Page 46 of 124 FirstFirst ... 3644454647485696 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 1236

Thread: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

  1. #451
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    I can quote numbers that make everything look like nothing is wrong and that people are overeacting too. But there is a general, disturbing truth that this avoids...
    I don't think that anybody is overreacting, as one should always expect the anti-Islam brigade to immediately post random blurbs that make the entire muslim population (most of which don't live in the Middle East) look like masked murders coming to eat your children;

    The sentiment that I get whenever the Islamophobes spew their madness is that of reading Imperial Japan to America in WWII or Nazi Germany to Bolshivekistan (and the USSR back to Naziland).

    An entire region is consumed in tribal and racial violence by their own fellow Muslims. We see the slaughtering grounds of Sudan. We see the suicide bombings in Palestine. We see the tribes slaughter without mercy in Iraq. We see the Tali-Ban's dreams of prescribing oppression and brutality upon their fellow Muslims. And the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria (who stop at nothing to suppress the free expression of their people if it challenges the elite or the status quo) do nothing to address what they state, "offends Islam."
    The Middle East is bar-none is the most historically ravaged place. From the times of Assyrian crown sponsored terrorism to the time it was the buffer zone between the invading insertpowerfulnomadshere like Kahn and Europe to European colonialism. I am not trying to be an apologist for the cruelty that these people subject their neighbors to, but I do believe we have very little understanding of what it is like to have the mental complexity that transposed into such atrocities as the Iran-Iraq war.

    As for exportation.....Islamic terrorist organizations are famous for launching attacks upon the innocent in peaceful events like the Olympics to foriegn military installations like a U.S. Air Force base to foriegn diplomatic structures like embassies. Something as simple as an offensive cartoon will incite the masses into riots, destruction, and murder.
    Eric Rudolph?
    I'm not too keen on the Munich massacre.
    These are absolute truths. They cannot be denied and they cannot be argued against. One can state that a "very, very, very small portion of the entire Muslim population" is the problem, but all that does is ignore everything else going on, which is far larger than a lone terrorist who is merely acting as the mouthy piece to a larger issue facing us. You think this one jerk off at Fort Hood would be an issue were the Middle East not such a wreck of Muslim madness?
    However true that maybe it does not give legitimacy that this man is any representation of the muslim community; his religion may have little to do with the reason why he pulled the trigger.
    This Fort Hood event is a symptom of somehitng far greater. As was 9/11 and any other event that speaks for the troubled Middle East. Talking about a Christian civlization that produces...what exactly in the 21st century?...only encourages the growth of what already is an enormously complex problem.
    A Christian civilization that produces constant warfare in the name of replacing one foreign authority with another foreign authority. We just don't, usually, do it in the name of God, which apparently costs much more than any human sentiment.

    But you are correct about it being a Middle Eastern thing and less of a Muslim thing...and I can offer plenty of evidence to prove my (and your) argument. But the reality and damaging truth is that the vast and overwhelming make up of the Middle East is......Muslim.
    I hear Africa is pretty beat up too with all sorts of conflict. I also hear that there's a majority black population.
    I hear North Ireland was pretty violent a few years ago. I also hear that there's a majority Irish population.
    I hear Mexico is having some violence too. I also hear that there's a large Christian population.

    You can take facts, or "truths", all you want to, but facts do not tell you have to interpret them... you interpret them how you wish.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  2. #452
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,648

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yeah! **** the founders! **** the Constitution. They were damn horrible Secular Humanists. The founders didn't know what the **** they were doing. Screw this freedom of religion thing. Christians are allowed in and THAT'S it. Hell, lets make it the national religion to make sure of it. God that Jefferson guy was a bafoon. What were they thinking.
    Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3: 1865--73



    1833
    1865. How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience.

    1866. The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits, to which government may rightfully go in fostering and encouraging religion. Three cases may easily be supposed. One, where a government affords aid to a particular religion, leaving all persons free to adopt any other; another, where it creates an ecclesiastical establishment for the propagation of the doctrines of a particular sect of that religion, leaving a like freedom to all others; and a third, where it creates such an establishment, and excludes all persons, not belonging to it, either wholly, or in part, from any participation in the public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities of the state. For instance, a government may simply declare, that the Christian religion shall be the religion of the state, and shall be aided, and encouraged in all the varieties of sects belonging to it; or it may declare, that the Catholic or Protestant religion shall be the religion of the state, leaving every man to the free enjoyment of his own religious opinions; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as of Episcopalians, as the religion of the state, with a like freedom; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as exclusively the religion of the state, tolerating others to a limited extent, or excluding all, not belonging to it, from all public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities.

    1867. Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic. "When," says he, "the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily, divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south still adhered to the Catholic. The reason is plain. The people of the north have, and will ever have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the south have not. And, therefore, a religion, which has no visible head, is more agreeable to the independency of climate, than that, which has one." Without stopping to inquire, whether this remark be well founded, it is certainly true, that the parent country has acted upon it with a severe and vigilant zeal; and in most of the colonies the same rigid jealousy has been maintained almost down to our own times. Massachusetts, while she has promulgated in her BILL OF RIGHTS the importance and necessity of the public support of religion, and the worship of God, has authorized the legislature to require it only for Protestantism. The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity, and the reasons for it. "As," says the third article, "the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through the community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize, and require, and the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, &c. &c. to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily." Afterwards there follow provisions, prohibiting any superiority of one sect over another, and securing to all citizens the free exercise of religion.

    1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

    1869. It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.

    1870. But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner, which, they believe, their accountability to him requires. It has been truly said, that "religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be dictated only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." Mr. Locke himself, who did not doubt the right of government to interfere in matters of religion, and especially to encourage Christianity, at the same time has expressed his opinion of the right of private judgment, and liberty of conscience, in a manner becoming his character, as a sincere friend of civil and religious liberty. "No man, or society of men," says he, "have any authority to impose their opinions or interpretations on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know, and believe, and give an account for himself." The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as of revealed religion.

    1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter, as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.
    Last edited by The silenced majority; 11-06-09 at 09:46 AM.

  3. #453
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    Ft. Hood suspect reportedly shouted `Allahu Akbar'
    FORT HOOD, Texas – Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire, the base commander said Friday.
    Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said officials had not yet confirmed that the suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, made the comment, which is Arabic for "God is great!" before the rampage Thursday, which left 30 people wounded, including the gunman.
    An imam from a mosque Hasan regularly attended said Hasan, a lifelong Muslim, was a committed soldier, gave no sign of extremist beliefs and regularly wore his uniform at prayers.
    Cone said Hasan was hospitalized in stable condition and that investigators hope to interrogate him as soon as possible. In the early chaos after the shootings, authorities believed they had killed him, only to discover later that he had survived.
    Cone said Hasan was not known to be a threat or risk. He acknowledged that it was "counterintuitive" that a single shooter could kill and injure so many people. But he said the massacre occurred in "close quarters."
    "With ricochet fire, he was able to injure that number of people," Cone said. Authorities are investigating whether Hasan's weapons were properly registered with the military.
    Ft. Hood suspect reportedly shouted `Allahu Akbar' - Yahoo! News
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #454
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    You can take facts, or "truths", all you want to, but facts do not tell you have to interpret them... you interpret them how you wish.
    As do you.

    It seems to me that if a person criticizes Islamic terrorism, you interpret such comments as being aimed at all Muslims.

    From where I sit, I'd say that for every person who might actually fit your description of an Islamaphobe, (raving maniacally about Muslims all being terrorists, Nazis and whatnot) , I'd say there are at least a hundred who do the opposite by acting as apologists for the radical element under the misapprehension they are defending Muslims as a whole. These people downplay the extent of radicalism, refuse to admit any connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism, will not acknowlege the large differences in cultural views between Muslims and westerners, and display that THEY are the ones indulging in a lack of analysis on the subject.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  5. #455
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Ft. Hood suspect reportedly shouted `Allahu Akbar'


    Ft. Hood suspect reportedly shouted `Allahu Akbar' - Yahoo! News
    Thanks for the link.


    Between his online comments supporting suicide terrorism and this report, I'm certainly prepared to call this an act of Islamic terrorism.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  6. #456
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,207

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    May the victims rest in peace is all I got to say on this one.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  7. #457
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    Maybe we should force westernize the Muslims. Ban the wearing of the hijab, the dishdasha. Force them to eat at McDonalds and listen to rock'n'roll. We could have re-education camps in Minnesota...

  8. #458
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    As do you.

    It seems to me that if a person criticizes Islamic terrorism, you interpret such comments as being aimed at all Muslims.

    From where I sit, I'd say that for every person who might actually fit your description of an Islamaphobe, (raving maniacally about Muslims all being terrorists, Nazis and whatnot) , I'd say there are at least a hundred who do the opposite by acting as apologists for the radical element under the misapprehension they are defending Muslims as a whole. These people downplay the extent of radicalism, refuse to admit any connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism, will not acknowlege the large differences in cultural views between Muslims and westerners, and display that THEY are the ones indulging in a lack of analysis on the subject.

    My problem is that very few take the time to differ between Islamic Extremism and Muslim; they group it all under the latter.

    I admit connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism, but it's as mutilated a difference as American Christians are to the Lord's Resistance Army.

    I would love to hear your interpretation on what the Muslim culture is.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  9. #459
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,580

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    Quote Originally Posted by goldendog View Post
    How long does it take for a praticed gunman to reload adpst? 4 maybe 5 seconds if that?




    If that's how long it takes you to do a tac reload, you need practice.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #460
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: 12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

    It's becoming clear to me that from day to day we can't know when a Muslim will suddenly wake up and decide that they should take the Koran literally.

    Today, a peace loving, devout, quiet, happy person...

    Tomorrow, a radical.

    OBL 11/24/02

Page 46 of 124 FirstFirst ... 3644454647485696 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •