Perspectives: 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' - A reason to carry firearms for self-defense


PDA






Desertdog
March 17, 2007, 10:56 PM
Perspectives: 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' - A reason to carry firearms for self-defense
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/03/perspectives_sudden_jihad_synd.php


I have compiled (quite easily, I might add) a list of murders and attempted murders carried out by Muslims acting on the basis of what the founder of Islam taught them.

Convinced that they will go to heaven if they die killing infidels who Mohammed taught his followers to hate, some Muslims don't bother joining al Qaeda or some other organized band of thugs. They get so filled with hatred from hearing Islamic sermons and visiting jihadi web sites that they decide to become freelance Jihadis.

The condition is recognizable and has been labeled Sudden Jihad Syndrome (SJS) -- although some people are unable, or unwilling, to recognize SJS. Politically correct spokesmen for the FBI and other agencies seem to be under orders to issue a denial that a SJS-related murder could possibly have anything to do with Islam.

The rest of the population should come to grips with the fact that many in America are susceptible to SJS. The best antidote for many SJS-related acts of terrorism is a bullet fired from the gun of a prospective victim.

The following list is offered to show that SJS is a reality, and that rational Americans should be prepared to deliver the most effective known antidote – a bullet administered at the first sign of an outbreak of SJS.



March 1994 – Rashid Baz, a Muslim from Lebanon, opened fire on a van containing members of the Lubavitch Hassids in Brooklyn. One was killed.

February 1997 – Palestinian-born Ali Abu Kamal opened fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, killing a tourist and injuring six other people before committing suicide. His daughter, Linda Kamal, said in 2007 that the family is tired of lying and admitted that a letter had been found on her father's body explaining his Muslim hatred for Israel and America.

July 2002 – Egyptian-born Hesham Mohammed Hadayet walked into the Israeli Airlines El Al terminal at the Los Angeles airport and began shooting Jews. He killed two and injured another four. He was known to sympathize with al Qaeda.

September 2002 – Patrick Gott killed one and wounded another in the New Orleans airport. He had entered the terminal with a shotgun and his Koran.

October 2002 – John Mohammed and Lee Malvo killed 13 people in the Washington, DC area. Both were converts to Islam and had attended a jihad training camp in southwestern Virginia.

August 2003 – Mohammed Ali Alayed almost totally decapitated his erstwhile Jewish friend, Ariel Sellouk, following Alayed’s getting serious about his Islamic faith. He went to a mosque after killing Sellouk.

October 2005 – Joel Henry Hinrichs III, a convert to Islam, was an engineering student at Oklahoma University. His student career ended when a bomb he had strapped on himself went off prematurely outside a crowed stadium, killing only himself. Police subsequently cleared explosives from the apartment that Hinrichs had shared with Muslim students from Pakistan.

April 2006 – Muslim Ayhan Surucu was so angry when his sister started to wear make-up and date men in Berlin, Germany, that he put a gun to her head at a bus stop and killed her. Boys at a nearby school, attended mainly by the children of immigrant Muslim families, cheered and applauded when news of the murder reached them.

May 2006 – Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill student, rented an SUV and drove it through a crowded part of the campus-- intentionally trying to hit people and wounding nine. In a series of letters to the student newspaper, he explained that he acted in obedience to Koranic dictates.

June 2006 – Michael Ford, a Muslim convert, walked into work at a Safeway warehouse in Denver and opened fire on his coworkers, killing one and injuring five. Relatives explained that he was being teased at work because he’s a Muslim and he could not take it anymore.

July 2006 – Naveed Alzal Haq, a Pakistani, walked into the Jewish Federation Center in downtown Seattle and shot six women-- killing one, and wounding five( one of whom was pregnant). He stated matter-of-factly: "I am a Muslim American angry at Israel."

August 2006 – Omeed Aziz Popal, a Muslim Afghan refugee, used his SUV as a weapon and ran down at least 14 people and a bicyclist in the San Francisco Bay area. He was targeting Jewish neighborhoods to terrorize.

January 2007 – A 22-year-old Muslim, Ismail Yassin Mohamed, stole a car in Minneapolis and rammed it into other cars before stealing a van and doing the same, injuring several drivers and pedestrians at crosswalks and on sidewalks before police caught up with him. Mohamed called himself a "terrorist."

February 2007 – Ibrihim Ahmed, a Nashville cab driver and Muslim, was enraged that two passengers did not agree with him about Islam. When they got out of the cab, he tried to run them down, striking one in a parking lot.

February 2007 – Sulejman Talovic, a Bosnian Muslim immigrant, went to a Salt Lake City mosque on a Friday night. Then he went to one of only two malls in the state which prohibits civilian carrying of concealed weapons. He killed five before an off-duty cop (not subject to ban) used a concealed firearm stopped his murder spree.

Cornell University did a study estimating that there are seven million Muslims in the U.S. If even a single percent of that population is motivated to go kill a few infidels for Allah, the country would be facing 70,000 murderers on the loose.

The examples that I have found of Islam being the driving force for murder show that the prospect of Sudden Jihad Syndrome should be reason to loosen the country’s concealed carry laws. The Utah Jihadi did not have a concealed carry permit, but he carried his weapons to the scene of the crime concealed anyway. Why should the laws make it harder for the rest of us to counter what criminals are already doing?

Put another way, our current restrictions on concealed carry on the books in most states facilitate murder by tying the hands of victims.
The law should be on our side, not on the side of the bad guys.


Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a National gun lobby with over 300,000 members located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151, (703) 321-8585.

If you enjoyed reading about "Perspectives: 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' - A reason to carry firearms for self-defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Derek Zeanah
March 17, 2007, 11:23 PM
Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of AmericaSounds like a good reason not to donate to GOA again.

-- Derek (self-identified Muslim)

SoCalShooter
March 17, 2007, 11:25 PM
I think that the list is a little short to be claiming that all muslims have this capacity already ingrained in them. Interesting either way though but not really conclusive by any means.

Titan6
March 17, 2007, 11:27 PM
Do we need more reasons to carry than what we already have?

'The condition is recognizable and has been labeled Sudden Jihad Syndrome (SJS)'

--- By who? Never heard of it.

Also just a guess but Johnny Malvo was in it for the money and could have given a hoot about religion.

Liberal Gun Nut
March 17, 2007, 11:30 PM
Some people, for whatever reason, have a propensity to "go postal". Some of these people are Muslims. Some are postal workers. Some are just regular American Joes. When a postal worker does it we say, "it's 'cause he's a postal worker". When a Muslim does it we say, "it was for the Jihad". Etc. But none of this is true. It's all just their own internal whatever it is. They may later say, "I did it for the Jihad" or whatever, but the responsibility is 100% with the individual who chose to do it. There are a billion Muslims out there who don't shoot up people.

Nomad, 2nd
March 17, 2007, 11:40 PM
Derek: First if I may a little background about myself:

I am a Marine, and I have been deployed to Iraq in a Combat arms capacity.

While in Iraq I observed many things both admirable and horrible about the Islamic culture.
I did my duty, and did what was necessary and have few regrets. (Anyone who says they have none... well lets not go there.)

I returned to the US almost 2 years ago, and have spent the time since recieving medical care (3 surgeries down, 4th and last in April)

I have Several Muslim friends, from both Iraq and Iran.

Now for what I have to say: I do not believe Larry Pratt had anything to say against Muslim's. he was speaking out against those Muslim's who wished to do harm to iniocents. (Something I believe forbiden in the Koran)
-Please reference the: "SOME Muslems"

This article is written as a reason to provide a reason to promote the Second Amendment. It could just as Easily talked about White Christians (Of which I am one) and the extream elements which associate themselves with Christianity.

I have heard of people calling for us to do the same thing to Muslims as was done to the Japanease during WW2. I am against this (And I'm not trying to suck up to you.) I believe if we do this the Terrorists have WON!

This is America. Where you are free to worship any way you choose. And I will be happy to elemanate anyone who wants to infringe upon that right wether Christian or Muslim.
-Please tell me if you have a problem with this.

I believe this article is mearly a side of that statement.

I hope I have expressed myself adequately.

Titan6
March 17, 2007, 11:52 PM
That is better so let us look at facts. 13 years about 200000 firearm related murders. Take out the Malvo's and we are talking what 5? How is this a big threat?

Derek Zeanah
March 17, 2007, 11:58 PM
I do not believe Larry Pratt had anything to say against Muslim's. he was speaking out against those Muslim's who wished to do harm to iniocents.

Doesn't seem to mirror his opening: I have compiled (quite easily, I might add) a list of murders and attempted murders carried out by Muslims acting on the basis of what the founder of Islam taught them.

Convinced that they will go to heaven if they die killing infidels who Mohammed taught his followers to hate-Please reference the: "SOME Muslems"I don't see "some" listed in the initial post. According to the head of GOA, Mohammad taught Muslims to kill Jews. And there's an (apparently measurable) risk that some irrational American Muslim will go nutzo on the street and kill random American Jews. And that's justification for right-to-carry.

I'm all for right-to-carry (hell, I've owned permits in 3 states over the last 11 years), but find his rationale disturbing.

This is America. Where you are free to worship any way you choose. And I will be happy to elemanate anyone who wants to infringe upon that right wether Christian or Muslim.Glad you feel that way. Me? I feel like GOA isn't a great way to support my own rights. I had issues with Pratt when he backed right to life candidates over pro-gun candidates way back when, but was willing to forget about that because they do a lot of good.

I don't feel that way any more.

-Please tell me if you have a problem with this.Not if you don't have a problem with where I'm coming from. Larry Pratt can get his donations from somewhere else. :)

Lone_Gunman
March 18, 2007, 12:02 AM
Between 50 and 70 people are killed per year by lightning strikes. That dwarfs the number of people killed per year by "sudden jihad syndrome". This has to be the worst justification for carrying a handgun I have ever heard.

If the GOA continue with sort of thing, they will fade even faster into irrelevance.

Warren
March 18, 2007, 12:21 AM
Between 50 and 70 people are killed per year by lightning strikes

That's Sudden Zeus Syndrome.

There are enough fanatics of all sorts to warrent being wary. Just because some guy is paying attention to one sub-group of Fanatic Inc does not mean they are any more dangerous than the rest. I'm vastly more worried about the random criminal than of being run over by an angry cab driver.

trueblue1776
March 18, 2007, 12:32 AM
I just put a sudden jihad on a bucket of chicken...

All that article says is over the last ten years or so some (like 10) Muslims went bonkers and killed some people, I hate to say it but, way more white people commit murders in the US than anybody suffering from this "SJS". That article is completely inflammatory and ridiculous, I am probably as much of a bigot as anyone, but there is no way a group normal people (regardless of religion) will just flip a switch and decide to kill you...

wooderson
March 18, 2007, 12:36 AM
Cornell University did a study estimating that there are seven million Muslims in the U.S. If even a single percent of that population is motivated to go kill a few infidels for Allah, the country would be facing 70,000 murderers on the loose.
This sounds all nice and neat and rational... until, hopefully, the reader realizes that he pulled "one percent" out of his ass.

He has what, 15-20 incidents over 13 years? 15-20 actors out of a population of, as he says, 7 million - where does he suddenly expand that to 1%/70k?

How many white supremacists killed non-whites over that time?
How many Christians killed non-Christians over that time?

How many homicides, period, were committed in the United States over the last 13 years?

Tommygunn
March 18, 2007, 12:36 AM
Countdown to threadlock ...

obxned
March 18, 2007, 01:01 AM
I think this is much more serious than you think. Please check out:

http://beforeithappens.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/islam-101/

alucard0822
March 18, 2007, 01:06 AM
The Utah Jihadi did not have a concealed carry permit, but he carried his weapons to the scene of the crime concealed anyway. Why should the laws make it harder for the rest of us to counter what criminals are already doing?
this is about the only point out of the whole bigoted rant that I could agree with. This rest is the same irrational logic that we fight when used against us by antis pushing bans. People inherently fear what they do not understand, and even go as far as to try to legislate based on unfounded fears and emotion. Using his own statistics, if he can only come up with a couple incidents out of a muslim polulation of 7 million it proves that "SJS" is statistically insignifigant, same as the few uses of "assault rifles" in crimes. You are thousands of times more likely to be attacked/mugged/robbed by a random american bad guy than a "jihadist". His public Bigotry and unfounded conclusions hurt our cause and I will not support a low road director's organization.

TexasRifleman
March 18, 2007, 01:06 AM
Why does everyone want to continue to pretend that a goodly portion of the worlds problems right now don't stem from the teachings, twisted from the original or not, of this religion? Not all, but many, and probably the biggest proportion. Maybe not the way it was originally intented, but twisted enough and with little enough protest from other followers that it appears condoned. When those clamoring that Islam isn't this way are screaming as loud as those calling for death to all Infidel maybe I'll listen. Why isn't that happening? Why the "silent Muslims"?

As long as people try to pretend it's not true, just to be nice, it will continue.

Lock the thread, ban us all, I'm not going to be polite about this perversion of Islam (if it's a perversion, have not studied it enough to say) in any fashion. Sending 20 bucks extra to GOA this month for giving another reason to be an armed American Citizen.

IBTL and all that.....

Lone_Gunman
March 18, 2007, 01:12 AM
I don't think anyone is saying that fundamentalist islam is not causing problems.

I think what people are saying is that fundamentalist islam accounts for a statistically insignificant risk for crime in the US.

TexasRifleman
March 18, 2007, 01:21 AM
I think what people are saying is that fundamentalist islam accounts for a statistically insignificant risk for crime in the US.

When something happens often enough that the behavior pattern is given a name, is it still statistically insignificant?

Postal workers "going postal" is statistically insignificant as well, but has happened enough that people should acknowledge it exists.

Lone_Gunman
March 18, 2007, 01:29 AM
When something happens often enough that the behavior pattern is given a name, is it still statistically insignificant?


Yes, or else we would not even have the term "statistically insignificant".

SaMx
March 18, 2007, 01:38 AM
yes.
The name is just made up.
15 incidents out of a population of 7 million, over 13 years. That the same as the population of Chicago. If 15 people were killed in the entire city of Chicago in a 13 year period, would you say Chicago had a murder problem?

Over the past 13 years, many more people have been killed by ordinary criminals using AK series rifles. It's called Sudden AK Murder Syndrome, or SAKMS. Clearly we should ban AK rifles to prevent these murders.:barf:

wooderson
March 18, 2007, 02:02 AM
Why does everyone want to continue to pretend that a goodly portion of the worlds problems right now don't stem from the teachings, twisted from the original or not, of this religion? Not all, but many, and probably the biggest proportion.
My response to that would involve a popular Karl Marx quote, the Pope, Monty Python, Oliver Cromwell and 'the Troubles.' It would also pretty much guarantee a threadlock.

When those clamoring that Islam isn't this way are screaming as loud as those calling for death to all Infidel maybe I'll listen. Why isn't that happening? Why the "silent Muslims"?
Because you aren't looking in the right places? Because they don't make as good a story for the media (kinda like 'good gun owner' stories)?

You're making an assumption and then demanding answers for said unproven assumption.

alucard0822
March 18, 2007, 02:03 AM
When something happens often enough that the behavior pattern is given a name, is it still statistically insignificant?
What behavior pattern doesn't have a name? any time a new behavior is dreamed up there is someone with a PHD standing by to name it, and then come the acronyms. MHD, ADHD, DST, RPD, ADD, the list goes on and on.

15 incidents out of a population of 7 million, over 13 years. That the same as the population of Chicago. If 15 people were killed in the entire city of Chicago in a 13 year period, would you say Chicago had a murder problem?
nice to have a fellow numbers guy chime in, 13 in 7 million over 13 years, thats not wholesale public slaughter, its Mega Mayberry. Now DC has a much smaller population with an annual murder rate of about 50+ in 100,000 and gun ownership is practically illegal, what could we attribute that to? innumerable and often attacks on unconstitutionally unarmed citizens, or IAOAOUUC. that should deserve some attention

Liberal Gun Nut
March 18, 2007, 02:04 AM
When something happens often enough that the behavior pattern is given a name, is it still statistically insignificant?

Postal workers "going postal" is statistically insignificant as well, but has happened enough that people should acknowledge it exists.

There are rare diseases which have only affected a dozen people throughout history, and they have names and researchers who study them and sometimes even people looking for cures. These crimes, committed by Muslims, are of no statistical significance. There are similar levels of crime committed by Christians against non-Christians (or pick any religion) here in the US.

Most crime is committed by plain old criminals, and to the victims, does it even matter what the motivation is?

wooderson
March 18, 2007, 02:06 AM
When something happens often enough that the behavior pattern is given a name, is it still statistically insignificant?
Sudden Gun Owner Schizo Wife-Killer Syndrome.
AR-15-derived Sociopathology
etc.

We can 'name' anything we please.

Postal workers "going postal" is statistically insignificant as well, but has happened enough that people should acknowledge it exists.

"Going postal" has some cultural cachet as (largely) a joke. That's it.

wQuay
March 18, 2007, 02:17 AM
I wasn't aware of most of those incidents. Thanks.

Kaylee
March 18, 2007, 02:26 AM
1. "SJS" is just silly. "Medicalizing" a cultural phenomenon like jihad, as if it's something one can catch (people susceptible to SJS??) is just childishly absurd.

The odds of facing a jidahi in downtown USA are infinitesimal. That said, the odds of meeting a mugger aren't too terribly high, and we carry anyway. Nice that the same solution works for both problems.

2. Despite the presently few incidents in the US, to deny that violence fueled by jihadi sentiment is a real and growing problem in the world at large and within our own borders is to practice willful ignorance. Contrariwise, to say that any given random person in the US is in immediate danger of facing a jihadi bent on violence is silly.

3. The degree to which violent jihad reflects "legitimate" Islam is.. well, beyond the scope of this thread.


And thanks for keeping us running Derek. :)

MatthewVanitas
March 18, 2007, 02:39 AM
I am a Marine, and I have been deployed to Iraq in a Combat arms capacity.


That's a lot of folks on this board. And there's definitely a correlation between working directly with Iraqis (Anbar Bedouins in my case), and understanding that they're not a nation of cookie-cutter Disney villains.

Coming away from Iraq thinking of all Iraqis as "those camel-******* who shot at us" doesn't necessarily entail a detailed understanding of the Islamic world. That said, thanks for your service, hope it worked out well for you as well, and that you're also pimping the MGIB for all it's worth.


The article seemed pretty dang silly to me. The "what if 1% were out to get us?" was a laugh-out-loud moment. What if 32.5% of all of Delta Tau Tau started nibbling on my earlobes? Look, I can pull random theoretical percentages out of dank holes too!

I'm seriously annoyed enough about this article to email GOA complaining (and I am a member).

The more folks fixate on getting hysterical about East vs. West, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As silly and overwrough as the film "Kingdom of Heaven" was, I always love to reflect back on the line: "You want a war? ...I'll give you a war!"

-MV


EDIT: email sent:


Greetings,

I'm writing to express my displeasure over Mr Pratt's "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" article.

As a GOA donator and USMC Iraq veteran, I feel that Mr Pratt's article reflects poorly on America's gun owners, and amounts to blatant baiting of American Muslims.

The article is statistically laughable: "what if only 1% were against us?" Well, what if 32% of sorority girls were nibbling on my earlobes? It's a random hypothetical percentage treated as a shocking revelation. The rest of the article is similarly arbitrary.

I understand that Mr Pratt wrote the article as an individual, however, he is still directly identified with GOA by the general public, and thus reflects negatively upon the shooting community.

I urge Mr Pratt and GOA to stick to _gun_ issues, rather than sully the GOA image with such alarmist foolishness.

-Capt [edited for THR], USMC-R

bogie
March 18, 2007, 04:37 AM
Well, I can see part of it... There is a subgroup of that culture who makes a lot of noises about preferring people who are not of that culture dead.

But to label the entire culture...

I'm _far_ more worried about young urbanites, who've been taught that the world owes 'em a living and that people of European ancestry are the main reason they ain't getting it, suddenly deciding to do a bit of random plinking. One of the reasons why I didn't like walking in the city was the "evil eye" and such...

Now I'm in the 'burbs, and everything's too far to walk to. Sigh... And nobody knows from good pastrami...

At any rate, a threat can literally come from anywhere - ANYWHERE. A fringe muslim thinking that he's doing God's work. A meth-smokin' cracker who has decided that everyone in the area is DEA. A 'banger who thinks that you're dissin' him by being on his street. A christian who thinks that a bomb is a suitable solution to family planning. Organized Mexican/central/south American crime folks who don't want you to have witnessed what they just did/are about to do. Italians doing the same thing. Armenians doing the same thing. Russians doing the same thing. Irish doing the same thing. Oh heck, pick a nationality (but us dutch are kinda boring...). An aryan brotherhood nutjob who wants to ethnically cleanse everyone with an IQ over... what was his again? he forgot...

It's people, in general.

Of course, if I'm in a mall or a movie theater, and some of Bin Laden's folks decided that they wanna make an example of the place, I'm not gonna be thinking about discrimination. I'm going to be thinking about survival. But it could just as easily be someone else's folks. Bad guys are bad guys. Period.

ConfuseUs
March 18, 2007, 05:49 AM
Well that was ummmm....Interesting.
The fact that not even twenty violent crimes over 13 years involved radicalized Muslims has me running to go get a CHL ASAP in case I run into someone suffering from SJS and thus have to go for COM and maybe a MD too!</sarcasm>.

I think the author should spend more time thinking of more credible ways to persuade the public that CCW is good for public safety instead of trashing a group of people he probably has no exposure to.

Autolycus
March 18, 2007, 06:58 AM
This article is nothing but bigotry at its finest. The author is trying to induce a panic against Muslims so that gun laws will be reappealed. Thats pretty sad. I notice that the author does not comment on how many Christians go on these types of rampages? Or how many white males go on these rampages? Why? Because he is a member of both of those groups. Funny isnt it?

GOA will not get a dime of my support.

strambo
March 18, 2007, 08:25 AM
If anyone, in any way, disaggrees with that article...I'll put a jihad on you!!!:evil: :uhoh: :D

Yeah, I'm not too worried about the latest, odds are better to get struck by lightning, syndrome. In fact, despite having been to both theaters in our current GWOT...I'm not that worried about terrorists either. Certainly not worried enough to give up one single right for a feeling of increased "safety" (too late:scrutiny: ). I'll keep packin' at the mall anyway though.;)

Titan6
March 18, 2007, 09:18 AM
Giving up rights and inducing a dehumanizing character to a group based upon a poorly defined and unproven safety factor is what this article is all about. More than once I have seen people on this board and elsewhere advocate gathering up all the Muslims in this country and sending them to camps. They even cite the idiocy of the Japanese-Americans internment as a rational basis. It was wrong headed fear mongering then against the Japanese-Americans and it is the same now against Muslims.

Saying that the FBI has been coached not to talk about this plays on peoples fears that we have a problem and the government protecting us from it. This is a certain road for a group of people to call for more strictures on all of our freedoms in order to 'protect' us from ourselves. Truth is if the FBI came out and said such poorly substantsiated nonsesne the director probably would get the axe.

stevelyn
March 18, 2007, 10:47 AM
Larry Pratt seems to be a bit of a Christo-fascist and I think GOA would be much better off if he would leave out or at least tone down the religious vitriol that seems to get him off the subject at times.

However, mixed in with the religious BS is the message that we would all be better off in a position to defend ourselves regardless of the motives of the the nutcase trying to kill us.

geekWithA.45
March 18, 2007, 11:51 AM
Sigh.

Any thread that deals with the jihadist basis of terrorism dances on the edge of a sharp blade.

As a society, we can NOT afford to overgeneralize, and sweep up all members of a particular religion into the suspect list on account of some number who twist teachings to justify their inhumanity to their fellow men.

Flipside,

As a society, we can NOT afford to ignore this and pretend that there isn't _some_ relationship between twisted teachings and violent jihadism.


The many flaws of Pratt's article aside, I think there are two things that bear pointing out.

The first is that the canard, "there has been no terrorist events on American soil since 9/11" is _arguably_ NOT true.

The second is that these possible events all stem from what the authorities fear the most, the activities of independent "cells of one". These are the most feared because they are essentially unpredictable, and potentially untraceable. While the aftermath of a "cell of one" is less dramatic than that of a larger, more organized and equipped cell, the larger cell is easier to get a handle on, due to its size and connections to elsewhere. The main fear of the authorities is that dozens, or even hundred of "cells of one" would act in concert, yet without any direct connection or formal coordination.

This scenario is familiar to anyone who's read UC.

It is for _this_ reason that whatever jihadist basis of these events that may exist is downplayed in the press, for fear that this would send up the "go flare", and activate the other potential latent cells of one that are lurking out there. Even with "normal" crime, you need to deal with the "copycat effect".

An occassional person who goes postal type event every 6 months is one thing. Mass activation of "cells of one", to the unknown extent to which they actually exist, is entirely another.


At issue here, however, isn't normal crime. At issue is a belief set, twisted from the teachings of Islam (or, to be fair, any religion, but Islam's in the hotseat these days) that provides a mental, pseudo religious, and cultural framework that justifies, supports and encourages the application of violence onto whoever the designated unbelievers are.

As a society, we cannot pretend that isn't happening, but NIETHER can we make broad generalizations.

Like this thread, we must dance on the knife's edge, lest we become unbalanced.


There is one more thing I will add, that is true of every Holy Book our planet offers us, be it Koran, Bible, Upanishads, or whatever:

You must clean your hands, _and_ your heart before picking up any holy text.

You must clean your hands, so as not to get dirt on the pages.
You must clean your heart, so as not to get any dirt on you.


.

Titan6
March 18, 2007, 12:23 PM
Okay, let us assume that half or even all of these are the actions of terror cells and not individuals with mental problems. What of it?

Who is more dangerous? The crips, bloods, any number of the Mexican, Guatemalan or Columbian gangs or the Jihadists? I am willing to bet that any major gang you care to name is resonsible for 10 times the amount of violence and crime than even the most powerful Jihadist group(s) since 911. And what is the government response? The Patriot Act that steals our rights. How many terroists has it caught? A big fat zero.

Certainly there have been terrorist acts on US soil since 911. In fact you would be hard pressed to find any large city in the US where terrorists acts have not occurred since 911. A fact widely over looked is that terrorist acts have occurred in this country since before it was founded and did not start on 911.

The terrorists won big over 911. They convinced the congress to repeal our rights out of fear. They played the US in to a costly war in Iraq. And they are succeeding in convincing many Americans that all of Islam is their enemy.

Kali Endgame
March 18, 2007, 12:31 PM
You can't argue, rationalize, molify, convert or anything else, a fanatic. Period. Fanatics march to their own beat and cannot be swayed. Religion is, by and large, the main instigator of these actions. I stated Religion, not Faith. There is a huge difference between the two and to lump them together is a mistake.
Killing for a diety is a way to justify actions. Nothing more. Self defense and murder are on opposite ends of the pendulum. But when the pendulum makes a complete revolution, the two ends meet. Therein lies the problem.

Lonestar
March 18, 2007, 01:53 PM
I think SJS is a silly way to lump murders into a category and point a finger at a group of people. Sort of like having a Sudden Ghetto Syndrome every time a Poor urban black person kills someone. Its just silly.

However that said if you look at what RADICAL islam is teaching and doing, It makes some sense. No two bones about it, they are teaching their faithful to Kill Americans and Jews and if they do they will receive awards in heaven.

Master Blaster
March 18, 2007, 02:09 PM
As an American Jew, its really hard for me to have and impartial perspective on this.

Bufford Furrow a white supremecist and Christian, shot up a Jewish community center in Los Angeles a few years back because he hated Jews and saw a soft target.

Adolph Hitler, made ridding the world of Jews his priority and he nearly succeded, and that was only 63 years ago. He was not a Muslum, his reason was to avoid contaminating the master race, because Jews were the cause of all of Germany's problems, or some such reason.

Right now there are folks in charge of entire countries which may have Nuclear arms soon who are calling for Jews to be wiped off the Face of the Earth publicly, and repeatedly. There are Millions who agree wholeheartedly with this idea. Most of these folks are doing it in the name of Islam.

The reason is because Israel you see has stolen the most valuable piece of desert in the whole Middle east from the Plaestinian people!! It has no oil, it has very little water, but it is irreplacible.Jews are bad bad people which is why they allow freedom of religion to people who publically call for all Jews to be killed. Israel oppresses Muslums, that is why the 4 million Muslum Israeli citizens are lining up to leave Israel right now.

The attacks on Synagogues in Europe you never hear about in the USA are being carried out in the name of Islam. The folks flying planes into the WTC claimed they were doing it as part of their religion, as did the Madrid train bombers, the London bus bombers and all of the folks Mr. Pratt listed.

If I go to Saudi Arabia, they would not let me into the country because they dont allow Jews. If I have a bible there, or a torah, or I mention another religion or invite a Saudi citizen to attend church with me, I could be executed for proselytizing. The Saudis are the keepers of the holiest place in all Islam and the defenders of the faith, so they tollerate no other religion except Islam in their country. What is the penalty for promoting another religion in Saudi Arabia???? Why DEATH of course.

So what exactly am I to think about all of this??

That the muslem faith is peaceful and tollerant?

Is all of this just a coincidence?:)

Tommygunn
March 18, 2007, 02:28 PM
Larry Pratt seems to be a bit of a Christo-fascist and I think GOA would be much better off if he would leave out or at least tone down the religious vitriol that seems to get him off the subject at times

No, Larry Pratt is no "Christo-fascist." He is just a staunch defender of the RTKBA and has now unfortunatly gone off on a tangent and wound up in la-la land. You are right, however, in that he has definantly gone "off topic" on this one!

44AMP
March 18, 2007, 05:19 PM
Of any kind are dangerous people. I think it was Winston Churchill who said "a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". Or something like that.

The article does contain a number of verifiable facts, along with some absurd postualtions. But the facts remain. A number of murders and attemped murders have been committed by individuals who claim their reason is basically "God wants me to do this".

While this phenomenon is found throught history and in all cultures (the usual explanation is that the individual is deranged - hearing voices, etc.) fanatics claiming to be Muslims have (and continue) to make public statements that this IS their reason for doing it.

I consider the use of "SJS" to be a tongue in cheek jab at our propensity to create a "condition" and give it a sound bite acronym for nearly everthing. If Mr Pratt is actually serious about SJS, his future statements will clarify this. Until then I will give hime the benefit of the doubt, and believe him only guilty of poor judgement in his choice of sarcasm.

There are lots of fanatics in the world, but currently the most noticably dangerous are the ones who claim to be following the teaching of Mohammed. This is sadly, an observed fact, and no amount of crying that it is just an anti-Muslim sentiment to say it makes it any less true.

Throughout history, more evil has been done in the name of what is or is not the 'correct" interpretation of God's word than any other single cause. Millions of people have been killed by people whose justification was that they were "doing God's work". And nost horrifying of all is, that in their minds, they were.

Nearly all organized religions have had periods in their history (sometimes lasting hundreds of years) where they have encouraged their followers to do these things. The only real difference in them has been the scale of their effectiveness.

I believe is all boils down to the "sins" of pride, lust, and greed. Lust and greed for power over others, fame and recognition by fellow believers, and pride so great that they know that their way is the only right way, and the conviction that the only choice for others is "convert or die".

This is not limited to Moslem fanatics, they are just today's most visible bogeymen, variations are found in all cultures, and in politics as well. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others just in this past century caused the deaths of millions who would not follow their "teachings".

We should all give thanks to our own personal pantheon that as gun owners, our personal political enemies (the anti-gunners) are such fanatics about their fear and loathing of firearms. Otherwise they might actually take up arms against us! Have you never heard one of them express the sentiment that "gun owners out to be shot!", either in those words or in others implying the same thing?

While most would be horrified at the idea of actually having to bloody their hands to do the deed, there are those who would have no problem having their hired guns (Law Enforcement) do it for them. After all, we would be criminals and lawbreakers, and deserving of what we get.

There is nothing new in all this, as I have said before examples can be found everywhere one looks, if one looks without the filter of fanaticism. All that changes is the targeted group and the group doing the targeting.

There is evil in the world, and it comes in two basic types, indivdual actions and group actions. Other than the fact that it wears human skin the variations are as diverse as humanity.

bogie
March 18, 2007, 05:26 PM
Sigh...

Why couldn't they just all have some kool-ade so that everyone else can just peacefully get along?

Where's that Heaven's Gate guy when you need him...

Hmm... Sudden Bubba Syndrombe... (not misspelled...). Pabst Blue Ribbon, a shotgun, and the first roadside signage available...

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Yeah, this _is_ supposed to poke fun at Bubba. So?

wingman
March 18, 2007, 05:59 PM
As a society, we can NOT afford to overgeneralize, and sweep up all members of a particular religion into the suspect list on account of some number who twist teachings to justify their inhumanity to their fellow men.

Flipside,

As a society, we can NOT afford to ignore this and pretend that there isn't _some_ relationship between twisted teachings and violent jihadism.


Dang, words of wisdom from a moderator,excellent and well said.

Be kind but carry a big stick.

thexrayboy
March 18, 2007, 06:17 PM
Senor Geekwitha45 summed up the gist of this issue quite well.

The odds of anyone falling victim to a terrorist attack are minimal at best.
Does that mean we should calmly ignore what is going on in the world. I hope not. Islam is not a religion in the sense that westerners understand. It is a life philosophy that encompasses everything. The stated goal of Islam is world domination and the destruction of all non muslims. This is the teachings of Mohammed. To deny this is ostrich syndrome. Islam has been at war with the world for centuries. The events of the last 30 odd years are just another chapter in that quest for total control of the world.

We as free people must learn a new way of thinking if we are to understand our enemy and find a way to overcome their desire to totally destroy us.
Failure to accept the facts will lead to our demise.
The simple facts of the matter are quite basic.

Mohammed charged the followers of Islam with the task of enslaving, converting or destroying all non muslims.

Muslims are not only allowed but encouraged to lie to nonbelievers about the
teachings and goals of Islam.

We are the enemy to Islam and deserving of death. Any sacrifice made, any
person harmed or killed, any damage done in the quest to bring death to us, the infidels is forgiven, allowed and excused by Islam.

If I have offended any Muslims today....to bad. Go find another religion.
If you are a professed Muslim than in my book you are the enemy.
It is just that simple.

Right now the odds of anyone meeting a "sudden jihadi syndrome" carrier are
minimal. The goal of Islam it make those odds a virtual certainty.

psyopspec
March 18, 2007, 06:38 PM
My analysis:
-Pratt wrote a piece with the intention of exploiting a series of statistically insignificant incidents for the purpose of scaring the audience to raise money for/advance the cause of GOA.

Good for Pratt. Can't say as I'd use that approach myself, were I in his position. The result for me as a gun owner:

-I can't be associated with the GOA. If they're not racist, Pratt is at least representing racist undertones in his article. Suppose one of the noobs I take out to the range asks about political support for 2A and I tell them "well, there's this great organization called the Gun Owners of America. You should check them out!" Suppose they get home, hop on the interweb, and stumble across the drivel above. Suddenly, the fun introduction to shooting I gave them that afternoon is representative of a hateful (not to mention illogical, to the point of hilarity if it weren't for negative image) subculture whose members pack heat in case of an outbreak of SJS. Even if Pratt's not a bigot, I suddenly look that way, and its not the image I want for myself or the cause of 2A.

Art Eatman
March 18, 2007, 06:53 PM
All this is why I've long tried to get folks to separate "Jihadist" from "Islamic". And why words such as "some", "a few", or "not many" are quite necessary to so many of these discussions.

Insofar as CHL stuff, though, the issue of Jihadists is almost irrelevant. There is always some sort of nutcase or evil type around, somewhere. You carry because you might move from Condition Yellow to Condition Orange or Red. Why the Bad Guy is a bad guy is something worry about after you survive the encounter.

Art

Stretchman
March 18, 2007, 07:05 PM
Why couldn't they just all have some kool-ade so that everyone else can just peacefully get along?

First of all, have you ever had the Kool-Aid? If the answer is no, what do you think is soo peaceful about it?

Secondly, with 50,000 homicides in this country every year, and about half being suicides, do you think you could drudge up any stats you wanted to on people who kill for any particular reason, or for no reason at all?

Sudden wanna rob the 7-11 syndrome is a much better scenario, and lots more likely to happen. Sudden wanna do a home invasions, or a drive by, is much more prevalent, but stats like these simply reflect what it is about weapons that make some people untrustworthy when they have them.

How about sudden today, I am going to make certain that no one commits crime in my sector, I am going to maintain the peace, maintain my professionalism, and ensure that the country that others think we only dream about not only does exist, but is much more closely aligned with reality than any of the drivel that lis being ladeled out by Hollywood, the press, or the media.

Maybe the right to keep and bear arms would be safest if it didn't really make a difference if everyone had a gun or not? For Chirst's sake, doesn't anyone feel like winning?

Derek Zeanah
March 18, 2007, 07:15 PM
The stated goal of Islam is world domination and the destruction of all non muslims. This is the teachings of Mohammed. To deny this is ostrich syndrome. Islam has been at war with the world for centuries. The events of the last 30 odd years are just another chapter in that quest for total control of the world.And this is where these things always end up. XXXXXXXX entertainment personality says it's so, so it's got to be, regarldless of the actual words of the Qur'an or of the history of the religion since its inception.

Mohammed charged the followers of Islam with the task of enslaving, converting or destroying all non muslims.More of the same.

A bunch more snipped.

If I have offended any Muslims today....to bad. Go find another religion.
If you are a professed Muslim than in my book you are the enemy.
It is just that simple.Then I'm on your enemies list.

Now, do you feel better now that you've pounded your chest a bit and outed yourself?

thexrayboy
March 18, 2007, 07:30 PM
Then I'm on your enemies list.


Yes you are the enemy. And if you are not then you are an apostate to Islam
and they would see you dead also.

Just as we once viewed the Germans and Japanese as mortal enemies worthy of only destruction due to their designs on America and our freedom so to
should Americans look at Islam and its practicioners. Just as the Nazi political party rationalized and justified its murderous excesses so too the followers of Mohammed justify their heinous activities. And just as only a small portion of the German people and Japanese people were the ones in power who prosecuted the war and its atrocities only a portion of Muslims are active in the effort to destroy the rest of the world.

But since all of Germany and all of Japan labored to provide the material support for the Nazi's and the Imperial war machine they were targeted for
attack and destruction in the effort to weaken our enemies.
All muslims form the support base for radical Islam. Just as we could not
target only the Nazis and not Germany as a whole we cannot focuse only on radical Islam, we must deal with Islam as a whole for that is the source of the evil that hides behind the face of religion.

So yes Derek you are the enemy of America, or you truly do not understand
Islam. True Islam is the enemy of all that is not Islam. All others are infidels and apostates. Any muslim who states this is not true is following the
tradition of Islam that dictates it is acceptable to lie to non muslims if it serves the purpose of Islam.

psyopspec
March 18, 2007, 07:31 PM
thexrayboy, that's a very clever position to put yourself in. If people like Derek Z. come out against all that is western and democratic, then they're just being true to their colors: If they're not spouting that stuff off, then they're just hiding in "sleeper cell" mode until the time is right. Therefore, by your logic, Muslims who are openly anti-western = bad, while Muslims who preach peace and tolerance = bad.

Heads I win, tails you lose. Nice.

shootinstudent
March 18, 2007, 07:36 PM
thexrayboy,

Please tell us, how did you come to "truly understand Islam" such that you know what it teaches better than Muslims do?

Derek Zeanah
March 18, 2007, 07:37 PM
TheXrayBoy:

I snipped a portion of my last post that went something like "you forgot to mention nuking Mecca, building internment camps, and flattening most of the middle east." I thought it was a cheap shot and edited it out.

It wasn't though. You sir, have a lot of hate inside of you.

Art Eatman
March 18, 2007, 07:42 PM
xrayboy, I think you're making a very common mistake:

"The stated goal of Islam is world domination and the destruction of all non muslims."

The stated goal of all missionaries of whatever religion is to proselytise such that all eventually convert to that faith. Whichever religion "wins" then dominates the world. If all convert from one faith to another, that first faith is then no longer in existence and is thus destroyed.

During my rather long lifetime I've met a fair number of missionaries who were/are Christians. They're peaceful folks, not dominating or destroying through violence. It's the same for many others, as well. But they all proselytise.

Which gets me back to the difference between your basic Islamic--who's peaceful--and the Jihadist--who's not.

Keep 'em separate.

Art

TexasRifleman
March 18, 2007, 07:42 PM
And this is where these things always end up. XXXXXXXX entertainment personality says it's so, so it's got to be, regarldless of the actual words of the Qur'an or of the history of the religion since its inception.


OK, so I hear this argument all the time, but I never see anyone post the text of the book that is in question and give an alternate explanation for what is written.

There has to be some line or 2 that can be turned one way or another, kind of like what the Anti's do to the 2A.

I haven't (and don't plan on) read the thing so let's see the original text from where this confusion stems.

I'm not talking moments in history where Islam did something good, I'm talking the specific Koran text.

Why is that?

thexrayboy
March 18, 2007, 07:42 PM
I once dated a young lady from Beirut, she was a Marionite Catholic but spoke Arabic. She grew up in the prelude to the 75 civil war in Lebanon.
I learned a great deal about the culture of her country and also about why
Muslims could not be trusted. Having grown up with Islamic believers she
knew all too well their goals and methods for spreading Islam. Even in times of peace non Muslims were in danger when around groups of Muslims.

If you do a little research on your own you can find articles written by former
Muslims. People who grew up as believers of Mohammed but have renounced their faith due to the violence it seeks. The information is available. All you need do is look for it. Many of these authors now have a price on their head for apostasy.

shootinstudent
March 18, 2007, 07:45 PM
TexasSIGman,

That is because you haven't actually read anything written by a Muslim about the Qu'ran.

I'm continually baffled by people who make these claims. Not even Osama bin Laden himself claims that the Qu'ran permits killing non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslim. The most radical of the radicals do not make this claim. The only place I've ever seen it, ever, is in english-speaking anti-Muslim press....

Which is almost certainly where you got it. Am I wrong?

bogie
March 18, 2007, 07:49 PM
So many nutjobs, so little kool-aid...

We oughta just put 'em all in little rooms, two by two. Well reinforced rooms.

Give one a grenade, and the other the pin, and see if they can work it out.

Frankly, we're more likely to see "sudden hacked off at the ol' lady so I'm gonna shoot up her workplace" syndrome, but not by a lot.

In fact, if you don't do illegal drugs and don't associate with those who do, you're a lot more likely to just witness "Let's just go to the range, and then bbq, syndrome."

Now could everyone involved here just back it up a little, and attempt to think? I know you can do it. I've seen you do it. Now act like educated adults.

thexrayboy
March 18, 2007, 07:50 PM
From a publication called Islam Undressed.

Muslim deception.

The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al-taqiyya (also called taqiah, Al-takeyya, Al-taqiyah, or kitman) conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-taqiyya is based on the following Quranic verse:

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28

According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and even display false adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming Muslims. Under this concept of Taqiyya, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The devout are taught that in such circumstances the following actions are acceptable: Drinking wine and alcoholic beverages, abandoning prayers, skipping fasting during Ramadan, renouncing belief in Allah and Muhammad, kneeling in homage to a deity other than Allah, and uttering insincere oaths and covenants.

Al-taqiyya and dissimulation refer to the practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims, but the principal goes beyond mere lying for propaganda purposes. In accordance with this license to deceive, during time of weakness the Qur'an allows Muslims to have both a declared agenda and a secret agenda. The theological principle of Taqiyya means hiding one's true beliefs and intentions to confuse ones adversaries and enable mujahedeen to operate freely amongst enemies.

shootinstudent
March 18, 2007, 07:50 PM
thexrayboy,

What reason do you have to believe that "Islam Undressed" is telling the truth, and that it's accurate?

thexrayboy
March 18, 2007, 07:51 PM
And a little more lite reading....

[QUOTE][/Most Muslims are familiar with the principles and concepts of Islam that justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Principals taught by Muhammad such as "War is deception", "The necessities justify the forbidden", and, "If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two", are derived from passages in the Qur'an and the Hadith. But when confronted with writings of their own revered scholars on the subject of dishonesty, Muslims hold true to form and in the spirit of what they know is allowed, will lie about lying. An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Qur'an from the early part of Mohammed's ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. Another example is in the conduct of Saudi Arabia in the war on terror. Words of support and promises of reform flow easily to Americans, but actions to date demonstrate they are only words, meant for our consumption only.

Unfortunately, passages from the Qur'an clearly reveal that lying is permitted, particularly in reference to non-believers in conflict with Muslims. It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims may lie under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts. In the Qur'an, Allah says: "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225. The principal also has support in the Qur'an 3:28 and 16:106.
QUOTE]

TexasRifleman
March 18, 2007, 07:52 PM
OK look, I asked for a simple thing and I get the same rhetoric.

So, I'll make it simple. I'll post some from the book and you defend the text.


Koran 17:16-17
When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly. How many generations have we destroyed after Noah? And enough is thy Lord to note and see the Sins of his servants

Koran 8:37
In order that Allah may seperate the impure from the pure, Put All the impure ones (Non-Muslim), one on top of the another in a Heap and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost


Koran 2:8-10
In their (Non-Muslims) hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease and grievous is the penalty they will incur, because they are false.

Koran 58:5
Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, as were those before them: for we have already sent down Clear Signs and the Unbelievers will have a humiliating Penalty...


Koran 2:39
Those who reject faith (Islam) and belie our signs, They shall be Companions of the Fire and abide in it.


I'll stop for now. I have about 40 more stanzas I'd like clarification on, when you are done.

Oh, I forgot. I'm not supposed to understand the Koran am I.

Koran 17:46-47
And we put coverings over their hearts and minds, lest they should understand the Koran, and we put deafness in their ears; when you commemorate your Lord (Allah) and Him alone in the Koran


This thread is going to get locked no question, and that's probably best for THR.

shootinstudent
March 18, 2007, 07:53 PM
Not to be nit-picky...but how seriously can you take a writer who claims to be exposing a complicated theology written in arabic, when this writer doesn't know the difference between "prinicpal" and "principle"? (see last line in above text)

thexrayboy
March 18, 2007, 07:55 PM
Somewhere along the line we as rational persons must decide whether to believe Muslims as to the meaning and intent of the Quran or whether to believe secular language experts who have translated the Quran and its
writings. If we listen to the Muslims they tell us what the Quran says about
taking over the world is not true. I believe they are lying to us. The Quran gives them that option. I choose to believe the secular interpretations and take them as written. If you choose to believe Islam that is your choice. If I am wrong then I offended some Muslims. BFD. If those who believe Islams
explanations are wrong then the outcome can be the destruction of freedom.

Which is the rational choice.

Arguments and discussions about religion invariably end up in emotional battles about beliefs. A theological belief
can neither be proved nor disproved. The question should not be what did Mohammed intend or not intend. That is subjective.
What is not is the actions of Mohammeds followers.

bogie
March 18, 2007, 07:57 PM
Campers, one can take quotations out of context from just about any source, and make it appear to be the next great evil.

Bottom line: We all started in the same place. And now we have, quite literally, some warring factions. But we've got a LOT more people who'd just rather all coexist peacefully.

Now, which group are YOU in?

JWarren
March 18, 2007, 07:59 PM
I've been reading this thread since it opened, but there was no way I felt I should comment here. Frankly, even with a gun-related theme, I'd rather see this thread closed. Religion--especially in the context of our current world situation-- is a hot-bed subject. Furthermore, it is a discussion where the participants have varying degrees of understanding or experience. That's a recipe for disaster.

I want to be completely forthcoming here. I've been-- at times-- very open-minded about things. At times, I've been very close-minded. I have had very limited experience with Islam as a whole-- but the two most personal experiences have been negative. During the events of 9/11, I lived in FL. At the time I was dating a Syrian Muslim college professor. I won't get into the details of it, but the event of 9/11 uncovered her satisfaction that the USA got "what we had coming." During that same period of time, my friend and co-worker who was a Muslim from Tanzania abruptly asked for an emergency 1 month leave to return to Tanzania 5 days before the attacks of 9/11. He never returned

Out of a VERY limited pool of experience, I had two situations where I was either appauled at the attitude, or suspicious of possibly involvement (remember, the 9/11 hijackers lived in FL for a period of time.) A knee-jerk analysis of this could conclude that there was a significant threat among US muslims.

I will admit that this has affected me from time to time since these events.

However...

I have a neighbor (the business beside my office) who is Muslim-- which is rather unusual in rural south MS.) I've had the pleasure of talking to him on a wide variety of points over the last several years. I've even met his wife and beautiful little girls. What does this mean to my stereotype? I can't believe-- and have no reason to believe-- that this smiling man (he always has a smile) is a cold-blooded killer.

Even prior to posting this post, I read practically every post Derek has made in this forum. I'd challenge anyone to find anything out of line in his posts. You are FAR more likely to find somewhere that *I've* said something out of line. I don't know Derek at all--except from posts he has made on here. Because I DID read through his posts, I can tell you that I've seen a person who is polite, knowledgable on the things he posts about, WILLING to help others, and tolerant of opposing points of view. Frankly, I wish I could demonstate those characteristics more often. Anyone that wants to toss around stereotypes should really consider this:

THR is a diverse community. We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and (enter religion here) on this board. We have people from a wide variety of ethnic origin here. We have people from a wide range of social realities and perspectives here. Since Derek DOES own this little red wagon, that probably does speak a LOT about tolerence. Kinda flies in the face of a stereotype or two, in my opinion.

Derek, I am not sucking up to you as administrator of this board. I love THR, and visit every day. Frankly, if I felt that I HAD to suck up to anyone, I believe my love for this board would fade instantly. What I am doing is being completely honest with myself and this community-- and giving credit where credit is due.


The fact that we all can take The HIGH ROAD here speaks a lot about human nature, and possibly gives us a little faith in it.


John

shootinstudent
March 18, 2007, 08:00 PM
TexasSigMan,

Sure
Koran 17:16-17

This one is obvious from the quote itself. It's God saying that he alone decides who to destroy, and that he will do it if you disobey him, like he did to the people around Noah. How on earth does that relate to this topic?

Koran 8:37

"Non-Muslim" is the anti-Muslim website's insertion, not the text. Again, this is speaking of how God will judge the good from the bad in the end...what's the relevance? This exactly what the gospels say also...so I don't see the point.

Koran 2:8-10

Again, basic theology. People who disobey God are punished by God. Exactly the same as Jesus on the mount. I don't see the relevance of this either.

Koran 17:46-47

Correctly predicting that not everyone will become Muslim and that not everyone obeys God.

You didn't post a single verse that even on its face commanded violence. Instead, you posted a bunch of verses that replicate the teachings of the Christian gospel: that God judges good and bad, and punishes the bad.

thexrayboy
March 18, 2007, 08:00 PM
Not even Osama bin Laden himself claims that the Qu'ran permits killing non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslim.

First must come the offer to convert to Islam, if the offer is refused......

However if a muslim does something to offend me I cannot react violently and use God or some belief system as my rationale.
If I offend a muslim and he tries to kill me it is an acceptable act as I have offended Islam. That is the heart of the matter.
For us violence should not be used unless unavoidable. For Islam violence is an acceptable tool to be used even when
no physical harm was done, merely an offense to a diety.

shootinstudent
March 18, 2007, 08:03 PM
thexrayboy,

No, that's not what the kooky bin ladenites say either.

bogie
March 18, 2007, 08:07 PM
Guys, there are people from just about ANY religion who wanna go out and kill folks in the name of their religion.

I have a term for those folks:

Nutjob.

Now can we get back to figuring out WHY we need to carry firearms for defense? I mean, I could have a Sudden Keeley Hazell Syndrome happen to me, but it sure isn't all that likely...

thexrayboy
March 18, 2007, 08:16 PM
From the horses mouth so to speak...

http://muslim-responses.com/Islam_on_Lying/Islam_on_Lying_

So as you can see, Muslims are allowed to only lie during battle, essentially in war.

If we are not at war with these people than it's a damn good imitation and according to this iman lying during battle, while at war is permissible.

I have heard lots of talk about this source, that source, this quote, that quote. And yes it is hard to take at face value
what we read on the internet. It is too difficult to establish veracity, but I have heard first hand from persons who lived
in the middle east the goals of Islam. These were persons of Christian faith, persons who were Arab in culture but not Muslim in belief. Persons who emigrated away from their homes and
business to America in order to stay alive. To a person they all described how Islam seeks to rule with an iron hand any and
all that come under its sway.

Cato the Younger
March 18, 2007, 08:16 PM
"we have got to destroy the 'gun culture'"
"we will hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy"
these are absolutist quotes from those who would take away our Second Amendment rights. All of us on the board would, I assume, reject drawing a link between illegal and legal uses of guns, as some have, by painting the gun culture as inclusive of both the parent taking his or her child out plinking with a .22 and a hoodlum robbing a convenience store. This situation, while not gun related, presents a similar issue- yes, there are individuals of the Muslim faith who wish to do harm to non-Muslims. However, I have dealt with few Muslims, and yes, some of them may have disdain for America. However, many others are patriotic Americans/ good people in general. While it is important to be ready to thwart all terrorist attacks, from whatever quarter they come from, to paint with such a broad brush is inappropriate. Even if 99% of some group is your sworn enemy, and 1% loves you, there is still that good 1%- thus the group as a whole cannot be derided for being wicked. We must judge men as individuals, not as groups, or we risk creating the very monster we fight against in regard to the "gun culture" sterotype- racist rednecks/criminals are the only ones who use guns- i.e. "guns r' bad." Especially if we wish to expand the base of those who embrace the RKBA, we need to be reaching out, not closing in upon ourselves.

TexasRifleman
March 18, 2007, 08:22 PM
we must not lump all members of a group togeather

I don't think anyone is saying all Muslims are going to do horrible nasty things.

What I am saying is that the religion itself seems from all appearances and readings I can find to proport violence to the extreme and the article that kicked off the posting gave some real life examples where this has occurred.

That those things happened is not up for debate.

That they are directly connected to Islam is up for debate but that debate probably does not need to occur on The High Road.

Again, I'm really hoping this is locked soon. It does not need to be here.

thexrayboy
March 18, 2007, 08:28 PM
Again, I'm really hoping this is locked soon. It does not need to be here.

Whether or not this subject belongs on THR is a good question. However this subject needs to be dealt with and understood by free Americans. If not here somewhere, for to ignore it is to empower those who would enslave us. Just
like the anti 2A forces who seek to divide us and conquer us. Just as there are persons who do not mean us harm but nonetheless
want to disarm us, there are persons of Islamic faith who do not seek violence yet support a belief that engenders violence.
An individual my not be evil but if that individual supports a faith, a political party or a belief that is harmful to me than that
person is a problem. Not to be hated or harmed necessarily but certainly not to be ignored as harmless either.

bogie
March 18, 2007, 08:31 PM
Guys, for that matter, there's a lot of Bad Craziness in the old testament - i mean, human sacrifice? Let's be serious... And I'm not even gonna go into Revelations... One can take virtually ANYTHING and twist it into hate. Heck - look at Bambi... Thumper actually symbolizes the desire of vegans to stomp mankind into submission.

COME ON!

The fact of the matter is that Pratt, in my opinion, has stepped rather forcefully upon a rather sensitive, and doubtless quite important to him, appendage.

MatthewVanitas
March 18, 2007, 08:32 PM
thexrayboy,

Please tell us, how did you come to "truly understand Islam" such that you know what it teaches better than Muslims do?

Wikipedia!

Well, that and impartial scholarly sites such as muslimevil.org, prophetofdoom.com, etc.

I actually read a few pages of "Prophet of Doom", and admit that it does make many valid points, but discounted it entirely when I found glaring errors. Namely, the section where the PoD author mentions how a man can claim innocence from rape by serving as his own witness (if witnesses to the alleged crime are lacking). The PoD author left out the _very_ next verse, saying a woman could counter his claim of innocence by serving as her own witness as well. That's pretty blatant pick-and-choose, and casts doubt on whatever valid quotations of Quran and Hadith the author chooses.

I am by no means a religious scholar, and I figured the above out in a matter of minutes.

-MV

Derek Zeanah
March 18, 2007, 08:39 PM
I don't have any interest in responding to 60 separate points, thanks (no longer in college debate). I'll respond to your first two though, as I have in previous posts on this topic.

Your first quote is actually fairly straight forward. Let's look at it in context:

[15] Whoever chooses to follow the right path, follows it but for his own good; and whoever goes astray, goes but astray to his own hurt; and no bearer of burden shall be made to bear another's burden.
Moreover, we would never chastise any community for the wrong they may do ere we have sent an apostle to them. [16] But when this has been done, and it is our will to destroy a community, we convey our last warning to those of its people who have lost themselves entirely in the pursuit of pleasures; and if they continue to act sinfully, the sentence of doom passed on the community takes effect, and we break it to smithereens.
[17] And how many generation have been thus destroyed after the time of Noah!

Now, pretend this isn't the Pagan God Allah we're talking about here, and assume instead it's the God of Abraham -- back when he was still mean and did things like hurl fire and brimstone and turn people into pillars of salt, or kill all the firstborn of a community (including lots of innocent kids).

Is this something that, in your mind, doesn't fit in with the Old Testament?

Now, on to number 2:[36]Behold, those who are bent on denying the truth are spending their riches in order to turn others away from the path of God; and they will go on spending them until they become a source of intense regret for them; and then they will be overcome!
And those who until their death have denied the truth shall be gathered unto hell, [37] so they god might separate the bad from the good, and join the bad with one another, and link them all together within his condemnation, and then place them in hell. Thus they are the lost!
[38] tell those were bent on denying the truth that if they desist, all that is past shall be forgiven them; but if they revert to their wrongdoing and, let them remember what happened to like of them in times gone by.Now, I'm no biblical or Qur'anic scholar, but this sounds to me like "if'n you're gonna be naughty for your whole life, then you're gonna get punished once you die. You (and those like you) will be gathered together and separated from the righteous God-fearing types, and thrown into Hell to burn forever."

Again, seems fairly straigtforward. Surprising what a good translation, taken in context, will do. By the way the best I've found is The Message of THE QUR'AN, Translated and Explained by Muhammad Asad.

TexasRifleman
March 18, 2007, 08:45 PM
I've never been to any of those sites.

I actually own a couple of books (you know, on paper :D ) on the subject.

Interesting reading if anyone is interested.

Islam Unveiled, Robert Spencer

The Return of Anti-Semitism, Gabriel Schoenfeld

And in fairness another good read is:

Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll

bogie
March 18, 2007, 08:48 PM
While y'all are further dividing our culture, and taking bandwidth away from keeping gun control from happening, I'd just like to mention that I'm Anna Nichole Smith's babydaddy.

There's a very SLIGHT chance that could be proven.

Now, there is a SLIGHTLY LESS SLIGHT chance that I'll meet up with a religious nutjob who is bent upon doing me harm (possibly for being the babydaddy, but I digress...).

The odds of this happening are literally millions to one. But if it happens, and I meet up with a religious nutjob who wants to do bad things to me, it's more likely that he'll be a Christian than a Muslim. Not likely at all that he'd be Jewish. Unless I get snippy the next time I drive into town for a pastrami on rye - one really should not refer to the guy behind the counter as the "sandwich nazi."

Master Blaster
March 18, 2007, 08:59 PM
Here are a pieces of evidence that Islam is intollerant of other faiths I would like you all to refute.

Saudi Arabia is the Home of Mecca, and all Muslims are required to make the Haj, or pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetime.

I am Jewish, other folks here are Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc. Can anyone here who is not a Muslim participate in the Haj? Would Saudi Araian religous authorities allow you to even set foot in Mecca??? The answer is yes, but you would have to convert to Islam first.

Why is that?? I can visit Rome, I can attend a papal prayer session.
I can climb the mountain in Tibet and meditate with a Monk.
I can enter a Shinto Shrine in Japan.

If you travel to Saudi Arabia and you bring a bible, stand on a street corner, and start to read from it what do you think will happen to you? Proselytizing any religion other than Islam in Saudi Arabia is punishable by beheading.

The Saudis are the Guardians of Mecca, they are the Guardians of the Faith.
Most Imams here in the USA were trained by Saudi Clerics this includes the new Imam at the Mosc in Newark De, near where I live.

Saudis have zero tolerance for other faiths. They despise Jews and Christians, say so frequently and officially, and in their laws, and will execute anyone who dares to openly practice another faith in their country. The Mosc is the state, ther is no seperation what so ever Islam is a way of life, Sharia law is the law of the state, it does not tollerate other religions.

But please tell me this is wrong what I have typed here, and provide some evidence to back it up.

Here is another book about Islam you may have heard of, The Satanic Verses by Salaaman Rushdie, a muslim.

Kaylee
March 18, 2007, 09:00 PM
Appropriate for THR? Honestly, I'm torn. It is a discussion that needs to be taking place in America at large though I think. So I ain't locking it yet.

Now Derek, when you say
And this is where these things always end up. XXXXXXXX entertainment personality says it's so, so it's got to be, regarldless of the actual words of the Qur'an or of the history of the religion since its inception.

I don't think you're being fair. It's not just "XXXXXXXX entertainment personality" saying these things. Or "prophetofdoom.com" or whatever.

Now I'm going to admit at this point... I just plain don't know.

Like many Americans, I've been reading from sources from all over trying to find an answer to that very question - how inherent is the present militancy we see in the nutcases to Islam as a whole? I started giving everyone 100% benefit of the doubt. I figured... "Muslims.. kinda like Catholics right? They pray in language I don't understand and wear funny clothes. But same Hebraic God.. how different can it be?" That's where I started.

My TENTATIVE conclusion so far is that the many MANY good and decent people who are Muslim are good and decent people in spite of Muhammad's example rather than because of it. And it IS "the history of the religion since its inception" that leads me to that conclusion. More important is what I read about Muhammad himself - and Derek, that's why I was asking for a neutral source as possible on the hadith.

Obviously,that's not a THR official position, I'm not 100% sold on it yet, and I WELCOME any argument to the contrary, if for no other reason than I don't like thinking bad things about a billion of my fellow travelers on this ol' blue ball. And I like Derek, and don't want to hurt his feelings. :o

But that's where I sit so far.
I think the best any of us can do is research as honestly as possible, and be willing to accept whatever answer comes whether it agrees with our prejudices or not.

-K

bogie
March 18, 2007, 09:06 PM
Yawn. I'm gonna go have a Sudden Cold Frosty Beverage Syndrome down the street at the sports pub. Thus far I think Kaylee's about the only voice of reason here. Except for the babydaddy bit, of course...

You know, I'm far more likely to be the victim of "Sudden Bubba Who Thinks I'm Looking At His Girlfriend Who Isn't Wearing Anywhere NEAR Enough Clothing Syndrome" than I am to be the victim of "Sudden Religious Nutjob Of Any Faith Syndrome."

Maybe I should just stay home...

But then I'd type more.

And Bogie's bored, and he's been told that that is dangerous...

Titan6
March 18, 2007, 09:30 PM
The day on the Saudi's yacht in the Persian Gulf when the SA Col offered the Jewish US Army Sergeant Major one of the beers he was drinking (real beer not the fake stuff) got me to thinking. How serious can he be as a defender of the faith? I didn't even realize it was a Friday until we got back to shore. This was between the wars...

Are there are a bunch of nutsos spewing hatred every day from their pathetic little corner of the world? Sure.

Are some of the Muslim?
Yep.

Do a lot of people hate the US out of fear, jealousy, cultural contempt or simple annoyance and arrogance?
Even many of the French; and we saved their bacon twice.

Are many Muslims bigoted against other religions and females as set forth in the Koran?
Certainly.

Are 1% of the seven million muslims in this country going to rise up and commit suicide attacks against me and my family?
Nope. It is as likely as those Japanese were to sabotage US military posts during WW II. Which is to say as the government said 50 years later, not at all.

It is quite telling that in 2000 a significant majority of Muslims voted for GWB. Given how close it was you might even say they swung the election in his favor. And why not? Shared conservative values, pro-immigration, pro freedom on most issues, very strong faith.....

Not in 2004 though... Did GWB change that much?
I think so.

Derek Zeanah
March 18, 2007, 09:32 PM
Here are a pieces of evidence that Islam is intollerant of other faiths I would like you all to refute.If you get to use modern-day Saudi Arabia to prove that Islam is racist and bigoted and anti-semitic and has a lot of evil traits associated with it, can I turn around and make the same claims about Christianity based on Spain under Isabella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)?

Your answer is likely "no, that's stupid."

Can I judge all of Christianity by that line of it that can trace its roots back to Jesus himself (or nearly -- not interested in a debate on this point)? If they can pray to Jesus' mom, and saints, and offer indulgences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence), isn't that an indictment of the entire religion? Isn't that evidence that they've moved away from following the God of Abraham/Noah/Moses/etc?

You'll answer "no," and some will defend the practices of the Catholic Church. Even if this were a valid indictment of the Catholic Church, Methodists wouldn't feel terribly tainted by the brush of my question. And that's my point (not an attack on religion) -- there is no single "Christianity" that you can shake a stick at -- what Christianity consists of is hundreds of groups who've organized themselves based on their view of the religion, and no-one would point their finger at David Koresh's Branch Dividian Sect (which originally came out the the Shepherd's Rod, if wikipedia can be trusted) to indict the Seventh Day Adventists as a bunch of loony kiddie-raping death cultists (no arguments please -- let's accept the MSM interptetation for now), and then let the taint continue up through the other protestant sects.\

But heaven forbid some extremist in Saudi Arabia preach hate and intelerance. Proof that all Muslims are jew-hating jihaddis. Especially when you take Osama Bin Ladin (a follower of Wahabbi thinking) and those (mostly Saudi citizens) who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

No - we're not at war with a small sect -- we're at war with a significant chunk of the world population.

And it IS "the history of the religion since its inception" that leads me to that conclusion. More important is what I read about Muhammad himself - and Derek, that's why I was asking for a neutral source as possible on the hadith.
My take on Hadith:

This Persian guy, once the Muslims have conquered his proud nation, decides to go on walkabout in the area where Islam started. He collects a bunch of snippets from different folks, along the lines of "Bob Johnson says his uncle was getting drunk with Thomas Covenant's great-granddad after a coon hunt once, and Thomas Covenant's ancestor said Mohommad used to drink the piss of pre-menustrating girls because he thought it was healthy." (I'm not being offensive on purpose -- look it up).

Now, modern historians might argue about the goals and mindset of the guy collecting the "sayings of the prophet," but as is there's something of a science to interpreting the veracity of the claims of each of the people involved in translating these messages. Mohommad didn't want anything written about him, but people are people after all, and now we've got divisions within the Umma over which sayings are correct and which are irrelevant (or offensive).

I don't see a need for Hadith, and don't feel bound by what is/isn't in them. At best they're a reference to the way that folks lived way back when in a different society. It's like this: if we unearth a scroll detailing the daily habits of Jesus, and it turns out he only wiped his ass with his left hand, only ate with his right, and he was a staunch believer in a bath every 14 days, would those be compelling guides for how his followers should live? I'd say no - we have indoor plumbing now, and while one bath a fortnight might be a incredibly clean for the time, we can do better now.

Going further, we've got a branch of Islam that can trace the "lineage" from Mohommad to this guy who once ran to the hills and never came back. now, the belief is that one day this guy will come back and lead the Muslim people once again. There's no real reason for this line of thinking, but there's no real reason for praying to Mary and the saints either -- it's what people do.

Not meaning to insult anyone here, just trying to stimulate conversation.

Derek Zeanah
March 18, 2007, 09:46 PM
Thus far I think Kaylee's about the only voice of reason here.Thanks Bogie. I love you too. :neener:

cassandrasdaddy
March 18, 2007, 09:50 PM
in the "one legged man witha rubber crutch way" the "article" or the way some folks are so willing to line up behind it. but its good to have a way to seperate the players clearly since they quit handing out brown shirts its more complex.

i'm looking at religous killing though from an irish catholic viewpoint and find the stats over there make this "gentlemans" syndrome look like a game of go fish at a baptist church picnic.

and thats too flavors of christians slaughtering each other. i think a lotta folks here are lucky to live here wouldn't last long anywhere else

wooderson
March 18, 2007, 09:58 PM
Somewhere along the line we as rational persons

You're an atheist?

(rimshot, please)

ConstitutionCowboy
March 18, 2007, 10:04 PM
None of these acts - either postal, Jihad, Columbine, jealousy, or simply criminal in nature - are "sudden". It all began in the first six or so years of each and every one of our lives; the only years in which we are supposed to(or are able to) develop a conscience. Anyone lacking that conscience can be led in just about any direction. Without a conscience, there is no sense of guilt or remorse, and no inhibition to set out on such a course in the first place.

A conscience I believe is the one feeling that can overrule, or at the least can temper, a conscious act or desire to act. I believe it is more powerful than logic. It can keep you from slicing off your nose to spite your face, so to speak. Therefore, these dastardly acts are nothing more than the result of an open window in these people's personality, open to just about any suggestion if it appears to benefit them, without any forethought of consequence. These people are sociopaths.

This is not the same as killing in a war. A person with a conscience can kill in defense of self, family, and country, but does so without anger, revenge, or lust. It's a matter of survival.

I don't believe all these jihadis are sociopaths, but those acting alone or in pairs(along with those who go "postal", etc.) are sociopaths. Put "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" in with any act a sociopath is capable of doing.

Worry about the sleeper cells that might be here if you feel the need to worry. The lone actor, or the pair that "find each other" are dangerous, but not in any organized capacity you would find in an active cell of jihadis who are on a mission. For them, it's war. That said, "Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future."

Woody

Kaylee
March 18, 2007, 10:17 PM
Thanks Derek, I really REALLY appreciate hearing from you on this. :)

Yeah, I get the whole "Christians slaughtering each other/Spain under Isabella/30 years war/English Civil War" so forth an so on. Thing is, you can look at every one of those events, and look at Christ's life as recorded in the Gospels, and it's a difference of night and day. Testy as He got with the whip at the temple, Jesus never killed anyone to make his point.

Contrariwise, when I look at the violence from Islamic nations, and look at what I can find of Mohammad's life.. I don't see that contrast, and that's what bothers me. When binLadin and his buddies went up to Afghanistan to start a new Islamic nation, they intentionally based their strategy on Mohammad's life.. as I recall, essentially "go to Medina, build up a base of power, and then come back to Mecca in (military) strength."

Mohammad did kill for worldly power.

Jesus of Nazereth did not.

However many sects or interpretations they are, whether a pope or a bishop or a right reverend or an imam or whoever says something is okay or not okay... if I follow Christ's words and Christ's example, I don't kill my fellow people. If I follow Mohammad's... I might.

And that's what leads to my discomfort.
And that's why I'm sincerely asking for what to look at next to explain that, to understand it.


-K



PS - funny you should mention that thing about Jesus wiping and eating and all, since as I recall one of the things the priests of the day hollered at him about was his disregard for traditional cleanliness mores. His response as I recall was to the effect of "it ain't what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean, it's what comes out of it."

Smart guy. :)

grampster
March 18, 2007, 10:55 PM
Why should I carry a firearm and pay attention to my surroundings? That is simple. America is the land of the free. The more freedom we have, the more danger we have. With some 300 million free souls wandering around there are going to be some bad people. Really bad people. Really bad people that do really bad things for an infinite variety of reasons.

Personally, I'll take the freedom in spite of the danger. Actually adds to the spice of life imho. That spice makes one more aware, thus more alive. Sometimes lightning strikes. (shrug) To argue about what religion requires of folks is an exercise in futility. What a person does or doesn't do regarding his beliefs is a personal decision. I hope my actions are a reflection of my beliefs. I disappoint myself in that regard all the time. (I was trying to match up the vent in the bottom of the dryer to the duct in the floor. As a result, it is surprising the vocabulary that was coming out of a Christian mouth. It's been bugging me all day, that loss of gentlemanliness.)

To reiterate. It is not too productive to make judgments about what some folks may or may not do. One is never going to be sure one is right, especially about multiple millions of individuals. It is productive to be aware, prepared, skilled, and to pass that attitude along to your family.

bogie
March 18, 2007, 11:12 PM
I'm still alive!

And I lusted after a rather fetching waitress with an intoxicating smile. Or maybe it was the beer she was carrying. I'm not sure.

Nothin' quite like "Hot Wings Pizza" for dinner on a Sunday evening.

If I die of indigestion, it's y'all's fault.

Nobody bearing vests of C4 appeared. Didn't see anyone waving venomous reptiles around either. But I was ready...

Because I AM THE BABYDADDY!

What's the kid's name again?

shootinstudent
March 18, 2007, 11:52 PM
Mohammad did kill for worldly power.

Jesus of Nazereth did not.

Jesus's followers most certainly did, and they didn't consider themselves unChristian for doing so.

Muhammad himself (peace be upon him) did not kill anyone solely to increase his power. Look over the historical records...he was invited to Medina as a respected arbitrator, and it was the increase in the success of that city that led the Meccans to threaten it with destruction.

The only allowable war, if you were to follow the example of Muhammad, would be self-defense and the defense of others from physical acts of aggression.

The difference between Christianity and Islam on this point is only that Islam makes the doctrine of self-defense explicit, whereas Christianity does not. The details of the teaching are identical-you are not to attack others who have done you or others no harm, under any circumstances.

XavierBreath
March 19, 2007, 12:12 AM
I find the idea of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" as coined by Daniel Pipes on March 14, 2006 in the New York Sun (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3450) to be laughable. Calling it a syndrome gives it an aura of professional acceptance that it does not deserve. It is neither a psychatric diagnosis, nor a psychological diagnosis. It is not listed in the DSM IV. It is merely a bigoted observation of events based on data that is skewed, while other significant data is ignored.

It is normal for people to want explanations for events that lead to tragedy. Bigots use this desire to demonstrate deceptive reasoning in the unreasonable, to further their personal agendas. As free thinking people, we must guard against this. Are we to assume there is a Sudden Texas Woman Syndrome in response to Andrea Yates? Are we to assume that the "N" word sets black Americans off in an uncontrollable rage? Should Colin Ferguson walk free because of Black Rage? What about Air Rage? Road Rage? Office Rage? Even Thomas Junta, who killed a fellow father at their sons' hockey practice in Massachusetts, was said to be suffering from a variant of the "rage" syndrome, Rink Rage.

There is a very real danger in this. Like Black Rage, the "N" word factor, and a host of other spurious para-psychological concepts, SJS is very likely to be used in courts of law to demonstrate that the criminals who commit these acts are not competent to stand trial, or were legally insane when they committed their crimes. This is unacceptable. We must remember that while most states require sophisticated tests based on psychiatric and/or psychological testimony, the testimony is evaluated by a jury of laypersons or a judge without psychiatric training. We simply cannot allow killers to avoid prosecution because a crackpot bigoted theory some writer conjures up is used by a psychologist whose only practice is providing testimony for defense attorneys.

We must remember that we are a nation of tolerance. When we toss our tolerance aside, we cease to be the nation our forefathers fought and died for. We have American citizens who are Muslim, who strive diligently every day, to be productive citizens. I personally work with three devout Muslim physicians who save and repair American lives. This SJS idea is as insulting to them as telling me I am a member of the KKK because I am a white Southerner. I would be ashamed to dignify the concept by even asking them their opinion of SJS while we had our hands bloody in a patient's abdomen.

The willing use of this spurious concept to justify relaxed CCW laws by Larry Pratt tells me a lot about where I want my money going in support of the 2nd amendment. It will not be to GOA. In February, 2005, Mr. Pratt wrote another article, Why Do Criminals Break The Law? (http://www.gunowners.org/op0505.htm) In that article, he assigned responsibility of crimes to the criminal's choice to commit the crime. In fact, Larry Pratt wrote, "Also, criminals are quick to pick up on psychological jargon and get good at feeding it back to the practitioners. In other words, crooks are good at scamming mental health workers. If someone thinks they are nuts, not a crook, and that will get them out of jail, then, they quickly learn to sound as if they are mentally ill........Until criminals choose to change, they will be criminals and the rest of us make a huge mistake to ignore that simple fact."

It seems to me that Larry Pratt needs to remember that criminals are criminals because they commit crimes, not because they practice a certain religion. Bigoted concepts like SJS need to be shown for what they are, lest criminals walk free rather than pay for their crimes.

Autolycus
March 19, 2007, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Master Blaster:
Here are a pieces of evidence that Islam is intollerant of other faiths I would like you all to refute.

Saudi Arabia is the Home of Mecca, and all Muslims are required to make the Haj, or pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetime.

I am Jewish, other folks here are Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc. Can anyone here who is not a Muslim participate in the Haj? Would Saudi Araian religous authorities allow you to even set foot in Mecca??? The answer is yes, but you would have to convert to Islam first.

Why is that?? I can visit Rome, I can attend a papal prayer session.
I can climb the mountain in Tibet and meditate with a Monk.
I can enter a Shinto Shrine in Japan.

If you travel to Saudi Arabia and you bring a bible, stand on a street corner, and start to read from it what do you think will happen to you? Proselytizing any religion other than Islam in Saudi Arabia is punishable by beheading.

The Saudis are the Guardians of Mecca, they are the Guardians of the Faith.
Most Imams here in the USA were trained by Saudi Clerics this includes the new Imam at the Mosc in Newark De, near where I live.

Saudis have zero tolerance for other faiths. They despise Jews and Christians, say so frequently and officially, and in their laws, and will execute anyone who dares to openly practice another faith in their country. The Mosc is the state, ther is no seperation what so ever Islam is a way of life, Sharia law is the law of the state, it does not tollerate other religions.

But please tell me this is wrong what I have typed here, and provide some evidence to back it up.

Here is another book about Islam you may have heard of, The Satanic Verses by Salaaman Rushdie, a muslim.

Actually all it takes to get into Saudi Arabia is a passport.

Salman Rushdie wrote the book but he is in hiding because some religious fundamentalists want to kill him. By the way it is a novel not a religious text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_(novel)

Kaylee
March 19, 2007, 12:35 AM
I deleted this post because it was rapidly heading in the direction of the ol "My God is better than your God" debate, which is verboten on THR, and I should know better than to participate in that.

My apologies to the membership.

foob
March 19, 2007, 12:48 AM
For every Quran quote that looks to justify violence, I can quote the Bible for one that is equally violent. Humans have founds ways to rationalize contradictions and inconsistencies in the teachings in various ways. Most of the time to suit their selfish purpose.

A religious text must be sufficiently vague to reduce the likelihood of falsehoods in the future, yet this allows humans to interpret the text as they see fit.

Jesus of Nazereth
Mohammad

So basically most Christians aren't real Christians, and most Muslims aren't real Muslims.
Edit: Damn it Kaylee :D , now my quote of you looks out of place.

Derek Zeanah
March 19, 2007, 01:00 AM
If I'm misreading something, PLEASE tell me where Derek. Not tonight. ;) My recollection/impression is that Mohommad wasn't a very loved man, and while he and his crew of followers were trying to live in peace according to their weird, new, scary faith, they ran into opposition.

I want to say that Mecca was conquered for reasons other than decisively ending the fight -- the Ka'ba (sp?) was filled with pagan idols, and as this was the temple to God that Abraham built, it simply had to be cleansed. And you know what happens when you demand people turn their backs on the Gods and Goddesses of their fathers...

Beyond that, I believe the guidance in the Qur'an is simply to give treaties where they're asked for, treat the other parties fairly, allow them to keep their faith (at least Christians, Jews, and Sabians -- can't be sure off the top of my head about pagans), but to show no mercy if it turns out the treaty was some kind of scheme to bargain for time to amass troops and attack. There's certainly a lot in there about the obligation to fight oppression, even when what you really want to do is have a cup of hot cocoa and retire to bed and the company of one's spouse.

It's late though, and I'm not thinking as clearly as I'd like to. I'll need to poke around a bit before I can give a more definitive answer (and shootingstudent is probably more qualified to give you a more mainstream Islamic answer, anyway).

XavierBreath
March 19, 2007, 01:16 AM
I deleted this post because it was rapidly heading in the direction of the ol "My God is better than your God" debate, which is verboten on THR, and I should know better than to participate in that. Apology accepted Kaylee.

Let's redirect this thread towards the veracity of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" itself, it's use by Larry Pratt, Excecutive director of GOA to promote CCW legislation, and the dangers it presents towards successful prosecution of criminal offenders.

(see my attempt in post #91)

bogie
March 19, 2007, 01:26 AM
So, what am I more likely to see?

SJS, or Sudden Bubba Syndrome?

And is Larry (Daniel?) likely to see my money? Maybe.

Of course, he'll likely get an irritated note.

Why?

Because we are ALREADY TOO DAMN FRAGMENTED.

================================
"Why can't we all just get along?" - R. King

XavierBreath
March 19, 2007, 07:36 AM
OOps, Larry Pratt. ;)

Does SCS, or Sudden Criminal Syndrome, of any sort occur? Or is there a period of escalation in actions and thought processes that allow the person who was once law abiding to become a mass murderer?

If there is a period of escalation then there are markers one can look at to predict and prevent the danger before it occurs, if we consider the problem rationally.

Conversion to dogmatic religious beliefs of any sort is one of the first indicators that a person of any race or religion is embarking on a path towards murder. The religious fervor may seem like a cause under quick observation, but under scutiny it is often found that the homocidal impulse was already there. The religious dogma simply gave the previously law abiding citizen the twisted internal justification to commit heinious acts of violence, not in his own name, but in the name of his God.

The urge to commit mass murder is often brought on by feelings of inadequacy and persecution, with a desire to be remembered for something, anything. The religion only gives the killer the ability to resolve this internal conflict while transfering the responsibility from himself. Any religion will do. If there is no religion immediately available, Goth culture, Hip hop culture, PTSD, any of these excuses will do. Hell, you could even say the so-called Gun Culture provided the justification and vehicle towards murder.

Do we want Sudden Gun Owner Syndrome to be used as an excuse for murder? If we continue along this path, that door is open. It's time to condemn such notions all together, and hold criminals personally accountable for their actions.

Grey54956
March 19, 2007, 08:57 AM
I don't really agree with the 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' thing. It's more of a 'Sudden Whack Job Goes Off the Deep End Syndrome', or SWJGODES. It doesn't matter if your Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Atheist, its all the same.

The author may be off on that count, but is it a reason to carry firearms for defense? Most definitely yes. From a defenders perspective, it doesn't matter if they are being attacked for religion, money, or because someone wants to use their skin to make lampshades. Aggression is aggression regardless of the reason. The appropriate response should be to put a few hot ones in the attackers center-of-mass.

bogie
March 19, 2007, 12:42 PM
If there is a period of escalation then there are markers one can look at to predict and prevent the danger before it occurs, if we consider the problem rationally.

A lot of youts and street thugs go through an escalation process - harming someone actually -is- a difficult thing to rationalize to much of our species...

A consistent theme is "he's got that nice car/jacket/woman/chain/beer, and that should be mine." Then it goes to "he's got that, and it belongs to me." Which proceeds to "The SOB stole it, and I'm gonna get it back!" (anger fuels rage at this point), and the comes the attack. They work themselves up to it.

QuestionEverything
March 19, 2007, 01:09 PM
How inherent is Muslim militancy to Islam as a whole?

Many people don't know this, but the really militant forms of Islam only date back to the 19th century. That's when Wahabbism was founded, and other radical sects like the Deobandis (basically Luddites) and the Taliban followed in its wake.

The Ottoman Empire and other Islamic political entities that existed before that time were primarily interested in expanding their power, and the Muslim faith was just a convenient tool for that purpose, as with the Roman Empire under Christianity.

The growth of fundamentalist Islam is due in large part to US and European foreign policy; one of the original instigators for Wahabbi jihadism was British colonialism in Arabia. In their anti-communist paranoia, the US and Europe fought to stamp out liberal movements in Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and other places, promoting Muslim fundies as a bulwark against the Soviets.

Religious fundamentalism was a great weapon against the USSR, producing highly motivated militants who would happily die to destroy their enemies, but once the Russians were gone those militants took aim at the other intrusive foreign presence in their homelands--us.

geekWithA.45
March 19, 2007, 01:24 PM
The growth of fundamentalist Islam is due in large part to US and European foreign policy;

Sorry. The blaming the victim "root causes" shibboleth doesn't fly for me.

I subscribe to Karen Armstrong's view, who studied the issue of religious religious fundamentalism in detail. Long story short, religious fundamentalism, be it christian, jewish or muslim or other arises when a culture fails to make peace and find its own way with what she terms "the modern spirit".

If you want to look for root causes of fundamentalism in the case of Islam, the "gates of ijtihad" were closed for political reasons towards the end of the 11th century, which culled the various schools of Islamic thought down to about 4. It's kinda hard to blame the US, which was suffering a massive existence failure at the time on that one, or Europe, which was having a spot of the Dark Ages.


But in terms of getting the thread back on track, there is a very valid point raised: That the religious elements of this are really just stage dressing tools for what are actually political goals.

mljdeckard
March 19, 2007, 02:01 PM
It has probably been mentioned in the previous five pages I won't go through right now, but the fact that the Bosnian refugee who opened fire in Salt Lake City last month last month was muslim, (Or at least his family was at one time,) had nothing to do with his violence. It wasn't even reported in the local news that they are/were muslim. It just came out a few days ago that he had an online girlfriend, and did it to make her mad. It wasn't about jihad, it was about a girlfriend.

I will admit that I have developed a predisposition against muslims in general, (which has been proven wrong several times lately.) Even the ones who truly do teach peace and tolerance still believe America is the oppressor and violence against Israel is understandable, if not justified. Having said that, It isn't a good idea to start blaming Islam for all violence connected to any muslim just because it's convenient.

Autolycus
March 19, 2007, 02:21 PM
Here is just a quick sample of Muslims speaking out against terror and terrorism. (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Muslims+against+terror&spell=1)

Funny how all it took was 3 seconds for me to find it. I noticed that some of you found websites and books about how Islam is destroying the world and other things like that yet noone bothered to look on the flip side of that coin.

Could it be said that you were only looking for something to justify your beliefs? Or to hear what you wanted to hear?

ceetee
March 19, 2007, 02:50 PM
There are some undeniable facts you have to look at: First, there have been a large number of terrorist acts that have been perpetrated by Muslims recently, for (allegedly) religious reasons. Second, there have been a large number of terrorist acts that have been perpetrated by non-Muslims recently, for (allegedly) religious reasons.

When the balloon goes up, you're not going to care whether the guy that's shooting up the mall around you is doing so because God told him to, because Allah said so, or because he's hacked off at his girlfriend and wants to end it all. All you're going to see is that damn big hole all them bullets are coming flying out of.

All this talk of Sudden I Need Something Else To Blame My Behavior On Syndrome does is deflect the discussion away from the fact that we are all adrift on the same sea. We are all our own captains. We are responsible for what we do, or what we let people talk us into doing. And when the rubber meets the road, I want to be able to hold my head up and say that I did the right thing because it was the right thing to do. I'm not gonna blame it on Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha. I'm not gonna say "It's all God's fault". We choose how to behave towards each other, and if we choose to let the difference between us drive us apart, then we are responsible for the lack of understanding and any misunderstandings that acrue from it.

TexasRifleman
March 19, 2007, 02:54 PM
I noticed that some of you found websites and books about how Islam is destroying the world and other things like that yet noone bothered to look on the flip side of that coin.

I could find links to articles on dog shaving on Google, doesn't mean there is any substance to it.

Tim James
March 19, 2007, 03:07 PM
I skimmed this thread because the religious stuff doesn't interest me, but you guys need to remember that anti-gun types are against firearms carry because they think people could "suddenly go berzerk." We know that's ridiculous, so be careful with your consistency.

As far as Larry Pratt goes: GOA and other gun groups always make me laugh with their shocking letters where they need our help on an important issue. Stuff like this is just designed to get a little attention from the average Joes. I will still gladly support GOA. Please contact them and voice your annoyance, but withholding support over an issue like this seems even dumber to me than withholding it from the NRA, where at least there's a somewhat plausible reason.

benEzra
March 19, 2007, 08:13 PM
I have compiled (quite easily, I might add) a list of murders and attempted murders carried out by Muslims acting on the basis of what the founder of Islam taught them.
I agree with Derek. This was intentionally inflammatory toward all Muslims, NOT just the militant branches of Islam. Pratt was way out of line on this one.

NukemJim
March 20, 2007, 07:59 AM
This was intentionally inflammatory toward all Muslims, NOT just the militant branches of Islam. Pratt was way out of line on this one.

If I might respectfully offer an alternative viewpoint. Instead of being intentionally inflammatory Prat could just be stupid, and as such a person who belives that "The plural of anecdote is evidence".

Many people belive that by pointing out a few examples of something that they have proven their point. They are wrong.

NukemJim
PS Doesn't change how you treat the leader of an organization, stupid or intentionally inflammatory, get them out of power or ignore them. NJ

amprecon
March 20, 2007, 12:30 PM
I think all of you have been looking in the wrong direction. Al Quada, Taliban, Nazis, Communists, Socialists, et al are all indeed enemies, however we have never been beaten by them. Why? Not because of any superiority in anything except in our WILL to not be beaten.

That 'WILL' to not be beaten and our free enterprise and personal liberty has been what's driven us to develop our technologies to help win conflicts. Our true enemy, the one that can crush each and every one of us, is us. We are our greatest enemy. Think about it, we have done and now do constantly and consistently, tie our hands behind our backs because of politics.

Yes this is a Constitutional Republic, yes we elect our leaders that will best represent our will, however, I am afraid we have lost our direction and have become more concerned with the feelings of others and of keeping up relations, that we tolerate wrong-doing just to keep the peace, to not be the 'Bad-Guy' that we are supposedly perceived as by the rest of the world.

Racial profiling? Why not? If it looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and has terrorist intent, we shouldn't pull them out of the crowd because we just may be wrong and we don't want to embarrass them if they turn out to not be a terrorist. Incredulous.

Now we have Muslims suing airliners for removing them from a flight because they were profiled, even though they were blatantly being obnoxious about sympathizing with al Quada and Osama in the presence of a plane-load of passengers?

I think we need to turn our focus on ourselves because we are the real threat. Quit electing these spineless liberal anti-American sympathizers and lets start putting real Pro-Americans back at the helm of our will.

foob
March 20, 2007, 12:37 PM
I think all of you have been looking in the wrong direction. Al Quada, Taliban, Nazis, Communists, Socialists, et al are all indeed enemies, however we have never been beaten by them. Why? Not because of any superiority in anything except in our WILL to not be beaten.

That 'WILL' to not be beaten and our free enterprise and personal liberty has been what's driven us to develop our technologies to help win conflicts. Our true enemy, the one that can crush each and every one of us, is us. We are our greatest enemy. Think about it, we have done and now do constantly and consistently, tie our hands behind our backs because of politics.

Agree with above. Disagree with below. Cannot grasp how your statement above leads you to conclude below.

Yes this is a Constitutional Republic, yes we elect our leaders that will best represent our will, however, I am afraid we have lost our direction and have become more concerned with the feelings of others and of keeping up relations, that we tolerate wrong-doing just to keep the peace, to not be the 'Bad-Guy' that we are supposedly perceived as by the rest of the world.

Racial profiling? Why not? If it looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and has terrorist intent, we shouldn't pull them out of the crowd because we just may be wrong and we don't want to embarrass them if they turn out to not be a terrorist. Incredulous.

Now we have Muslims suing airliners for removing them from a flight because they were profiled, even though they were blatantly being obnoxious about sympathizing with al Quada and Osama in the presence of a plane-load of passengers?

I think we need to turn our focus on ourselves because we are the real threat. Quit electing these spineless liberal anti-American sympathizers and lets start putting real Pro-Americans back at the helm of our will.

There's a big difference between racial profiling, and "looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and has terrorist intent".

Racial profiling = profiling by race, using various factors, such as name, skin color, clothing, language, etc, to identify the race.

Just because someone is named Ahmed, has brown skin, and wears a turban, does not mean he looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and has terrorist intent.

How you can equate the two is quite amazing.

To look like a terrorist, he probably needs an AK or a suicide belt; to act like one, he probably needs to blow up a few buildings; to talk like one, he probably needs to shout "Allahu Akbar, death to infidels" a few times; and to have terrorist intent, some emails with him discussing blowing up a few buildings is good. Of course, these are only examples relating to islamic terrorists. You can also look at Christian terrorists in Northern Ireland, Indonesia, or even the good Ol' USA for other terrorist profiles.

I've read of cases where people complained (maybe sued) because they were kicked off the plane for "acting suspicious", basically they spoke in Arabic (or some other foreign language), or went to the toilet repeatedly before take-off. How that equates to "blatantly being obnoxious about sympathizing with al Quada and Osama in the presence of a plane-load of passengers" is also another amazing grasp of logic.

Do you really mean "tie our hands behind our backs because of politics" or because of political correctness? Sounds like you meant the latter.

What makes a person not a "spineless liberal anti-American sympathizer" and a "real Pro-American"? Is Bush considered one? Can a muslim be "Pro-American"? Can a liberal be "Pro-American"? Can a conservative be "anti-American"?

If you want to throw around terms, at least let us know your definition, otherwise how will we know what you mean?

bogie
March 20, 2007, 04:20 PM
Guys, it really boils down to common sense, in two areas...

1) Some people from the fringe area of a religious group seem to have a fascination with violence... Er... make that religious _groups_. They want to blow up, or otherwise kill, _someone_.

2) Other people, while not motivated by religion, pseudoreligion, or anything which you or I would really be comfortable understanding, are out to get _someone_.

It is our job to avoid being that _someone_. I can easily see the next 9/11 type of event as being a school, a sports event, a theater, or a shopping mall. Any place where lots of people are gathered.

I don't give a damn if you pray five times a day while facing roughly east, or whatever. If you're trying to hurt me or mine, the rule book gets thrown out the window.

What the nice folks in the middle east don't realize is that the same people who are screaming that we need peace at any cost are going to react to another stateside 9/11-type incident by demanding that we pave a few countries. Remember all those folks who were suddenly wearing their little flag lapel pins? They're still in their drawers.

What we have seen as a war is essentially only a skirmish. They're going to keep at this - because it works for them. A low-tech guerilla war, with a large enough and dispersed enough population base will beat a high-tech army just about any day. If the high-tech army plays nice. What we NEEDED to have done was completely control all media within the region. And completely control it here. Because that is what has lost our second war for us.

And Pratt needs to have a chat with Zumbo - that kinda rant makes us look bad.

ctdonath
March 20, 2007, 04:32 PM
Skipping several pages of rhetoric...

The lead post disproves its own conclusion, and in doing so belies the author's bigotry. While there is indeed a viable threat from those extremists pursuing a "convert or die" philosophy, it is not described therein.

Averaging less than ONE attack per year, with a handful of victims each, the lead post utterly fails to indicate any viable concern. More people will die today driving home from work than the whole list shown, covering a decade.

If even a single percent of that population is motivated to go kill a few infidels for Allah, the country would be facing 70,000 murderers on the loose.That leap of bigotry, launched from events well below the statistical noise threshold, is exactly the same BS as we face as gunowners with such nonsense as "well you might get mad and shoot someone" and "you're 44 times more likely to kill someone you know".

I'm posting to register my dismay at the rank abuse of statistics for political gain and advancement of bigotry - even if that gain is in my favor and the bigotry encircles (by far too wide a margin) my enemies.

If anything, the enumerated attacks statistically prove that "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome" is NOT a problem. Buying into the "thread" requires an unjustified statistical leap of four orders of magnitude in a population that shows no actual inkling to do so; the only way that leap seems likely at this point is in communal defense against the results of the author's bigotry.

BTW: this board's operator is Muslim. I'd rather stand at his side than by the author of that bigoted trash.

MatthewVanitas
March 20, 2007, 04:32 PM
What we NEEDED to have done was completely control all media within the region. And completely control it here. Because that is what has lost our second war for us.


Holdup a sec, you lost me here: are you seriously saying that the solution to our problems is to censor all the news in the U.S. and Middle East?

Wouldn't that be the largest single un-Constitutional act in years (for the U.S. portion), and also completely validate the anti-US position ("America wants to control the Middle East")?

Just double-checking here, I'm simply not comprehending how established THR folks can advocate massive and comprehensive censorship.

-MV

bogie
March 20, 2007, 04:39 PM
Pretty much yes...

In Iraqistan, no problem - Stop the spewing of messages of hatred, and concentrate on messages of solidarity and peace. No publicity for atrocities.

In the United States, I'd forward a precedent: World War II. If something endangered morale or physical safety of troops, it didn't get printed or see the screen. Period. Today, you could tell a "reporter" that what he's about to print could cost a thousand troops their lives, and he'd start working on the human interest story about a thousand casualties...

Very few people under retirement age in the US understand war. The rule book goes out the window.

SamTuckerMTNMAN
March 20, 2007, 04:42 PM
with Derek, and many others on the absurdity present in the article. However, anytime one listens to something that appeals to their emotional character, encourages illegal behavior, and has a mass of people around who feel similar ways, they are more likely to engage in said behavior. We shouldn't underestimate these forces in any religious, racist, or political group. There are powerful forces which DO lend themselves to the provocation of violence on the behalf of Islam. When you combine this with a tendency of the media to downplay or ignore the roots of the listed violent acts, as did occur, its enough to frustrate others into hyperinflating the threat. The fact is, SJS is just one reason, small on the list, of many reasons to have a firearm. You could go for crack cocaine, or perhaps rage induced car on car violence, whatever. So.....I guess what I am saying is that there is middle ground here. There are propoganda and peer pressures to hate and inflict violence on any American interest. There are also others and Larry Pratt seems to be playing on emotions and predisposition as well.

ST

foob
March 20, 2007, 05:54 PM
What we NEEDED to have done was completely control all media within the region. And completely control it here.

1. It wouldn't work. China has a problem censoring information, USA would have a bigger problem. US citizens are a little less sheep-like.

2. What you have suggested (complete government control of media in the US), would be the biggest infringement of the bill of rights ever. For someone who visits this forum, I would think you fervently support the 2nd amendment. To even consider this a legal solution shocks me. So if the government says to win the war on crime they have to ban and confiscate ALL firearms, I suppose you would think that's a good solution too.

The stuff I hear in this thread gets more and more interesting...

bogie
March 20, 2007, 06:11 PM
So are you saying that censorship did not exist in World War II?

It did, and while it was largely voluntary, it was STRICTLY adhered to.

As it is, it appears that the media is hoping for another 9/11 so as to boost ratings...

geekWithA.45
March 20, 2007, 06:11 PM
No, we absolutely do NOT want to have government control of the media.

That being said, the majority of the media certainly does seem to be acting in unified concert against our national interests.

For such a diverse nation I deem it infinitely suspicious that the media should be as unanimous as it is in its editorial voice.

cassandrasdaddy
March 20, 2007, 06:18 PM
there was a piece of work... didn't rudolph do the olympic bombing?and the one outside the abortion clinic?with the second bomb timed to fubar the first responders?
how aboutwe lump em all into religous whack job syndrome?

foob
March 20, 2007, 06:41 PM
So are you saying that censorship did not exist in World War II?

It did, and while it was largely voluntary, it was STRICTLY adhered to.

As it is, it appears that the media is hoping for another 9/11 so as to boost ratings...

I'm interested to know more info about censorship in WW2. I'm pretty sure the prevaling view of the public then was that casualties were acceptable in the face of Japanese and German aggression, and that would imply no need for censorship of body count and other negative news. The public now does not view the need to win the war at any costs, especially not for the survival of the US (unlike WW2). It's not like the war is going to spill over on US soil. It's a local war not a global war.

There's a big difference between voluntary self-censorship and government enforced censorship of the media.

Why would the media hope for another 9/11 to boost ratings? Does it make sense? Did the previous 9/11 creating a ratings boost? If so, how long did it last? Or are you just speculating.

Considering Anna Nicole Smith's death caused Iraq news to be pushed aside so easily, you would think the media desires a celebrity's death more than anything else. Maybe she was assassinated by Bill O'Reilly.

The media isn't this huge conspiracy where the CEOs of Time Warner, News Corporation, and other media conglomerates sit around and discuss plans to boost ratings. It's not a James Bond's film. Would be good if it was, then some James Bond type hero would jump in and save the day.

Just like we shouldn't lump all muslims together, we shouldn't lump all media together.

wooderson
March 20, 2007, 06:47 PM
It's not like the war is going to spill over on US soil. It's a local war not a global war.

Haven't you heard? We're already under siege from a Mexican-Jihadi Popular Front. Any day now they're going to roll across the border, savage our women and force us all to bow toward Mecca.

Any day now.

bogie
March 20, 2007, 06:49 PM
We need another Ernie Pyle.

=====================
AT THE FRONT LINES IN ITALY, January 10, 1944 - In this war I have known a lot of officers who were loved and respected by the soldiers under them. But never have I crossed the trail of any man as beloved as Capt. Henry T. Waskow of Belton, Texas.

Capt. Waskow was a company commander in the 36th Division. He had led his company since long before it left the States. He was very young, only in his middle twenties, but he carried in him a sincerity and gentleness that made people want to be guided by him.

"After my own father, he came next," a sergeant told me.

"He always looked after us," a soldier said. "He'd go to bat for us every time."

"I've never knowed him to do anything unfair," another one said.

I was at the foot of the mule trail the night they brought Capt. Waskow's body down. The moon was nearly full at the time, and you could see far up the trail, and even part way across the valley below. Soldiers made shadows in the moonlight as they walked.

Dead men had been coming down the mountain all evening, lashed onto the backs of mules. They came lying belly-down across the wooden pack-saddles, their heads hanging down on the left side of the mule, their stiffened legs sticking out awkwardly from the other side, bobbing up and down as the mule walked.

The Italian mule-skinners were afraid to walk beside dead men, so Americans had to lead the mules down that night. Even the Americans were reluctant to unlash and lift off the bodies at the bottom, so an officer had to do it himself, and ask others to help.

The first one came early in the morning. They slid him down from the mule and stood him on his feet for a moment, while they got a new grip. In the half light he might have been merely a sick man standing there, leaning on the others. Then they laid him on the ground in the shadow of the low stone wall alongside the road.

I don't know who that first one was. You feel small in the presence of dead men, and ashamed at being alive, and you don't ask silly questions.

We left him there beside the road, that first one, and we all went back into the cowshed and sat on water cans or lay on the straw, waiting for the next batch of mules.

Somebody said the dead soldier had been dead for four days, and then nobody said anything more about it. We talked soldier talk for an hour or more. The dead man lay all alone outside in the shadow of the low stone wall.

Then a soldier came into the cowshed and said there were some more bodies outside. We went out into the road. Four mules stood there, in the moonlight, in the road where the trail came down off the mountain. The soldiers who led them stood there waiting. "This one is Captain Waskow," one of them said quietly.

Two men unlashed his body from the mule and lifted it off and laid it in the shadow beside the low stone wall. Other men took the other bodies off. Finally there were five lying end to end in a long row, alongside the road. You don't cover up dead men in the combat zone. They just lie there in the shadows until somebody else comes after them.

The unburdened mules moved off to their olive orchard. The men in the road seemed reluctant to leave. They stood around, and gradually one by one I could sense them moving close to Capt. Waskow's body. Not so much to look, I think, as to say something in finality to him, and to themselves. I stood close by and I could hear.

One soldier came and looked down, and he said out loud, "God damn it." That's all he said, and then he walked away. Another one came. He said, "God damn it to hell anyway." He looked down for a few last moments, and then he turned and left.

Another man came; I think he was an officer. It was hard to tell officers from men in the half light, for all were bearded and grimy dirty. The man looked down into the dead captain's face, and then he spoke directly to him, as though he were alive. He said: "I'm sorry, old man."

Then a soldier came and stood beside the officer, and bent over, and he too spoke to his dead captain, not in a whisper but awfully tenderly, and he said:

"I sure am sorry, sir."

Then the first man squatted down, and he reached down and took the dead hand, and he sat there for a full five minutes, holding the dead hand in his own and looking intently into the dead face, and he never uttered a sound all the time he sat there.

And finally he put the hand down, and then reached up and gently straightened the points of the captain's shirt collar, and then he sort of rearranged the tattered edges of his uniform around the wound. And then he got up and walked away down the road in the moonlight, all alone.

After that the rest of us went back into the cowshed, leaving the five dead men lying in a line, end to end, in the shadow of the low stone wall. We lay down on the straw in the cowshed, and pretty soon we were all asleep.

MatthewVanitas
March 20, 2007, 06:52 PM
Haven't you heard? We're already under siege from a Mexican-Jihadi Popular Front. Any day now they're going to roll across the border, savage our women and force us all to bow toward Mecca.

Any day now.

Aren't they also going to fluoridate our water, make us follow the Pope, and send our money to Israel?

Wait, I'm confusing my conspiracies here...


Suffice to say:
--original article was alarmism, misleading, and reflects poorly on the RKBA community
--censoring war coverage would lead the most pyrrhic of pyrrhic victories. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory)

-MV

bogie
March 20, 2007, 07:29 PM
Excellent reporting can occur with censorship.

As it is, we have a group of "journalists" chanting "There's blood in the water! There's blood in the water!" while at the same time planning their next career move.

This _is_ also a global war. State-sponsored terrorism can go anywhere. And it doesn't need to be even as high-tech as 9/11...

War isn't only for big countries with big armies anymore. With a budget in the low millions, and a well-trained cadre of 100 true believers (of any belief system, I might add...), I could basically shut the USA interstate system down. Or I could take 5,000 points off the Dow. And a large part of the opportunity is because, even while this is a free country, with freedom of movement, there is also next to ZERO situational awareness among the population.

foob
March 20, 2007, 07:49 PM
Excellent reporting can occur with censorship.

Excellent self-defense can occur with ban on firearms. See what I did there, absolutely nothing.

This _is_ also a global war. State-sponsored terrorism can go anywhere. And it doesn't need to be even as high-tech as 9/11...

War isn't only for big countries with big armies anymore. With a budget in the low millions, and a well-trained cadre of 100 true believers (of any belief system, I might add...), I could basically shut the USA interstate system down. Or I could take 5,000 points off the Dow. And a large part of the opportunity is because, even while this is a free country, with freedom of movement, there is also next to ZERO situational awareness among the population.

Global war as in war between countries where mass destruction and complete subjugation of countries occur. Not small terrorist acts that can occur anywhere. If you think Germany or Japan with a million troops on US soil is somehow equal in scale to 9/11 think again.

Calling it a war on terror is really one of the worse exaggerations and fear-mongering I've seen.

Iraq is a local war. If you think the withdrawal of US troops will cause insurgents to pack their bags and fight on US soil, you are exaggerating their desire and capabilities. It's one thing for insurgents to cross from Iran and Syria into Iraq, another to send them to the US.

With millions and a 100 followers you could do something that takes some points off the Dow, but guess what, it will recover easily. If you think you can shut down the entire interstate system, good luck. You could shut parts off for a short short while, maybe a day. Guess what, it will recover easily.

Could you explain what you mean by zero situational awareness? I'm unaware of any terrorist attacks after 9/11, and definitely nothing that could have been prevented by more situational awareness of citizens.

Even before 9/11, what did you expect civilians to do? It isn't illegal for a muslim to learn how to fly a plane. Not yet at least.

amprecon
March 20, 2007, 07:59 PM
foob,
how you cannot "grasp" what I've written in english and in layman terms is, well, quite amazing to me :confused:

QuestionEverything
March 20, 2007, 08:01 PM
Excellent sport shooting can occur with strict gun control. It's not like you need those scary assault weapons to hunt deer, after all.

Journalists can scream "There's blood in the water!" all day long if they want to because it's their right. That's what America is all about. If the state muzzles or takes control of the press in any way, they might as well confiscate all guns, install telescreens in every home and implant citizens with RFID chips for all the Constitution will be worth.

Not that the media is doing that in the first place. I don't see where the press is "consistently acting against US national interests." If that means opposing the war to you, then why did the NY Times and dozens of other papers act the part of starry-eyed cheerleaders as Bush prepared to invade Iraq? The media is just now waking up to the fact that Iraq was a poorly planned disaster that's wasted thousands of American lives and made the country much more vulnerable to terrorism.

foob
March 20, 2007, 08:05 PM
foob,
how you cannot "grasp" what I've written in english and in layman terms is, well, quite amazing to me

I'll let others read my earlier comments about your post to decide whether the confusion lies in me or you heh.

bogie
March 20, 2007, 08:22 PM
You know, I wonder when we're just going to turn on Al Jazeera for our news...

As for orchestration of a guerilla war, you're thinking in terms of massed armies. That no longer works, and is not a viable concept, since with advances in travel and communication, one generally no longer has to worry about supply lines and communication to and from a central authority.

North Vietnam learned that "the war of the armies" is dead during the Tet offensive.

I guess that we shouldn't learn from the past tho - After all, it was the past, and we're FAR more enlightened today.

Guerilla warfare does not have the instant payoff that "scorched earth assault" has, but it is CHEAP. And if a small third-world nation has patience, it can essentially hold the world hostage.

Desertdog
March 20, 2007, 09:25 PM
I'm interested to know more info about censorship in WW2.
Born in 1935 makes me to yougn to have served, but old enough to remember.

Letters to home, from the troops, often had either blacked out words, or words and sentences that were neatly cut out. Any mention of where the troops were, was deleated. Yes, I saw them with my own eyes.

One story from WWII is of a General that got tired of the press corps sending news back home of "possible" up coming troop deployments. His cure to keep quiet an up coming deployment was to invite all news people in the area to a news conference,

He then outlined the complete battle plans, and when it was over made the anouncement "Gentlemen, everything we discussed is military secrets. Anyone divuging any of the information will be subject to facing the firing squad for treason."

bogie
March 20, 2007, 09:42 PM
The quiet derision of academics and theoreticians will be our doom. But they'll be as doomed as the rest.

It is far better to be slightly paranoid than it is to be completely oblivious. Because the slightly paranoid might call in a report about a truck parked outside a gymnasium, or notice the license plate of a car cruising by a playground bus stop. They'll notice a nervous guy sitting outside a bank or a liquor store with his engine running.

Guys, this is a world of grey areas. Not all muslims are bad. Some are bad. Not all christians are bad. Some are bad. Not all people are bad. Some are bad. We must learn to both face reality, and to differentiate, on a practical sense, good from wrong.

Kaylee
March 20, 2007, 09:47 PM
bogie - I agree on your two main points.

1. Our present media situation is a serious problem.
(Yes Virginia, FDR clamped down hard on the media back in WWII. At least then though more folks knew the meaning of the word "responsibility.")

Thanks to several generations now of journalists coming up through the ranks thinking their Mission In Life it to be the next Bob Woodward, any CiC is rowing upstream these days to sustain a military engagement - and yes, it's twice as hard if they're a Republican. Add in Congressional power mongers on both sides ("wag the dog" anyone?) - to tell the God's honest truth, I'm not convinced we can ever fight a war requiring sustained effort effectively anymore.

Any war.

At this point, if Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all rose from the grave to land ten freaking divisions on Myrtle Beach, I'd lay even money half of Congress would be working on impeachment proceedings, the other half would be squabbling over which part of the country to give away first, and the New York Times would start posting US troop locations and suggested invasion routes.
:(

More seriously though.. when the next BIG attack comes, I don't think we're going to see another 9/12 "we're all Americans" feeling sweep the nation with flags flying everywhere. I don't think we're going to see any productive action in Washington.

I think we're going to see blame politics and canabalistic fury in Washington, and neighbor against neighbor out here in flyover country.

And yes.. that's exactly what binLaden predicted ten years ago.
Sadly, we seem to be trying like hell to prove him right.

So yeah, I think it's a problem.

As already mentioned though, given the vastly expanded media outlets of today, Even if there was the will, I don't know as there's much the gov't could do to effectively control it as they did in FDR's day.

At the very least though, we could stop using tax money to pay folks to slander our soldiers. :mad:

2. To your next point - Global War.

Yes, it's happening. It's slow, but it's happening. Right now we're seeing a gathering of strength behind smiles abroad, and comfortable illusions at home.


At least we get to live in interesting times. The next fifteen years are gonna be a heck of a show.

TexasRifleman
March 20, 2007, 09:48 PM
Yes Virginia, FDR clamped down hard on the media back in WWII. At least then though more folks knew the meaning of the word "responsibility.

Even more than that, most of the time he didn't HAVE to clamp down. Reporters had the good sense to know when to sit on a story.

No chance that would ever happen now.

Kaylee
March 20, 2007, 09:53 PM
No chance that would ever happen now.

I've heard of a few occasions of it happening.

I just don't think our present generation of journalists understand however that morale and public support is every bit as necessary for a sustained conflict as keeping a given unit's GPS coordinates under wraps for 24 hours.

You can't spend an hour every night dredging up every allegation of torture however nebulous, screaming about every alleged rape in the ranks, make a hero of every AWOL case, and constantly scream "My Lai" without destroying any shred of will at home. That's the worst of the worst. Most just seem to think phoning in body counts from the green zone counts as journalism.


At least, I'd like to think it's just ignorance and hubris behind that "quiet derision" bogie speaks so well of.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 20, 2007, 10:44 PM
At least, I'd like to think it's just ignorance and hubris behind that "quiet derision" bogie speaks so well of.

I have my doubts that it's just ignorance and hubris with the press, Kaylee. I think it's deliberate agenda driven bias. But, that's just me.

Woody


How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

bogie
March 20, 2007, 11:30 PM
I think it is actually a belief system - akin in some facets to a religious belief system. Not organized, and not acknowledged, but a belief system nonetheless.

Several main tenets: (and I do not use that term loosely)

1) War, all war, is bad.

2) Peace, at any price, is good.

3) The rich are intrinsically evil, and require punishment.

4) The poor are intrinsically noble, but require guidance.

5) Those in positions of power are required to use their positions to further the above.

6) Intelligent people adhere to this belief system - everyone who doesn't is not intelligent.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 20, 2007, 11:42 PM
It's either that or conquest, bogie.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

ConstitutionCowboy
March 20, 2007, 11:48 PM
Oh, and give me freedom over peace any time. I can defend freedom. Peace is usually way too costly.

Woody


Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

wooderson
March 20, 2007, 11:59 PM
any CiC is rowing upstream these days to sustain a military engagement - and yes, it's twice as hard if they're a Republican.

Why is this a bad thing? Between LBJ/Tonkin, Tricky Dick/Cambodia, Clinton/aspirin plant (I lack even the desire to mention Reagan's foibles), one would think that we would all prefer a healthy public sphere cynicism in terms of military adventurism.

(nb: The media was, in fact, completely complicit in the exagerrations and fearmongering that led up to the disaster in Iraq. That they report some bad news today should be a reflection of their original position.)

At this point, if Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all rose from the grave to land ten freaking divisions on Myrtle Beach, I'd lay even money half of Congress would be working on impeachment proceedings, the other half would be squabbling over which part of the country to give away first, and the New York Times would start posting US troop locations and suggested invasion routes.
This is simply absurd. You're extrapolating a perceived view of attitudes toward Iraq (which is subject to question) to 'any and all wars' and casting aspersions on the media.

Doing so helps you justify the abject disaster that is the War on Terror - it's not that the case for Iraq was weaker than a sandcastle, and it's not that the occupation was run badly from day one, it's not that reconstruction was a joke (croney capitalism at its finest) and it's not that Iraq is rapidly descending into Civil War and it's not that turning our attention to an unnecessary war weakened what was potentially a necessary war and it's not Dubya's fault, God no - it's the media's fault. They're just being hard on the President. Unfair.

One need only look at Desert Storm to see that the corporate media (and Democrats in Congress) have no qualms with a popular war. Or at least a war that we appear to be winning.

wooderson
March 21, 2007, 12:04 AM
Reporters had the good sense to know when to sit on a story.
When should a story be shuffled to the back?

Should I not hear about Abu Ghraib?
Should I not hear about Haditha?
Should I not hear about mistakes made by American soldiers?
Should I not hear about possible war crimes committed by American soldiers?
Should I not hear about corruption among war profiteers? Contractors, I mean.
Should I not hear about the government's disreputable policy toward injured vets?
Should I not hear about Blackwater mercenaries beholden to no law but their own?

What aspects of my government's War on Terra should I not be privy to?

bogie
March 21, 2007, 01:07 AM
When it harms the US war effort.

When a soldier commits a crime, he goes to jail - happens all the time in the US, Europe, Korea, anywhere there are soldiers. But if the soldier commits the same crime in Iraq, it's time for CNN... Why?

When Al Quaeda folks kill hostages, that's good for an hour or so of coverage. When we humiliate prisoners (that was NOT torture - if you'd like, I'm sure we could get someone to demonstrate the difference), that's good for month after month of coverage... Why?

War contractors are supplying stuff that our scaled-down military no longer does for itself. I don't think the army runs its own mess halls anymore. I don't think it runs any of the ancillary facilties. It doesn't do its own computer support -it can't keep the people once they've been trained; they go to the private sector. So the military goes to the private sector for this. Why? And while we're at it, have you seen anything on the news about the approximately 1,000 Halliburton/KBR employees who've been killed? Or about the Blackwater casualties? These guys are doing things that the military cannot/will not do - the US army is not tasked, for instance, with providing security for a construction firm that is building a hotel - but that does not mean that its people will not be possible targets.

The governments' policies toward injured vets has always sucked. But it also always keeps getting better.

If people are shooting at you, you shoot back. If you know that the US Army isn't going to send tanks and helicopters to come bail you out, you shoot a LOT more vigorously.

You may now return to Democratic Underground.

Art Eatman
March 21, 2007, 01:24 AM
And we've wandered a good long way from SJS.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Perspectives: 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' - A reason to carry firearms for self-defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!