monitoring.
The inability of the American left to distinguish between Islam and Islamic radical fanatics is astounding. Great care has been taken to differentiate and soften the message so as not to offend Muslims of the Islamic faith. Slandering "conservative commentators", their "callers", and 'rightwing Christian evangelicals" is all in a days work, however when expressing concern for Muslims. Of course care must be taken to acknowledge and protect innocent Muslims, however, denial is not a helpful or effective way to address this growing worldwide problem. Villification for being willing to speak the truth is a dangerous path for a country that wishes to protect and sustain Liberty.
The same article reveals that many American Muslims can connect the dots:
Muslim groups in Texas and nationally have rushed to issue statements condemning the shootings. "Under no circumstances - religious, political, or social - can such an act be justified or tolerated," said a statement from Central Texas Muslims.
The world needs much more of this and it must be demonstably sincere. It must be reflected in books and teachings and in issued statements by high level Imams. Denial and silence will only give encouragement to those bent on "killing the infidel".
From The Spectator (UK):
"Jihadi Denial Syndrome reaches epidemic proportions," by Melanie Phillips - Spectator (UK)
Americans were particularly astounded that Islamists were even being recruited to serve in the British police and other parts of the establishment. ** The fact was, however, as I have written and said on a number of occasions, America was going in a similar direction, albeit more slowly and with a quite different demographic. While the vast majority of its Muslim citizens appeared to be people who really had come to the US to get a slice of the good life and had signed up to American values, there was a growing element amongst US Muslims which was becoming steadily radicalised. Worse still, the FBI and other counter-terrorism agencies had been influenced by their appeasement-minded British cousins in the security world peddling their wholly false analysis of Islamic terrorism as having nothing to do with religion, encouraging US officials similarly to downplay or passively allow the rise of US radicalisation. ** (regarding Hasan)... not only did the US authorities ignore these warning signs that its army psychiatrist was an Islamist fanatic - it has been revealed that he was even a member of the Homeland Security panel advising on the presidential transition -- but much of the media reaction to the atrocity on both sides of the Atlantic has demonstrated an astounding state of denial. The BBC tried to close off any possibility that this was a jihadi attack and then appeared to lose interest in the story altogether; while the Guardian maintained that the victims of the atrocity were not the American military but the Muslim community, on the basis of revenge attacks against them of which, thankfully, there has been as yet not one sign.
While Muslims in the US, PC liberal media types, and even the present administration show great concern about possible "backlash" because of the shooting event at Fort Hood the truth of the matter is that Americans are not, for the most part, likely to take vengefull action in retaliation. They didn't under George Bush and they won't under Barrack Obama. Americans believe strongly in the rule of law. We expect and rely upon our government to use our military to protect us from attack and we rely upon law enforcement to investigate and arrest guilty parties to bring them to justice.
At the same time, the expectation that Americans should not feel anger or hold certain suspicions about those we do not know in the Muslim community is ridiculous. Likewise fears that Americans will turn on Muslims in any great proportions is also ridiculous. It is understood that those who do will be dealt with. This is the essence of our faith in the rule of law. In fact, when it comes to attacks on innocent Muslims the focus for everyone should be on the militancy of radical Islamists. We should all be focused on their disregard for both the rule of law and the rules of war. Muslims have been attacked and killed, or maimed, by fellow Muslims in much greater numbers than by Americans, including by our military. This is a decades long Muslim problem.
It is true that we defend ourselves and our freedom as we wage war on the extreme radicals of Islamic faith, but it is also true that Americans are taking the lead in defense of peaceful Islam, we are spending a great deal of our treasure defending peaceful Islam, and some of us are sacrificing personal time, shedding blood, and dieing in defense of peaceful Islam.
None of us can afford to be complacent, to settle in to comfortable detachment. The time to connect the dots is now...and now...and now...until our mutual enemy is defeated.
From the AP:
"The London Telegraph first reported the potential link between Hasan and the mosque.
"Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Sunday it's important for the country not to get caught up in speculation about Hasan's Muslim faith, and he has instructed his commanders to be on the lookout for anti-Muslim reaction to the killings at the Texas post."
They'll have to look out for Post Scripts, too.
"anti Muslim reactions"? Oh my gosh. I forgot. Thanks for the reminder!!!
Every single Muslim American is a "special" PC protected person because he is part of a special group. Any member of this specail group is protected even if he commits mass murder. We can't risk offending other Muslim Americans by noticing certain facts about this Muslims behavior and associations because special Americans are different and as such are entitled to special treatment. Everyone knows that we've already begun to enact special laws to give people in special groups extra special legal protections for just this reason. You can't just let people speculate or run around drawing conclusions!
If this murderer was a white skinned Republican dude from Alabama with Christian and NRA associations it would be different mind you. Then it would be perfectly OK to scream his associations from the roof tops. In fact it would be extremely critical to mention them over and over and over again so everyone would be sure to realize how dangerous and evil Christians and people who belong to the NRA are. The president himself mentioned these people when he said they were "clinging to their religion and guns". If this person were a fanatic and had attended a KKK meeting with a buddy in his ill spent youth it would immediately become conclusive damning evidence! We would be told that the people have a right to know.
However, there are some exceptions to the whites aren't special rule. Had a white skinned person who in his ill spent youth done subversive things against his government, including setting bombs, he would be excused for those activities. he would be welcomed into the acedemic community as a hero of his time. He would become an advisor to certain PC presidents. Some whites can gain special status because of their associations and when they do they too become protected. It is considered wrong and ill-advised to notice their associations and activities as well.
All fun and games aside, General Casey has no choice but to make this statement. His commander-in-chief has declared a PC contingency operation is in effect and declared that certain "associations" don't really exist...wink wink.
Gathering information is not "jumping to conclusions". Gathering information is gathering information. It's what people do when something like this happens. If they're smart they do it before something like this happens...which is the real point of this piece. The name of the post, "connecting the dots", is a reminder that 911 happened because we failed to connect the dots. That seemed to be an important point at the time...that we had failed to notice what was right before our very eyes. Gathering information is in no way a call to target Muslim friends and neighbors for derision or harassment or to blame them for this massacre by association. It is about noticing what goes on around us and developing the smarts to respond appropriately when big red flags wave and loud bells are ringing.
I want to know a lot more about this guy's history. One report said a guy knew him living in Washington a few years ago with two kids, like a single dad. Was he married? If so, how did it end? Does he have kids? Where are they? I hear his parents are dead. How? How did he go from a fairly normal guy in the 1990's to a loner observing an extreme form of Islam?
And how did the Army let that process unfold without investigating his fitness for duty?
How about this one?...If this is an act of terror could Hasan’s defense claim he was part of the War on Terror AND since he was wearing a uniform is entitled to the protections of a prisoner of war as stipulated by the Geneva Convention? OR, since he was wearing the uniform of the force he was fighting against, could he be considered a spy? Lawyers will try anything. If he survives, classifying this as an act of terrorism could create some unique legal issues.
Reading the article on Lieberman, I would think his caution is well advised.
We don’t yet know whether the shooter was a terrorist who intended to effect political change through a public spectacle of violence, or simply a nut-job mass murderer who killed people he hated. Or perhaps something else.
We should keep in mind that, no matter what his political or religious sympathies, his intentions remain a mystery, at least until until he speaks to the investigators about the incident and his obvious crime.
What do they mean, “a congressional investigation into whether the U.S. military could have prevented it”?
Just because the shooter wasn’t in touch with some sort of “Terrorist Central Administration” doesn’t mean the motive wasn’t clear.
The press are tone deaf and AWOL on this whole thing.
One thing which is certain: If George Bush were still in the White House, every reporter in American would be screaming “TERRORISM!!!” and shouting from the rooftops that the president wasn’t doing anything/enough/the right sort of thing, ad nauseum.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Since 9/11 how many terrorist attacks were committed on American soil during the 7 1/2 years under Bush?
Answer = 0
In the 10 months of Obama there has been one attack.
How many more will he allow before his butt is voted out in 2012? And for any liberal here, he WILL be gone in January 2013 and you know it too.
Interesting quote from the story on the "Jihadi Denial Syndrome reaches epidemic proportions" story about the media's reaction to all this. I just have one reaction.
Thank goodness for the Internet.
"Every single Muslim American is a "special" PC protected person because he is part of a special group. Any member of this specail group is protected even if he commits mass murder."
In what way is Hasan being "protected?"
"Everyone knows that we've already begun to enact special laws to give people in special groups extra special legal protections for just this reason."
If you're talking about the new hate crimes bill, you're either lying or misinformed. Under this bill, every single person in the country falls into one of these "special groups," because the bill protects victims of violence based on "the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." Thus, white straight Christian males gain just as much from this bill as a Muslim or a homosexual or woman or anyone else; they are ALL protected from hate crimes, as everyone should be.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/crime-to-denounce-homosexuality/
"Gathering information is in no way a call to target Muslim friends and neighbors for derision or harassment or to blame them for this massacre by association."
But that's exactly what the general was saying. If you agree with this, I don't see what prompted the angry martyr-complex-based rant about how oppressed our white Christian majority is.
I have a question for you Lobby.
Let's say this guy was a whitey serving in the military instead, and he said a bunch of things that were racist against non-whiteys or he advocated violence against non-whiteys. How long would it have taken for the military (depending on the branch?) to take action against him?
Another words, do you think he would have been kept in the military as long as this guy was? Or do you think they would have drummed him out for his racists views?
If Lieberman gets his hearing, I believe it will be a very very short hearing. One or two of the proper witnesses and they should be able to declare this coward should have been drummed out of the Army years ago, thus avoiding his cowardly actions at Ft. Hood.
In the committee's final report it should place the blame for the carnage squarely on the shoulders of the major. The second sentence should take to task those in the Army who knew of his radical beliefs and failed to give him the boot.
PC be dammed. Let the lives of these Americans have been lost for no less an honor of heralding the beginning of the end of our failed experiment with PC. Tolerance is a good thing, but like everything in life too much of a good thing is not a good thing.
“If Hitler had been as clever as Mohammed, he would have proclaimed Nazism to be a new religion.”
You couldn’t speak anything against it.
K,
Here is a lesson for you. Go here and you will see some HTML help that will make posting website links real easy for you. I like you, and I would like to see you learn how to upgrade your posting ability's. It will give you the HTML codes for links and other things that are helpful and really easy to use because you can copy them and pasted them into your comments to use.
"Rock's Cafe" easy to use HTML codes.
Not all the codes are usable on PS, but the "Basic Text Link" code is definitely useful here.
Josh, yer a flaming ignoramus. Major Hasan was an Army Psychiatrist. Do you know how hard those are to come by? If you've actually got one on your staff, his religion is beyond irrelevant. Not only that, up until a week or so ago, he was an Army Psychiatrist doing very good work, according ... even now ... to his supervisors.
You want to wallow in anti-islamist what-have-you ... fine ... whatever ... but HOW are we going to replace the man?
Not with you, Josh ... or even your progeny ... that's for certain.
This country is in big, big trouble.
You do not know me, nor my capabilities. I have more education and have been more traveled and know more people from around the world than you could even imagine.
No one is irreplaceable on this planet. Their are thousands of people waiting in the wings to replace anyone at any position. Your ignorance shines like the lilly white racists in the Democrat Party that have kept my people down for generation after generation because of your inability to see the good qualities in people you do not understand.
You think you are so righteous in the way you act like you only want to help the poor and uneducated black men to improve his life in this racists country. Well, it is white liberals like you who cannot see the evil in anything you politically agree with. From my standpoint, you are one of the most dangerous racists that the blacks like myself have to fear.
I know evil honey, because I have dealt with it all my life and what I see in the Muslim that shot all those innocent soldiers is pure unadulterated evil. America better wake up and realize that the barbarians are no longer at the gate, they are inside the compound, and the Fort Hood terrorist attack is a prime example.
In what way is Hasan being "protected?"
In the way we are instructed (and admonished) about how we can and cannot talk about the killing. An attempt to keep a lid on speculation is occurring is it not?
"If you're talking about the new hate crimes bill, you're either lying or misinformed."
Am I? You say everyone comes under this bill. If that is really the case in terms of how the law will be used, then the law is totally unnecessary. Murder, rape, assault, battery, harassment all cover "hate" crimes. If there is something that can happen to me that is considered a hate crime and doesn't involve any of those things please enlighten me. The law is about special groups, it was written in response to special group pleas, it is an appeasement gesture to make constituents feel like something is being done. Laws don't "prevent" crime. Punishment can act as a deterent...we could try that for a change.
"I don't see what prompted the angry martyr-complex-based rant about how oppressed our white Christian majority is."
I know you don't and that is a problem. Perhaps you can tell me why it is OK to profile a murderer that is Christian or conservative or a member of the NRA but not someone who is Muslim.
I went in search of an example that demonstrates my point and found the following:
http://www.democracynow.org/features/abortion_doctor_killed
June 03, 2009: Tiller Killing Spurs Renewed Calls for US to Reverse Longstanding Passivity on Anti-Abortion Extremists
To many critics, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the eighth abortion provider to be killed since 1977, highlights the US government’s refusal to take seriously the threat of domestic right-wing, anti-abortion extremists. ** Warren Hern of Boulder, a close friend of Tiller's, described himself as now "the only doctor in the world" who performs abortions very late in a pregnancy. He said Tiller's death was predictable. "I think it's the inevitable consequence of more than 35 years of constant anti-abortion terrorism, harassment and violence. George is the fifth American doctor to be assassinated. I get messages from these people saying, 'Don't bother wearing a bulletproof vest. We're going for a head shot.' " ** When President Barack Obama was elected last fall, Hern predicted that anti-abortion violence would increase, he said. Because Obama supports the right to an abortion, Hern said, its foes "have lost ground. . . . They want the doctors dead, and they invite people to assassinate us. No wonder that this happens. . . . I am next on the list."
I didn't hear any objections or calls for people expressing these views to be quiet, to stop drawing conclusions or speculating. They are regularly associated as extremists, right-wing, conservative religious nuts. People link these "murderers" to pro-life groups with impunity
"the angry martyr-complex-based rant"
Once again you failed to notice the tongue in my cheek...not that the position I hold wasn't also present. Nice string of descriptives but way off base. Generally speaking my comment was in response to Libby's admonition:
"it's important for the country not to get caught up in speculation about Hasan's Muslim faith, and he has instructed his commanders to be on the lookout for anti-Muslim reaction to the killings at the Texas post." ** They'll have to look out for Post Scripts, too."
She loves to tweak me and I love to put her in her place by demonstrating the PC hypocracy of the left.
Libby's response to Josh, who asked a legitimate question, is indicative of her usual attitude and style. ther has never been any indication that she would engage me in conversation so we spar.
Josh I'd say about 15 minutes. Special groups are treated differently. It's a PC world and it is killing both our form society and recently, some of our people.
Tina your views resonate very well with the people I have been speaking with, so much so I've yet to find a person who disagrees with you. For instance, yesterday I was speaking with (name witheld) from the Defence Ministry and three ranking members of the RCMP. The points you have made here reflected our opinion precisely! Keep it up, we support you!
Thanks OneVike. I apologize for usually being too much in a hurry to figure out how to properly post links, but I can see that this is an inconveniance to my fellow posters and I will definitely take you up on that offer.
Tina--"Am I? You say everyone comes under this bill. If that is really the case in terms of how the law will be used, then the law is totally unnecessary. Murder, rape, assault, battery, harassment all cover "hate" crimes. If there is something that can happen to me that is considered a hate crime and doesn't involve any of those things please enlighten me."
Tina, the law obviously does not cover every single crime against every single person. You know this. But I'll explain it again anyway. Hate crime laws cover crimes that are motivated by race, religion, gender, etc. etc. That is completely necessary. We as a society need to be aware of the problem of race-based violence and other forms of discriminatory violence. Those crimes are different from other crimes because they indicate different trends and motivations.
"The law is about special groups, it was written in response to special group pleas, it is an appeasement gesture to make constituents feel like something is being done."
But even if I accept this premise, if you benefit from this just as much as anyone else, what does it matter who it was originall written for?
"Laws don't "prevent" crime. Punishment can act as a deterent...we could try that for a change."
What do you mean here? Hate criminals are punished in a different way than other criminals, as they should be; as I have argued before, hate criminals are basically lower level terrorists.
Good to hear from you "necessity" and thanks for the support. I'm in for the duration and happy to do it.
Tina, the law obviously does not cover every single crime against every single person.
That is not what I asked you. I'll try again. What injury that would be covered under a hate crime law isn't already covered under our current laws, ie, assault, murder, rape, battery. etc.?
"Hate crime laws cover crimes that are motivated by race, religion, gender, etc. etc. That is completely necessary.
Why is it necessary? Our laws already "cover" the crimes resulting from hate. If you are saying we must now try people twice, once for the harm they caused and then again for their motivation you're nuts. Shall we also enact anger crimes laws and jealousy crimes laws. How do we prove acts of emotion and how do we discern between regular hate and gender hate? How far will we take these laws in practice?
"Those crimes are different from other crimes because they indicate different trends and motivations."
Those crimes are as old as time itself and so are the motivations. The only "trend" we are experiencing is human beings behaving from their fallen nature. Our laws and our Constitution were designed to support us in treating all people the same under the law. This law steps outside of that framework and as such is a very big mistake.
"...if you benefit from this just as much as anyone else, what does it matter who it was originall written for?"
You need to get something that is extremely important. This position that I hold isn't about me. It isn't about you either. It is about preserving our system of justice and law. I don't think you get how precious it is that we have built our laws upon the notion that all men are created equal. Murder and rape are heinous crimes regardless the motivation. Hate isn't any more compelling in terms of motivation than jealousy, covetousness, selfishness, resentment, rage, or greed.
"Hate criminals are punished in a different way than other criminals, as they should be..."
I would need some expert help in responding to this. I am not a lawyer or judge nor am I in law enforcement. I am expressing myself in terms of the soundness of the concept alone.
Hate crime laws already exist in many states. But with the left enough is never enough. The people that have pushed this particular law used Mathew Shepard to promote even more extensive hate crime law.
lambda
Landmark Anti-Gay Hate Crime, Decade Later - cbsnews
Agenda, agenda, agenda. The push is constant for more and more "protection". But the case itself demonstrates that there are dangers lurking in this bill and that penalties are already adequately severe:
Mathew Shepard - Wikipedia
Was it a hate crime or not? How do we judge what motivates and to what degree any emotion dominates the intensity or severity of the crime? At what point does pure adrenaline take over and what difference is it anyway. The victim is harmed no matter what and the perp is guilty no matter what. Here’s an example of
what can go wrong:
“No need to expand hate crime legislation,” by James A. Williamson - Tulsaworld
This man goes on to report that in Europe hate crimes legislation is now being used against pastors although it was not the original intent of the law. A slippery slope is created when we shove equal rights aside and that is exactly what the hard left is up to.
"hate criminals are basically lower level terrorists."
How many so called hate criminals have been found to be planning mass murders over time with specific goals of eliminating forms of government, religious ideology, or specific peoples? This rhetoric is emotional and meant only to inflame the passions of those who see themselves as victims rather than full fledged citizens. Perception is no reason to create laws for special groups.
That's all I wish to say on this for now. I erred in bringing this subject into the post about Hasan
"I know evil honey, because I have dealt with it all my life and what I see in the Muslim that shot all those innocent soldiers is pure unadulterated evil."
Josh, Don't tell us how clever you are, show us. People DO evil ... not ARE evil. Huge distinction, and the chief premise underpinning the advance of human civilization to date ... which is not to say it's advanced all that far ... cause we still got some people jumping up and down calling other people's religions evil.
Lots of work still to do.
Tina, if you would like to take the debate over hate crime laws to another article, I would be happy to.
On the subject of Hasan:
"In the way we are instructed (and admonished) about how we can and cannot talk about the killing. An attempt to keep a lid on speculation is occurring is it not?"
It is, I must admit, but it's being done to protect other Muslims, not Hasan himself. Not that this makes it right. I fully acknowledge that the treatment of this tragedy by the administration and by the media has been overly--to use a phrase I absolutely loathe--"PC." As Dan said before, too much of a good thing is not a good thing. Yes, we must be tolerant of Muslim people and their faith. But we can do that while still acknowledging that there are radical elements of Islam out there, and that they are dangerous, and that they undoubtedly played a part in this case.
I am totally against spreading fear and paranoia about Islam. Unfortunately, many who feel the same way I do about this are taking it too far, and letting it get in the way of a matter of equal or greater importance: determining the facts of this case so that we can prevent it from ever happening again. The two goals are not, as some on both the left and right are acting, mutually exclusive.
After looking at the evidence, there is no doubt in my mind that this sick man was inspired by his radical religious beliefs. I refuse to allow that to reflect on my opinion of all Muslims, but I also refuse to ignore the obvious facts of this case. I hope others, after they get over their initial emotional reactions to this tragedy, can do the same.
"I know you don't and that is a problem. Perhaps you can tell me why it is OK to profile a murderer that is Christian or conservative or a member of the NRA but not someone who is Muslim."
I don't think either is OK; but I will explain in a moment why I don't think the two are entirely morally equivalent.
"I went in search of an example that demonstrates my point and found the following:
http://www.democracynow.org/features/abortion_doctor_killed
June 03, 2009: Tiller Killing Spurs Renewed Calls for US to Reverse Longstanding Passivity on Anti-Abortion Extremists
To many critics, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the eighth abortion provider to be killed since 1977, highlights the US government’s refusal to take seriously the threat of domestic right-wing, anti-abortion extremists. ** Warren Hern of Boulder, a close friend of Tiller's, described himself as now "the only doctor in the world" who performs abortions very late in a pregnancy. He said Tiller's death was predictable. "I think it's the inevitable consequence of more than 35 years of constant anti-abortion terrorism, harassment and violence. George is the fifth American doctor to be assassinated. I get messages from these people saying, 'Don't bother wearing a bulletproof vest. We're going for a head shot.' " ** When President Barack Obama was elected last fall, Hern predicted that anti-abortion violence would increase, he said. Because Obama supports the right to an abortion, Hern said, its foes "have lost ground. . . . They want the doctors dead, and they invite people to assassinate us. No wonder that this happens. . . . I am next on the list."
I didn't hear any objections or calls for people expressing these views to be quiet, to stop drawing conclusions or speculating. They are regularly associated as extremists, right-wing, conservative religious nuts. People link these "murderers" to pro-life groups with impunity"
As I said, there is a great deal in between acknowledging the motivations and associations behind the actions of terrorists, and lumping ordinary citizens in with them because they happen to share some of the same beliefs. The man quoted in that article falls more toward the latter end of that spectrum, unfortunately, and I do not approve of that.
However, I speak up more frequently in defense of Muslims than in defense of pro-lifers because in this country, Muslims as a group are far smaller and weaker than pro-lifers. I am not saying it is OK to generalize about one group and not the other; again, I don't think it's OK for either. But you can't claim that both are being equally silenced or oppressed when over half the country identifies as pro-life (even though most are actually somewhere in-between), and only about two percent (don't have an actual statistic for this at the moment, I am just making an educated guess here) identifies as Muslim. The power dynamic is completely different.
Again, does that mean that it is OK to spread fear and paranoia about all pro-lifers? No. Does it mean that Muslims, as a minority, are in greater danger as a result of anti-Islamic propoganda than Christians, as the majority, are in danger because of anti-Christian propoganda? I think that answer is obviously yes.
"It's a PC world"
I just can't agree with this. The world is not politically correct at all. The media and the current administration may be, but they are both way out of touch with most of America.
Libby--"Josh, Don't tell us how clever you are, show us. People DO evil ... not ARE evil. Huge distinction, and the chief premise underpinning the advance of human civilization to date ... which is not to say it's advanced all that far ... cause we still got some people jumping up and down calling other people's religions evil.
Lots of work still to do. "
Libby, Josh did not call Hasan's religion evil, so I am not sure what you are getting at here.
Interesting how the foreign press are the ones getting the larger stories out about MAJ Mohammed, while our own NYTMSNBCCNNABCNPRNBC machinery largely ignores the real reason that this terrorist attack took place.
I was listening to the talking head on CBS saying that Mohammed was suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome when the guy had never seen combat. This is straight out lying and thought control. This was said to misguide the people and to make us feel that our common sense reaction is wrong. The thought control masters want to demoralize us into thinking that we are always wrong and they are always right. It is so blatant now that I do not see how anyone cannot see it for what it is.
I hope that Senator Lieberman has a hearing on this and bring up all the commanders and brass. I want to know how far up the line this goes. Who is breathing down the necks of the military to the degree that they will put themselves in danger rather than do what has to be done.
That General Casey was disgusting too. This is beginning to sound like political talking points. Every time that there is an outrage against out country by these Islamist jihadis, someone has to bring up the poor Muslim community and how we must put concern for the Muslims before everything else, even our own lives and safety.
"Libby, Josh did not call Hasan's religion evil, so I am not sure what you are getting at here."
Then he would have said the "man", "person", "soldier" ... any number of other neutral-type things ... who shot all those people. But he did not, did he? He said "Muslim."
K, you are inclined to be distracted by inconsequentials. Let's cut to the chase, shall we?
"Libby's response to Josh, who asked a legitimate question, ...."
On the contrary, I answered his question quite succinctly. A competent Army Psychiatrist is going to be kept on ... and was kept on ... whatever his religious proclivities. As long as he's not referring his patients to KKK websites for consolation ....
And then I got kind of nasty (and unhappily accurate) about Josh and his progeny ... but what do you think the folk tune in for?
And I just don't know what we are going to do with people who conflate the founding principles of this nation with some trival notions of "political correctness." I mean, come on ... are not the founding principles of free expression of religious belief politically correct?
Well?
Where's Nick? I have queued Nick. He will tell us all about the Christian Nation this is supposed to be ... the actual language of our Constitution notwithstanding.
Lots and lots of work still to do.
"Then he would have said the "man", "person", "soldier" ... any number of other neutral-type things ... who shot all those people. But he did not, did he? He said 'Muslim.'"
Josh: "...what I see in the Muslim that shot all those innocent soldiers is pure unadulterated evil."
Ummm...I think "the" Muslim indicates a particular man, person, soldier...in fact all three!
(Useful hint...to scroll up, position the cursor to the far right of your screen where the little up arrow resides in the narrow column then click and hold until Josh's post is visable.)
K: "...but it's being done to protect other Muslims"
Surely there is a way for the leader of this country to communicate about this evil act...a terror act...without insulting all Muslims...why must hide from the issue?
"But we can do that while still acknowledging that there are radical elements of Islam out there, and that they are dangerous, and that they undoubtedly played a part in this case."
Yes and if you can the President can. Why does he demure? We are standing with Muslims in the Middle East to fight terrorism. Muslims are victims of the barbaric practices of radical religious fanaticism. I wish we had done something more to show our support when Iranians were risking their lives protesting in the streets a few months back too. Why didn't we? GWB was right. There is no middle ground. You are either on one side of this or the other. It isn't about Muslims it is about murdering zealots.
"The man quoted in that article falls more toward the latter end of that spectrum, unfortunately, and I do not approve of that."
I know you don't K; you are a reasonable person. I have to repeat however that the people in power in the Democrat Party and many of the supportive groups that back the party are not so reasonable and the media has for all of my adult life come down on the side of Democrats.
"But you can't claim that both are being equally silenced or oppressed when over half the country identifies as pro-life (even though most are actually somewhere in-between), and only about two percent (don't have an actual statistic for this at the moment, I am just making an educated guess here) identifies as Muslim. The power dynamic is completely different."
One of the elements of political correctness is to constantly couch an argument in terms of the power struggle. In fact the argument has nothing to do with power. It has to do with principle. We are back to treating some people differently than others instead of as equals. No person or group should be made guilty by association unless there is an actual tie and association of motive and intent.
"Does it mean that Muslims, as a minority, are in greater danger as a result of anti-Islamic propaganda than Christians, as the majority, are in danger because of anti-Christian propaganda?"
Danger is a strong word. We are all in danger of losing our freedom if majority voices are marginalized and squelched. But in terms of physical danger, how many Muslims in the United States have been killed since 911? I did a search and did not find evidence of any so the number (if I missed something) has to be pretty small. How many Muslims have been killed by Muslims in the US since 911 due to ideology? A Muslim father is accused of killing his daughter in Georgia:
YouTube Muslim Father Kills Two Daughters in the USA TEXAS
"Sacrificing Americans," by Victor Davis Hanson- corner – National Review
For some reason the link doesn't work. The following is the URL for the Hanson article:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWFlMTZjZjE4YTc3MjljMGJhNTRjYWM1YTgyYTUzNTA=
If you don’t read anything else I have linked to you should read Victor Davis Hansen on this subject. He has enumerated instances of attacks and by whom in the US. Muslims have more to fear from each other than they do from Americans. Americans are defending peaceful Muslims and working for their freedom.
I’m sure it is more difficult for Muslims in the US since 911, people are understandably suspicious. This is not unusual during times of war. It was difficult for Germans and Japanese people in the US during WWII. The more they remain silent about events like this the more they come under suspicion. It doesn't help that a place in the Koran tells them it is OK to lie to the infidel.
Responsibility, and therefore the power to change this, lies more with the worldwide Muslims community than it does with Americans. Only they can make changes in the religion and it must be instigated at leadership levels and filter down. Whether that will ever happen is anyone’s guess. I have read some encouraging news in this regard but it could take decades if not longer and even then there must be the will in the people to comply as well.
"'It's a PC world' ** I just can't agree with this. The world is not politically correct at all. The media and the current administration may be, but they are both way out of touch with most of America."
Unfortunately "most of America" has been too trusting, too empathetic, and too understanding and not very vigilant for many years. Generally speaking PC is holding sway. Other voices are emerging but it will be a long fight. Those in this country that are true believers in the principles of socialism/communism/fascism are in positions of power in government, business, media and education and they are determined, well funded and very tenacious.
"The media and the current administration may be, but they are both way out of touch with most of America."
About that, I would agree!
Libby--"Then he would have said the "man", "person", "soldier" ... any number of other neutral-type things ... who shot all those people. But he did not, did he? He said "Muslim.""
Now that I look at it that way, you're right, Libby. That was at best a poor choice of words, and at worst an intentional condemnation of all Muslims.
Tina--"Surely there is a way for the leader of this country to communicate about this evil act...a terror act...without insulting all Muslims...why must hide from the issue?"
Oh, I absolutely agree with this. As I said, the two goals are not mutually exclusive. Obama's refusal to attempt to meet both goals is unusual for him, I think. He is usually able to lay out complex issues without trying to oversimplify them. I am extremely frustrated and angry that he isn't using this skill when it's needed most.
"Yes and if you can the President can. Why does he demure? We are standing with Muslims in the Middle East to fight terrorism. Muslims are victims of the barbaric practices of radical religious fanaticism. I wish we had done something more to show our support when Iranians were risking their lives protesting in the streets a few months back too. Why didn't we? GWB was right. There is no middle ground. You are either on one side of this or the other. It isn't about Muslims it is about murdering zealots."
I agree with most of this except for the Iran thing. Many poltiical analysts and many Iranian citizens have strongly defended Obama's non-interference stance on Iran before. But that's not the topic here.
"One of the elements of political correctness is to constantly couch an argument in terms of the power struggle. In fact the argument has nothing to do with power. It has to do with principle. We are back to treating some people differently than others instead of as equals. No person or group should be made guilty by association unless there is an actual tie and association of motive and intent."
Like I said before, both are immoral. But there are degrees of immorality, and degrees of pain. Social and historical context matters when considering those degrees.
"Danger is a strong word. We are all in danger of losing our freedom if majority voices are marginalized and squelched."
I have pretty strong faith that the majority in America will never be marginalized. We are far too loud and stubborn, and I mean that in the best way possible. :)
"But in terms of physical danger, how many Muslims in the United States have been killed since 911? I did a search and did not find evidence of any so the number (if I missed something) has to be pretty small."
In an admittedly short amount of Googling, I found some conflicting reports. Some say the number of hate crimes against Muslims has risen since 9/11, some say it has fallen. I did not see any reports of murders, but I did see reports of violence and arson. I have not been able to find any reports of anti-Christian hate crimes. Which isn't to say they don't exist; I am sure they do, and I am sure they are reported. And it is important to acknowledge them. But I just can't imagine that they would be anywhere near the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in America.
The issue of Muslim-on-Muslim violence is disturbing and important, but seperate from the issue we are discussing here.
"But he did not, did he? He said 'Muslim.' ** Now that I look at it that way, you're right, Libby."
Nope you were right the first time:
Josh: "...what I see in the Muslim that shot all those innocent soldiers..."
Josh is writing about a specific person...the ONE that "shot".
"Many poltiical analysts and many Iranian citizens have strongly defended Obama's non-interference stance"
Many other political analysts have said the opposite. His "interference" stance in Nicaragua would have been more appropriate, especially since he came down on the side of the would be tyrant, a disturbing pattern in his overall international policy.
"One of the elements of political correctness is to constantly couch an argument in terms of the power struggle. In fact the argument has nothing to do with power. It has to do with principle. We are back to treating some people differently than others instead of as equals. No person or group should be made guilty by association unless there is an actual tie and association of motive and intent. ** Like I said before, both are immoral. But there are degrees of immorality, and degrees of pain. Social and historical context matters when considering those degrees."
I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Political correctness and principles are both immoral? Pain and immorality by degrees and historical content?
"The issue of Muslim-on-Muslim violence is disturbing and important, but seperate from the issue we are discussing here."
I disagree. What I said is that Muslims have been killing Muslims in America in greater numbers than are Americans killing Muslims. They are being killed because of the acts of persons that believe in the same basic ideology that made Hasan kill the soldiers at Fort Hood. The young women who died had more to fear from their Muslim fathers than they do their American neighbors. The restraint Americans have shown is a testament to the moral standards that 99.999% of Americans adhere to and the dedication and trust we have in the rule of law.
I"m sorry the link to Victor Davis hansons article did not work. I tried to discover the problem but can't see a reason that it doesn't...so...I added the URL which is:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWFlMTZjZjE4YTc3MjljMGJhNTRjYWM1YTgyYTUzNTA=
It's a very good post, I hope you'll read it.
Now that I look at it that way, you're right, Libby. That was at best a poor choice of words, and at worst an intentional condemnation of all Muslims.
Reading the way you and Libby banter back and forth is like watching the talking heads go on for 3 hours over a speech by a politician that took 15 minutes. Amazing how Libby was able to cloud up your site from what it is I said.
K, I am disappointed in you. I really expected more from you, but when push comes to shove you are no better than any other liberal who is afraid of being taken to task by your liberal friends about the truth you speak, so what you do is make a 180 degree turn and get back in the graces of your liberal friends by denying the very thing you know to be true.
Thanks you Tina, thanks for coming to my defense and not being swayed to go against what you know to be true. As my old Grandma used to say, you are good people.
As for K, disappointed, truly disappointed in you I am.
Josh, your misconception that I am some kind of unprincipled sheep who cares mostly about the approval of other liberals bears no resemblence to reality, as anyone who is familiar with my history on this site can tell you. Libby and I have disagreed on numerous occasions. Sometimes she is able to convince me of her argument, but mostly we continue on disagreeing with one another. In this instance, I think she was partially correct. You may not have meant to call Hasan's religion evil, but it was worded in such a way that it made the word "Muslim" look like a pejorative. It doesn't matter that you were talking about one specific Muslim, the fact that you identified him by that and that alone implied that it is an inherently evil thing to be a Muslim. Whether you believe this or not, I can easily see why someone would come away with that interpretation.
"I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Political correctness and principles are both immoral? Pain and immorality by degrees and historical content?"
Sorry for the confusion--I meant that applying guilt by association is immoral whether the person is a Christian or a Muslim. However, since Christians are a much larger and more powerful group in our country than Muslims are, I believe that profiling the more powerful group is not quite as bad as profiling the less powerful group. It's the difference between being mean to the popular jock, and being mean to the nerdy kid. Both are wrong, but one makes you a little bit more of a jerk than the other. Power dynamics matter.
"I disagree. What I said is that Muslims have been killing Muslims in America in greater numbers than are Americans killing Muslims. They are being killed because of the acts of persons that believe in the same basic ideology that made Hasan kill the soldiers at Fort Hood. The young women who died had more to fear from their Muslim fathers than they do their American neighbors. The restraint Americans have shown is a testament to the moral standards that 99.999% of Americans adhere to and the dedication and trust we have in the rule of law. "
I see what you're saying, but I still don't see what the point of the comparison is. Yes, anti-Islamic violence from non-Muslims has been relatively small, but that doesn't mean it is not important.
"I"m sorry the link to Victor Davis hansons article did not work. I tried to discover the problem but can't see a reason that it doesn't...so...I added the URL which is:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWFlMTZjZjE4YTc3MjljMGJhNTRjYWM1YTgyYTUzNTA=
It's a very good post, I hope you'll read it."
I usually hate the NR, but that was pretty interesting.
"I believe that profiling the more powerful group is not quite as bad as profiling the less powerful group."
I'm beginning to see the problem in our communication on this subject. Your main concern seems to be how people feel and your focus is to protect feelings. Taken to the extreme when emotions run amok that would include physical safety. What I'm concerned about is the manner in which we apply the law and how we as individuals respond to real threats to our nation.
I don't believe we will ever experience a sense of equality as long as we continue to operate in a we/they dynamic. Special rights and special consideration undermine equal rights laws; they destroy the concept of blind justice.
"It's the difference between being mean to the popular jock, and being mean to the nerdy kid."
If the nerdy kid is about to blow up the chem lab I think it's something that needs to be noticed and perhaps even stopped with physically checked. I don't know why you think jocks are immune to suffering. They have feelings too, they just probably can't/won't let anyone know it.
"Yes, anti-Islamic violence from non-Muslims has been relatively small, but that doesn't mean it is not important."
It is significant because it means that American Muslims are as safe as any other Americans are. They should know this; it should make them feel better. Unfortunately there are those who keep saying there is a lot of anti-Muslim furror. I think that is a dangerously stupid and patently unfair thing to report in the news.
You may not have meant to call Hasan's religion evil, but it was worded in such a way that it made the word "Muslim" look like a pejorative.
Boulderdash!
If ever I have heard such hogwash it is what you just attempted to justify as your own opinion. You are just another a Sheeple like your lily white friend Libby.
You are nothing better than the poor white trailer trash down South that wants to feel good about some injustice you feel your own family is probably guilty of in the past.
Do not try and defend the indefensible with me.
Normally, we can expect Americans to act with restraint.
However we have that incident from two months ago where someone, believing the federal government to be his enemy, murdered a federal worker. A Post_Scripts reader, perhaps?
We have those incidents back in '01 where Sikhs were attacked--no doubt because of their headwear.
It could be that this guy just snapped.
You do not know his motivation.
How will you benefit by spreading innuendo?
What if some toothless igmo reads your stuff and 'pays back' the first Muslim he sees?
Better watch it Quentin. When I watch the news and see crime stories, the Inly toothless people I see on TV are blacks and Hispanic gangbangers.
I do believe you are being a racist for using such a descriptive comment about certain segments of our society.
You should be ashamed of your self Quentin.
Josh, neither "balderdash", nor "hogwash" constitute substantive rebuttal.
You have attempted to slander the whole of Islam with Mr. Hasan's actions, and we have called you on it. The actions of no lone nutcake, or even a faction of nutcakes (vis a vis AQ), can degrade a fundamentally sound collection of religious tenets. You know, there is nothing at all in the Koran about women wearing sacks in public. That come later. Think St. Paul.
Mr. Hasan will spend what's left of his life in jail. That's done. What we need to do now, is see to it that nobody else gets to feeling himself quite so exceptionally alienated. Big job.
Q: "You do not know his motivation."
Blind, deaf, and dumb? We don't know his most intimate deeply held thoughts; we do have more than a few clues, however.
"It could be that this guy just snapped."
There is evidence that it was a planned attack.
"How will you benefit by spreading innuendo?"
I'm "spreading" information released by news outlets with a much much bigger audience than PS...der! The only "benefit" to any of us is that we become more fully informed and perhaps a little more aware, present company excluded.
"What if some toothless igmo reads your stuff and 'pays back' the first Muslim he sees?"
I scare you that much, do I? Please explain exactly what you find so inflamatory? I began this post with these words:
"It will be awhile before anything "official" is decided regarding the attack that killed and wounded American military personel at Fort Hood but investigations by journalists have resulted in some very disturbing news:"
I suppose you think that if we all just hide in the closet and keep very quiet bad things won't ever happen again. This man is responsible! Tell me Quentin, do you have any compassion at all for the people that were slaughtered by this man yelling Allahu Akbar, dressed in the garb that Osama bin Laden wears; a man who also reportedly said that, "non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire"? and if your theory is right, how many people did his inflamatory words insight to murder? And what about the rest of us that wish with all our hearts that these fanatics would give up, go home, get a job and put down the sword? Do you give a fig about protecting us, yourself included? No? Pretty dam*ed pathetic!
Jonah Goldberg reminds us today:
Our leftist friends don't have any trouble insulting or profiling fellow American "right-wingers as potential terrorists, or as Quentin would believe insighting others to "snap and then commit murder".
That's upside down...messed up thinking.
If Janet Napolitano had croaked from a heart attack before she took over Homeland our fight against terrorism would now be greatly advanced. I can recall only a handful of politicians in the last 50 years that exceeded her level of stupidity.
You know, there is nothing at all in the Koran about women wearing sacks in public. That come later. Think St. Paul
Libby, I knew you were uneducated, now I know you are also unread. How can anyone expect to be taken serious when you claim a religion, born after the year 600, and who's book has been being written throughout the next 1400 years and is still incomplete, is older than Paul who wrote about the attire of women in the year 60 to 65 A.D.?
Get a clue Libby. you are way over your head.
One more thing, do you really expect anyone to respect a religion that could have been written by a 13 year old boy deaply involved in puberty. Read the Koran if you dare to use it in your argument. Muhammad was a PERVERT!
Pray to God my dear Libbey, that this religion does not become predominant in America. Because, if it does, you and your liberal friends will be the first ones beheaded at half time of the local soccer match.
OneVike--"Because, if it does, you and your liberal friends will be the first ones beheaded at half time of the local soccer match."
Will this be around the same time that drive-through abortions become chic, or is it closer to the rapidly approaching preponderence of bestiality-driven orgies being allowed in our public schools? WE MUST BE PREPARED!!!