• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.
 
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:
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
 
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.
 
May the victims rest in peace is all I got to say on this one.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.





I think thats a bit far....
 
and falafal.... :shrug:



I think the writing was on the wall with this savages blog. What were they thinking? :doh

NO! Did he OD on falafal. Well no wonder he snapped... :shock:

What's with this savages blog?

Are we going to need to extend the Patriot Act to include domestic communications?
 
NO! Did he OD on falafal. Well no wonder he snapped... :shock:

What's with this savages blog?

Are we going to need to extend the Patriot Act to include domestic communications?




Or the Army could simply google it. :shrug:
 
and falafal.... :shrug:



I think the writing was on the wall with this savages blog. What were they thinking? :doh

It's probably what this was about ever Middle Eastern country says it invented the falafel.

I guess the FBI is too busy rounding up Detroit sleeper cells to deal with military personnel with traitorous semantics.
 
My problem is that very few take the time to differ between Islamic Extremism and Muslim; they group it all under the latter.

.

I see this most often among those who defend Nazis under the misapprehension they are defending Germans, yes.

It's a sacred cow. If a Muslim individual or group here or anywhere else in the world engages in a terrorist act, you absolutely cannot denounce them. You cannot criticize them. You cannot comment on them in any negative way whatsoever, and this despite what they believe, despite the connections between their beliefs and actions, and despite the fact they have just killed a bunch of people. All that matters are the words "muslim", and the knee jerk need to defend.
 
I see this most often among those who defend Nazis under the misapprehension they are defending Germans, yes.

It's a sacred cow. If a Muslim individual or group here or anywhere else in the world engages in a terrorist act, you absolutely cannot denounce them. You cannot criticize them. You cannot comment on them in any negative way whatsoever, and this despite what they believe, despite the connections between their beliefs and actions, and despite the fact they have just killed a bunch of people. All that matters are the words "muslim", and the knee jerk need to defend.

We'll finish this tango latter. I've gotta go to a summit.
 
I posted DOCUMENTATION (2 links, one on demand, and fact filled post of my own) for my claims on Islam.

You couldn't rebut them.. nor could anyone.

Islam DOES have an inordinate problem with Violence and literalism to a book of the same.
-

:rofl:rofl:rofl

Do you actually understand how debate works? Do you know the definition of the word "rebut?"
 
Are the troops just supposed to ignore the anti muslim rightwing rhetoric comming from the teabag crowd? Are they suppose to ignore the more or less continuous hatespew towards the president reguarding the muslim issue? All in negative tones.

Republican leaders are sending a clear message to the troops reguarding this.
The message is....Muslims can be attacked no matter what. No matter who.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.




Only you would go there. Show some respect, this is not an issue for your abhorrent distasteful hyper partisan hack unintellectual bloviating. Jeeshus d00d.
 
Open your eyes people, this guy was handing out copies of the Quran yesterday morning (fact) He is a good muslim doing exactly what a good muslim is supposed to do.

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.

You are got to be ****ting me. :roll:
 
It's a sacred cow. If a Muslim individual or group here or anywhere else in the world engages in a terrorist act, you absolutely cannot denounce them. You cannot criticize them. You cannot comment on them in any negative way whatsoever, and this despite what they believe, despite the connections between their beliefs and actions, and despite the fact they have just killed a bunch of people. All that matters are the words "muslim", and the knee jerk need to defend.

You can denounce as many individuals as you please.
And you can criticise, comment and judge them.

I think the line is drawn when the criticism of that individual is generalized to a very diverse group.

I can just as easily call this individual a crazy Muslim soldier who seemed to have snapped and murdered a bunch of people for no purpose it seems but to validate their sterotypes. If someone is too scared to say that they need to grow some balls.
 
Last edited:
You are got to be ****ting me. :roll:

The assessment of the process is sound.

One day a seed takes root and then the person becomes radical.

How long it takes is the only question.
 
Immigrant parents of Palestine have quite an impact about the Israeli issue on their children (Palestinian children are encouraged to walk on the Star of David in their schools). Being "made fun of" is a pathetic excuse. He had deep torn feelings about fighting in a war where Muslims were the enemy. Perhaps he got far more pressured harassment from his parents post 9/11.

So this is to go down as a "School shooting" where the nerd had a bully problem? All other factors are to be shoved as far away as possible....until the next time....again? This is going to have so much media BS on this.

OORRRRRRRRR....it could boil down to a mentally imbalanced individual lashing out at those who have harassed him and the system that is forcing him into some kind of nightmare by sending him to fight a war that he is against.

Would you concede there is a difference between a man who kills because he is having a mental breakdown and happens to be Muslim and a Muslim who kills because he is executing what he believes is his religious duty to murder infidels?
 
Back
Top Bottom