posted November 08, 2009 12:22 AM         

I read in "The Next Hundred Years" by G. Friedman, that the war with Iraq will just become a memory like the Spanish War.

So, hopefully any irritating feelings between the States and Islamic countries would have changed course.

posted November 08, 2009 11:21 AM         

Diane Sawyer - either espousing her editorial fantasy or a quoting a third hand comment from an anonymous "military wife" -- was dreadfully upset that the mass murderer from Fort Hood was not named Smith. One can only imagine how thrilled she'd have been had he been named something like, oh I don't know, Palin.

From what I can deduce, had his name been Smith it would be much easier for the Diane Sawyers of the Jurassic media to cover up what they fear really went on here. (In perhaps a related story, none of the 9-11 attackers were in the Smith family either.) And what appears to have gone wrong is that a poster child for every wrong headed politically correct liberal program our great military has been forced to accept blew a gasket and took 13 un-armed American soldiers out. Predictably blew a gasket I might add.

While many facts are yet to be determined, what we do know is that a man not named Smith -- but named Hasan -- had some decidedly un-Smith like beliefs and he was rather adamant about espousing them. That is to say, this well paid U.S. Army Major held some beliefs strangely coincident with the very people that most U.S. Army Majors are fighting against. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the idea that sympathy with the enemy is called "treason" rather than the modern touchy feely idea that it is simply a "healthy diversity."

Such diversity wasn't too damned healthy for about 45 soldiers, now was it? According to the coroner's report, many are even beyond sensitivity training at this point. Where is George Patton to slap some sense into someone when you need him?

We also know that a major who happens to be a devout follower of Islam -- the well documented religion of peace -- strode into one of the principal gathering points at Fort Hood and shot 40 some unarmed military personnel. Among them was a pregnant woman.

We also know that Major Hasan, quite consistent with many who follow Islam -- that well documented religion of peace -- was quite taken with the idea of the Middle Eastern homicide bombers. He is known to have compared them with valiant U.S. soldiers throwing themselves on a grenade to save buddies. Now I hate to quibble, but isn't a suicide bomber actually the opposite of those diving on a grenade?

And while we're on the subject of Islam -- that well documented religion of peace -- Hasan apparently agreed with Bin Laden's PR department that what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is occupation. Further, the U.S. military is just a bunch of infidels. Hasan has indicated he was in favor of our losing the wars in both theatres.

Now in a country that would not stand for the idea of Derek Jeter switching to Philly red in the middle of the World Series, what sense does it make to have Major Hasan in our military? For crying out loud, "don't ask don't tell" should not apply to the notion of whose side you are on!

In reality though, this was not even a case of don't ask don't tell. No one had to ask Major Hasan to get him to tell people what he believed. He was against the war in Iraq, against the war in Afghanistan and allegedly verbally pro-Allah as he was gunning down unarmed American soldiers.

Imagine in World War II if an American officer had shouted "Heil Hitler" as he was killing un-armed soldiers. Would there be any soul-searching debate about "PRE-traumatic stress syndrome" and other gobbledy goop? And if his name were Schmidt -- oddly close to Smith actually -- would Diane Sawyer be in a snit?

Of course, this would never have happened in WW2. Things are different today. Somehow our military remains the best in the world while accommodating all kinds of fast track programs for psychiatrist officers whose name sounds a lot like those on the roster at Gitmo while ignoring the detail that he might be anti-American.

And that's the real story here. He was not named Smith. He didn't act like a Smith or talk like a Smith or have allegiances like a Smith. He was so not-a-Smith that someone should have noticed. Or more to the point, our military should not be so eaten up with political correctness that the many who did notice were forced to shut up about it. This was so utterly predictable, which is to say utterly preventable.

That's not to say folks named Hasan should not be in the military. It just might be a good idea if they held onto some mudane Smith type attitudes, like perhaps being pro-American. This is not discrimination. ALL soldiers, regardless of their name, should be pro-American at a minimum. Surely this is logical.

Of course, what else is predictable is how the media is covering it. In the words of an NPR report: "we know he took his faith seriously, but we can't say for sure that was a factor." Right. That's exactly what they say about anyone who bombs an abortion clinic, as we know. Finding out that Hasan is a follower of Islam is harder to discover in most reports as was the fact that Eliot Spitzer was a Democrat.

Equally predictable is our President -- who is also not named Smith by the way. Barack Hussein Obama was giving "shout-outs" to folks at a speech related to native Americans at the Department of the Interior shortly after the news of the Fort Hood tragedy broke. This is not George Bush rapidly finishing a two-minute story to the school kids he was already in front of after hearing the horrific news of 9-11 whispered into his ear. No. This was a President who had time to delay, cancel or at least, reprogram a very non-crucial photo op in light of the news.

The only thing missing was Jeremiah Wright hootin and hollerin about "America's chickens" and high fiving and so on. I mean, God bleep America, we deserved it, didn't we? At the very least, Obama's reaction can charitably be characterized as cold. And not cool at all.

posted November 08, 2009 02:47 PM         

To paraphrase, there is a great trembling in my heart for the future of things to come. In regards to the inherent anti-Semitism and lack of respect for other ways of life found in the fascist interpretations of the Quran by Sharia law, if the adherents of Islam do not live up to their own responsibilities, towards the tolerance (and by that I mean a "proper" definition of the word, not a simple indifference) that should be awarded to those that do not share their religion, then there can only be a furtherance of discord and more war to come. Without this tolerance, and only a mere indifference to other faiths, what other word could we use for the description of such behavior that would be more accurate than "bigotry"? Let's call a spade a spade and not fool ourselves, shall we?

Given the complex nature of the spread of these conflicts, it has become obvious to me that this clashing of Western and Eastern principles is unavoidable. Finding the blame for the situation will not produce any solution and knowing what may be done to soothe it, if anyone with authority might arrive at such, will hardly be something that could be capably executed. There are strong karmic knots in this situation and, it saddens me to think it but, I cannot feel any possible resolution to these conflicts without more war and destruction as a result.

posted November 08, 2009 09:27 PM         

Lets list out the attacks done by other soldiers thus far to date shall we?

• May 11, 2009: Five soldiers shot dead at Camp Liberty in Baghdad by Sgt. John Russell.

• Sept. 8, 2008: Spc. Jody Michael Wirawan shoots himself to death after killing 1st Lt. Robert Bartlett Fletcher at Fort Hood.

• Feb. 25, 2008: Dustin Thorson, an Air Force technical sergeant, fatally shoots his son and daughter at home on Tinker Air Base in Oklahoma in domestic dispute with ex-wife. He had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after returning from Iraq.

• June 7 2005: Two National Guard officers are killed by a grenade at headquarters in Tikrit. Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez is later acquitted of murder in a court-martial.

• Oct. 27, 1995: Sgt. William Kreutzer goes on shooting spree at Fort Bragg, killing one and injuring 18 in a sniper attack during formation. He is serving a life sentence after a death sentence was overturned.

I find it truly INSULTING that the media is portraying ALL MUSLIMS who serve in the damned army as a possible threat and the brain dead masses are lapping it all up. My God... These men and women are willing to lay their lives down to protect the American people! I think they deserve a bit more respect then that.

And Noisis, maybe you need to look at events like these for a change:

Muslim group calls for burka ban in Canada

By Charles Lewis

http://www.canada.com/life/Muslim+group+calls+burka+Canada/2081876/story.html

TORONTO — A Canadian Muslim group is calling on Ottawa to ban the wearing of the burka in public, saying the argument that the right to wear it is protected by the charter's guarantee of freedom of religion is false.

"The burka has absolutely no place in Canada," said Farzana Hassan, of the Muslim Canadian Congress. "In Canada we recognize the equality of men and women. We want to recognize gender equality as an absolute. The burka marginalizes women."

She said many women who cover their face in public are being forced to by their husbands and family. As a result, she argued, these women are denied opportunities and cannot live freely as other women in this society.

"The Koran exhorts Muslims toward modesty, which can be expressed in a number of different ways and it doesn't have to be that you have to cover your face or you have to wear a virtual tent wherever you go. This is not a requirement of Islam or the Koran. We are saying this practice has become a political issue promoted by extremists and to counter this trend we are asking for a ban on the burka."

The proposal calls for the banning of "masks, niqabs and burkas." A niqab covers the face but allows the eyes to be seen; a burka covers the entire body and the eyes are obscured by a mesh covering.

"For me that is a huge embarrassment," said Hassan. "It brings the kind of criticism Muslims (unfairly) face."

Hassan said her group is bringing this up now because of an edict released this week in Egypt, by a top Muslim authority, calling for a ban on the burka.

Hassan said she is not asking for the banning of the hijab, which just covers the hair, but she would also like to see that custom vanish.

Professor Amir Hussain, who teaches theology at Loyola Marymount College in Los Angeles, but grew up in Toronto, said the fact that the burka is not in the Koran does not mean that it is not part of authentic religious practice and that many religions absorb cultural practices that eventually become sacred.

He said he does not believe there are enough women wearing the burka in Canada to call it a serious issue. But for those women who are being forced to wear it by family members, the best way to deal with it is to reach out to those women on an individual level.

He said any legal ban will infringe on fundamental democratic rights.

"In Turkey, a secular society, it is illegal to wear it. In Iran you'll be punished if you don't wear it. Either way imposing a belief on women."

In the past few years, the debate over what kind of religious dress should be allowed has been loud and intense.

In June, French President Nicolas Sarkozy went so far as to call a parliamentary commission to look at whether to ban the wearing of burkas and niqabs in public. In France, religious headgear of any faith has already been banned in public schools.

Also in June, the Michigan Supreme Court amended its rules of evidence to give trial judges discretion over whether a woman can be fully veiled when testifying or when bringing accusations. The new rule did not mention Muslims but it will clearly affect Muslims.

Last year an Ontario judge said religious beliefs did not give a woman the right to wear a veil while testifying against her alleged rapist. The decision is now before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

posted November 09, 2009 12:29 AM         

I sure hope that your reference to me as "Noisis" was an innocent typo.

In all honesty, your article is hardly comforting. I'm not sure if you have taken offense to the questions that I am bringing up here, but I just want to clarify that I do not harbor any hatred for nor fear against Islam or Muslims. I am just asking questions that beg to be answered.

With all due respect to women and their rights, the issue of the burqa/niqab is the least of our worries.

Xodian, I am earnestly trying to make sense of the severity of the intolerant, anti-Semitic/anti-apostate/anti-non-muslim bigotry that is often shown in the speech and subject matter of the propaganda that is spread in Arab countries, but I cannot wrap my mind around it.

I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty to ask, but:
Have you ever read or even heard of Reliance of the Traveler? What is your opinion on Sharia?

posted November 09, 2009 08:42 PM         

a) For the typo Lol!
b) If my post came out as a condemnation to your post. It wasn't my intention. You have every right to ask the given question.

quote:

---

With all due respect to women and their rights, the issue of the burqa/niqab is the least of our worries.

---

Unfortunately in Arab nations that have chosen to confuse the verses of the Quran with Archaic tribal laws, it isn't. Infact if women in those nations didn't choose to move on to bigger and better positions offered in more moderate Islamic nations that chose to value their rights, the hardliners in the nations in question wouldn't have bowed down to pressure and chosen to bend to the moderate POV for women's rights.

quote:

---

Xodian, I am earnestly trying to make sense of the severity of the intolerant, anti-Semitic/anti-apostate/anti-non-muslim bigotry that is often shown in the speech and subject matter of the propaganda that is spread in Arab countries, but I cannot wrap my mind around it.

---

There is no sense in it. Its a twisted facade of hate and bile that needs to be debunked once and for all. Ironically enough, even in hardline nations like Saudi Arabia who on the surface have chosen to disconnect all ties with Israel, there are silent trade talks going on with representatives from Israel and they have even collaborated togather to hunt down wanted terrorists who have inflicted harm to both nations. Most recently: Mughniyeh... The "former" commander of Hezbullah that bombed a U.S. compound in SA.

So yes, its absolutely horrendous and more Muslims do need to speak out on the matter without fear. I have chosen to do it. So can others.

As for my views on the Sharia law, I can honestly say that its the single most warped up parchment that has been misinterperted way too many times. While I agree that harsh punishment for criminals is the key for maintaining order, the Jurisprudence through which the proceedings go through the Sharia law aremjust... Argh! Ergo the misinterpertation can only end when a secular base law has been introduced that a huge majority of people can agree upon.

posted November 09, 2009 09:59 PM         

The exceptions are where like oaths of loyalty are blunt and unambiguous. For example, I've never been a supporter of the Hamas faction in Palestine for clearly stating what they intend to do to Jews, as well as other people they don't like in their charter & public statements (as opposed to making a statement of what being a member of Hamas means to them).

And I don't like ANY theocracy. It doesn't matter the religion, both historical & contemporary times show me that making a specific religion as a dominating force in a government is a VERY BAD THING. Of course, many (but not all) predominantly Islamic regions have varying degrees of theocracy (some of them outright--the fact that they're opposed to other sects is irrelevant to me, just like the Catholics being protested by the Protestants or Orthodox is irrelevant, or the more contemporary Serbia or the African nations where barbaric Christians & barbaric Muslims vie for supremacy--and often for a brutal theocracy of their specific religion, or even sect).

posted November 11, 2009 03:44 AM         

islam is the second religion in france with 6 millions in a pop of 60. they APPEAR very attached to their principles but they aren't always following them;

islam is very peaceful and promote peace, love and respect.

i think islam is not sharia. like western countries aren't the illuminati;

people are looking for preconceived notions to put other in boxes, on all sides of the world.

posted November 11, 2009 04:43 PM         

The Fort Hood Massacre sits heavy in my heart. The example you bring up about SGT Russell also breaks my heart.

He killed two Soldiers from our BDE. My husband, Bear the Leo, is STILL deployed, even though 1000 of our Soldiers are back. The ahole from Bamberg killed two of our guys. I WENT to their memorial. I cried at their memorial.

While this is an example TO YOU- this is ALL TOO real to me. My friends are at Fort Hood. When I saw what happened, I had no idea if several of Bear's colleagues, my friends, were okay. Hasan opened fire on an SRP- Soldier Readiness Preparation. As a Family Readiness Support Technician, I have to attend those SRP's.

Would it have been different if you read here that one of our own were killed by some jerk that used his religion to kill? What about the white, insane right-wing extremist that kills an abortion doctor? Would you tip toe around that or would you call a spade a spade?

This is ALL WAY too REAL to me. I live this life, I am one of the few people here that has a real dog in this race. Jwhop knows, Eleanore knows LaLaLinda knows. But most here live in a little bubble where this war or these wars are just something to talk about.

I have attended more than 15 memorials in less than 2 years. Not only for my DH's Brigade but for the Regiment that I work for. My friends- who I see as my family in the Regiment.. they will deploy to Afghanistan and replace the BDE that is losing so many people. These are the people I see on a daily basis. I take care of the families and Soldiers. I report to the squadron commander. It kills me that so many people would rather defend a piece of sh!t terrorist that used his religion to kill than our own Soldiers that fight for us to say this bullsh1t all the time.

posted November 11, 2009 08:05 PM         

While it may seem convinient to you to point fingers and get angry at others for stating the facts regarding the incident, maybe you should try to see the circumstances behind THEIR backgrounds.

I lived through the Gulf War. Heck I grew up near a U.S. fighter base in Taif and later in Riyad. My family and I used to live in a western housing complex in the region. I practically grew up around American Fighter pilots. I laughed with them, I morned with them, and it pained me so badly that every time they went up in the air, there was a possibility that they would get shot down by SAMs or a lucky hit by a two bit Iraqi jet. The friendship I developed with these pilots was life altering. The Gulf war ended, and I didn't have to worry about manditory service or Saddam anymore. But lo and behold, in comes that dickward Usama Bin Ladin and decides to blow up western housing complexes to send his twisted little messages. The family members of people I know died in those attacks... Americans included.

So please... Don't you personalize this conflict to one end alone. I know how you feel and in no way am I defending this douchebag's actions. I am certain he is about to get the firing squad treatment and rightfully so.

posted November 11, 2009 11:18 PM         

glad you're okay pid and bear is still doing okay too. when do you get to come home?

but i wonder about this: " Would it have been different if you read here that one of our own were killed by some jerk that used his religion to kill? What about the white, insane right-wing extremist that kills an abortion doctor?"

since as i recall you were in the "serves'im right" category when that abortion doctor got killed. there are two sides to EVERY story.

posted November 12, 2009 01:40 AM         

Xodian,
Thank you again for responding.
I've been working on replying to you but it has been taking me a bit longer than I expected. I have been writing a little bit every day but I won't be able to complete it in a timely manner. Thanks for your patience.

Pidaua,

Thank you for taking part in this thread, despite it being so painful for you to read some of these words. I cannot imagine the kinds of emotions that you must confront on a daily basis and I know this must be extremely hard for you. I can only hope that something good will come of this conversation for those of us that need to hear it. These very real emotions that come out of the discussions of this very topic is one of the very things that I wanted to address in my reply.

Sorry all, for my delay. It will take me just a little longer to reply (perhaps another day or two?).

Blessings,

posted November 14, 2009 01:44 AM         

quote:

---

Unfortunately in Arab nations that have chosen to confuse the verses of the Quran with Archaic tribal laws, it isn't. Infact if women in those nations didn't choose to move on to bigger and better positions offered in more moderate Islamic nations that chose to value their rights, the hardliners in the nations in question wouldn't have bowed down to pressure and chosen to bend to the moderate POV for women's rights.

---

I understand your meaning and although I agree that Muslim women fighting for their equality and rights under the law is an important current towards the confrontation against the fulcrum of the Middle East's conflicted state, I still feel strongly that our concerns must draw a greater attention to those forces that have allowed for this oppression of women to take place. (In stating this, I hope it is understood that I am not pretending to know any answers. I simply mean that I feel a great importance is owed to a conscious understanding of the elements that plague this highly relevant issue of our times.)

There is no way of getting to the roots of the conflict within Islam (and the turmoil that this conflict is unleashing upon the world) while trying to avoid certain truths simply because they might hurt others’ feelings. This is probably the most debilitating element in regards to this issue! The fact that we cannot even slightly talk about these things without detractions of thought and a flaring of volatile emotions interrupting the currents of conversation is not simply unfortunate – it is becoming THREATENING to the security of the world in the realest sense! This has been torturing me a great deal lately and so I have felt the necessity to lay my thoughts out candidly without fear or hesitation.

As a Christian, I am going to put forth some ideas that may seem biased. Depending on your definition, this may well be justified. With the intention of inviting a more accurate spirit, however, I will personally define my perspectives as “influenced”. These considerations, obviously, are from my own experiences through life and are therefore inspired by them. That fact alone should not be considered the weakness of my arguments, for that exactly would be the kind of dogmatic interpretation which I am arguing against. It is this kind of hardened, dogmatic thinking that is the same mechanism used by religious hardliners promoting atrocities across the world.

posted November 14, 2009 01:47 AM         

The hard-line approach to interpretation is, in every way, a mechanism that constricts and chokes the spirit of life in human wisdom. In the most obvious example of our times, the rigidness of jihadists results in their sickening propagation of barbarism. Again, this takes place through an inhuman compliance to dogma that proceeds with the strictest belief that Islam is the one true religion. When this works upon them, the pitiful jihadists justify the atrocities that they perform because they become physical declarations of the authenticity and authority of Islam. This is one manner in which it becomes clear to reason that these jihadists operate through a great measure of insanity. These are not, in any way, a people that are fighting for their rights and equality. By their very actions they have, in a very real way, sacrificed their own humanity for something that falls horribly short of a fair deal.

The discussions that have flourished on the topic of moderate and radical Islam are many and varied. This seems an obvious development as the relevance that this topic has to our current period grows exponentially. There are some that simplify the cause of the problem at hand to the lack of secularism in Islamic states. This is a futile argument. Secularism has been practiced to varying degrees in many Islamic countries. The difference in the Middle East is that secularism is condoned and not directly addressed. The hijab (an Islamic code for dress), for example, is not actually a legal requirement in most Muslim countries. Of course, there isn’t often the need to make it law since most Muslims in the Middle East are very compliant to the doctrines of their religion. This is not to say that most Muslims are mere followers. Most Muslims, as a people, simply have a strong impulse to sacrifice everything for that which is moral and good. The unfortunate side of this character - with such potential for virtue - is that when it is coupled with a hyper-dependence on the world of the senses, it can often become a recipe for great volatility. This is most readily perceptible in the observance of the hijab. Muslim women are often very willing and even proud to wear burqas and niqabs because they see it as something that is good for the community. This is where the Arabesque character is most notable, too. Lust, as a great detractor of the hearts of men, is perceived directly as something that occurs in the physical world. In observing this, a great attention is given to the attractiveness of women in this regard. Therefore, it is the attractiveness of women that seems to be the cause of men’s lust. In other words, the spiritual value for the presence of the hijab in the Islamic tradition is found in the direct perception of the physical world through the senses. It is in this particular manner of experiencing the world, a manner that seems to me more fitting for the adjective “secular”, that allows for the acceptance of this tradition to take place even today, in the most “secular” of times. Many Muslim women hold fast to their nature in willing to make great sacrifices for what is right. So much so, that they are willing to sacrifice even their own rights. It should easily, then, be realized that a ban of such behavior is not addressing the root issue. Such adherence simply fights fire with fire. Those that would ban the burqa for this reason become exactly that to which they are opposed without even realizing it. (This is not to support the notion that no restrictions should apply. I find myself quite opposed to this garb in certain places like banks, for example).

This is why I feel that the article on the burqa ban has no positive value. On the contrary, I feel that this distracts from the issues that Muslims are in great need of addressing. How is it that the existences of madrassas, that twist the minds of little children with the perversions of jihad, are allowed to continue their operations? Why is the Middle-East so ridden with great contempt and scorn for non-Muslims and Western nations? Is it possible to question Islamic tradition and to support the establishment of a more moderate Islam without being accused of apostasy by dogmatic believers?

Understanding this situation in the highest sense is urgently required of all of us. We cannot afford to lose any sense of this to the comfort we allow ourselves in ignorance and detachment. If this has not affected some in a direct way presently, it is sure to do so some time in the future. For, as I have mentioned, my heart fears that the enmity so prevalent in Islam will begin to flourish in a Western manner. When the West begins to uniformly call the Middle-East out on its bigotry, its brain-washing, its oppression and so on, there may very well be a transference of character in Western nations that lies outside the fringes of Christ’s synthesis.

posted November 14, 2009 02:02 PM         

that was a different time. while there WERE some religious "bigots" (my church is the right church) mostly religion was a personal affair and not something to be commented on. of course this homogenous outlook tended to exclude jews...many of whom changed their names on entering the country so as to be less subject to scrutiny and discrimination. i think it took WWII and a huge influx of jewish refugees to create a space of tolerance and even protection of judaism here in the states...

but i find it interesting that we devote so much time and attention on the transgressions and misapprehensions of islam while our own fundamentalists become more blatant and confrontational every day. the horrible similarity between, as pidaua pointed out, the religious nut who shot the abortion doctor in kansas and the religious nut who will blow himself up to take out a few "infidel" is what has created many of the most atrocious wars of our histories.

the crusades - almost a thousand years ago it was the christians who marched into muslim land to eradicate the devil from men's lives [ the fact that there was also a huge financial motive tends to go unnoticed when religion comes into the propaganda picture] even today many people do not see the outrageousness of our "christian" countries condescending to all others in our sincere attempts to "save" people from UNCHRISTIAN lives [you can substitute UNDEMOCRATIC or UNFREE if you like!]

AND WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS WHAT SOMEONE ELSE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD LOOKS LIKE?

so i think the remarkable thing is that it has taken this long for islam to assume the same stance...all non-muslims need to be either converted or destroyed...it sounds just like the hardline christian M.O. to me.
and we crusading christians have contributed to the ferocity of their extremism by pushing our own.

posted November 14, 2009 04:42 PM         

BTW, I was wondering whether or not you are still a practicing Muslim and, if so, are you a Sunni, Shi'a, or another denomination?

posted November 14, 2009 04:46 PM         

quote:

---

I've been waiting years for you to broach the subject.

---

What on earth are you talking about?

If there's something I love about Scorpios, it's that you all follow a different set of rules altogether.