Fort Hood Massacre

[themadkat]

If this guy was mentally unhinged it is probably just as likely that he could have shouted something about Cylons, or had he been a Christian he could have screamed that Lucifer made him do it. It's entirely possible that his religion was nothing more than a convenient excuse.

That's the thing about religion. It's so easy to become a hater when your "god" tells you that everyone else is wrong or evil. Religion is a horribly divisive institution.

One of my fellow graduate students in anthropology was scheduled to be on the base that day (she studies the military), and she always hangs out in the general area of the shootings. Fortunately she didn't happen to be there because something changed her scheduling. But I'm certain she knows some of the people affected by this tragedy.

Muslim or no, it does sound like this guy was just unhinged. But it's worth a thorough investigation.

[Thales]

That religion, taken seriously, results in people behaving highly irrational. I mean, if you believe in another, better realm, this realm becomes of secondary importance to such people. He did take the religion very seriously, from what I've seen.

The muslim religion, and probably any religion, taken completely seriously will result in evil. This is why religion-qua-religion is evil.

[Grames]

If Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist, so is this guy.

[Zip]

If Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist, so is this guy.

Absolutely.

[themadkat]

If Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist, so is this guy.

Sounds about right.

[dollardoctrinaire]

But what you're telling us here is that "he did it because he's a Muslim", which is not true, and I worry that you go around telling people that's what you learned from Objectivism.

Maybe I exagerrated the influence of Islam, but it doesn't excuse the lack of discipline in the army. Having said that I have to say we need better and more volunteers to defend our nation, not such backstabbing scum like the one who shot his fellow officers.

[Corey1911]

Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001. Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

[ex_banana-eater]

The real question is why wasn't he dishonorably discharged for his open advocacy of violence to protect muslims, which is treasonous given that there are muslims that have declared war on the U.S.

[bold mine]

I am interested in any references you or anyone else has to support this.

[ex_banana-eater]

But what you're telling us here is that "he did it because he's a Muslim", which is not true, ...

How do you know that's not true?

[Zip]

Maybe I exagerrated the influence of Islam, but it doesn't excuse the lack of discipline in the army. Having said that I have to say we need better and more volunteers to defend our nation, not such backstabbing scum like the one who shot his fellow officers.

What lack of discipline? Are you trying to tell me that when one man out of 1,473,900 active service personnel commits a crime like this there is a problem with discipline? The influence of Islam isn't the only thing you've exaggerated.

[SD26]

What lack of discipline? Are you trying to tell me that when one man out of 1,473,900 active service personnel commits a crime like this there is a problem with discipline? The influence of Islam isn't the only thing you've exaggerated.

Thank you. My point exactly. Individual problem.

[SD26]

Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Well, yeah, just like McVeigh and Hasan both being in the US Army.

How many people worshipped in that mosque?

[SD26]

How do you know that's not true?

Well, how many Muslims are there? If these things happen because one is a Muslim, then there should be more regular domestic terrorist action because of the size of the population.

[2046]

How do you know that's not true?

It's called free will. Being a Muslim doesn't determine your actions for you in some manner beyond your control. There are plenty of people who choose to be Muslims and simultaneously choose not go around shooting the kafir. (ie., choose to follow most aspects of Islam, but for some reason choose not to follow Mohammed's orders regarding holy war.)

Edited November 8, 2009 by 2046

[Soth]

I am surprised a lot of you felt the need to immediately declare your similar despise of Christianity here. It's as though you feel a need to justify your depise for Islam. It sounds like political correctness to my ears. Christians don't often go on killing sprees, and when they do it is usually not because of their organized religion establishments (obviously, rare exceptions exist). Muslims do it much more often. Do not equate current day Christianity to Islam in the amount of cruel deeds of violence it causes. Christianity is better than Islam. (Just in case someone gets the wrong impression, I am an Atheist, and most certainly not a Christian).

When a terrorists is an Arab Muslim who shouts 'Allah Akbar' while killing 13 and wounding dozens, you can safely assume it's the Islamic religion who made him do it. Observe the amount of Islam terrorists and those who act violently as opposed to, say, Christians, and you will see that Islam is regarded as the religion of violance based on facts. Yes he had free will in choosing to go on a rampant killing spree, but Islam has been the driving force causing him to do it.

I think it's time America treats Islam the way it treated Shinto in Japan after WWII; Islam as a personal belief will not be hindered, but Islam as a state religion be done away with. Enact it in Pakistan and as a rule in Muslim countries you wage war against, currently and in the future, and do so with the same moral vigor you did post WWII in Japan. Otherwise they will continue to encourage, wage, and sponser terrorist acts against America and the western world.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Soth

[Jennifer]

I am surprised a lot of you felt the need to immediately declare your similar despise of Christianity here. It's as though you feel a need to justify your depise for Islam. It sounds like political correctness to my ears. Christians don't often go on killing sprees, and when they do it is usually not because of their organized religion establishments (obviously, rare exceptions exist). Muslims do it much more often. Do not equate current day Christianity to Islam in the amount of cruel deeds of violence it causes. Christianity is better than Islam. (Just in case someone gets the wrong impression, I am an Atheist, and most certainly not a Christian).

When a terrorists is an Arab Muslim who shouts 'Allah Akbar' while killing 13 and wounding dozens, you can safely assume it's the Islamic religion who made him do it. Observe the amount of Islam terrorists and those who act violently as opposed to, say, Christians, and you will see that Islam is regarded as the religion of violance based on facts. Yes he had free will in choosing to go on a rampant killing spree, but Islam has been the driving force causing him to do it.

I think it's time America treats Islam the way it treated Shinto in Japan after WWII; Islam as a personal belief will not be hindered, but Islam as a state religion be done away with. Enact it in Pakistan and as a rule in Muslim countries you wage war against, currently and in the future, and do so with the same moral vigor you did post WWII in Japan. Otherwise they will continue to encourage, wage, and sponser terrorist acts against America and the western world.

I think you are greatly oversimplifying this, I don't know any expert on this stuff (out of the ones I know personally) that would agree with your conclusions.

[2046]

Yes he had free will in choosing to go on a rampant killing spree, but Islam has been the driving force causing him to do it.

This sentence completely contradicts itself. Islam can't cause anyone to do anything.

[TheEgoist]

I am surprised a lot of you felt the need to immediately declare your similar despise of Christianity here. It's as though you feel a need to justify your depise for Islam. It sounds like political correctness to my ears. Christians don't often go on killing sprees, and when they do it is usually not because of their organized religion establishments (obviously, rare exceptions exist). Muslims do it much more often. Do not equate current day Christianity to Islam in the amount of cruel deeds of violence it causes. Christianity is better than Islam. (Just in case someone gets the wrong impression, I am an Atheist, and most certainly not a Christian).

When a terrorists is an Arab Muslim who shouts 'Allah Akbar' while killing 13 and wounding dozens, you can safely assume it's the Islamic religion who made him do it. Observe the amount of Islam terrorists and those who act violently as opposed to, say, Christians, and you will see that Islam is regarded as the religion of violance based on facts. Yes he had free will in choosing to go on a rampant killing spree, but Islam has been the driving force causing him to do it.

I think it's time America treats Islam the way it treated Shinto in Japan after WWII; Islam as a personal belief will not be hindered, but Islam as a state religion be done away with. Enact it in Pakistan and as a rule in Muslim countries you wage war against, currently and in the future, and do so with the same moral vigor you did post WWII in Japan. Otherwise they will continue to encourage, wage, and sponser terrorist acts against America and the western world.

It may be that when comparing the Koran with the Bible, one might find more disgusting verses in the former, or in the latter. That doesn't matter all that much. We both know that at their core they are violent religions. The difference is, Christianity has evolved along with the West. It hasn't decided the West's fate, but only been a part of it. It has been forced into submitting to rational norms.

I mention my hatred for Christianity specifically because there is a large movement of anti-Islamists who are very pro-Christ. They see the battle as a dichotomy of Christian V Muslim. Even on a forum whose participants are largely atheist, and even with an avatar such as mine, I want to make it clear I think religion in general is the culprit here. This man, who was already unhinged, could just as easily accepted a more consistent view of Christianity and gone to an abortion clinic to kill them.

[Eiuol]

I am surprised a lot of you felt the need to immediately declare your similar despise of Christianity here. It's as though you feel a need to justify your depise for Islam. It sounds like political correctness to my ears. Christians don't often go on killing sprees, and when they do it is usually not because of their organized religion establishments (obviously, rare excen.

Well, Christians did go on periodic killing sprees for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment. The Middle East has not gone through such a period, so it is not surprising violent religious based violence occurs so frequently there. But this is the West we're talking about here, so Muslims living in the US for a long period of time (whether it be since birth or since immigrating) will learn about the value of reason. There is nothing that makes Islam inherently worse than Christianity. If you make any religious person angry enough (and more than likely their reasons for being angry are irrational), they'll act out in the name of their god. Muslim or Christian. It is only reason that makes a person less inclined toward such violence.

I can think of as much Muslim inspired attacks as Christian ones from US citizens in the US. (Not that that sentence is proof; I'm just inviting you to provide information I might be ignorant of)

Edited November 8, 2009 by Eiuol

[Grames]

I am interested in any references you or anyone else has to support this.

There's a bunch of links conveniently gathered at HotAir: Chris Matthews: We may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood

[Thales]

Soth said:

I think it's time America treats Islam the way it treated Shinto in Japan after WWII; Islam as a personal belief will not be hindered, but Islam as a state religion be done away with. Enact it in Pakistan and as a rule in Muslim countries you wage war against, currently and in the future, and do so with the same moral vigor you did post WWII in Japan. Otherwise they will continue to encourage, wage, and sponser terrorist acts against America and the western world.

I think you are greatly oversimplifying this, I don't know any expert on this stuff (out of the ones I know personally) that would agree with your conclusions.

John Lewis provides exactly that conclusion. I'm sure that's where he is getting it from, because that's the comparison that professor Lewis makes. I find Lewis' arguments to be very convincing.

[dollardoctrinaire]

Well, Christians did go on periodic killing sprees for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment. The Middle east has not gone through such a period, so it is not surprising violent religious based violence occurs so frequently there.

Is it our fault that they have not had The Enlightenment? Its obvious that in spite of all education and technology available to them, as provided by the western colonialists, the stubborn Middle Easterners have refused to come into a rationalistic world view even after gaining their little "independences". They stubbornly stick to medieval ideologies. We in the west do not have to apologize for it when they come over here and terrorize our troops. How can anyone explain the total disproportional development between the west and those Middle Eastern countries? Why haven't the people had capitalism for so many years while the west has had it for so many centuries?

[Jake_Ellison]

I am surprised a lot of you felt the need to immediately declare your similar despise of Christianity here. It's as though you feel a need to justify your depise for Islam.

If you despise the religion of 1.5 billion people, you better justify it. The justification usually involves mentioning the other, very similar, big religion, and how they both encourage irrationality and hatred of man in the same exact ways.

Christians don't often go on killing sprees, and when they do it is usually not because of their organized religion establishments (obviously, rare excen.

Rare? You mean like this guy being one in maybe ten instances of American Muslims going on a killing spree, since the beginning of time? Yes, people in civilized secular countries, in general, hardly ever go on killing sprees.

But back when Western countries were not secular, the Christian religious establishment went on killing and torturing sprees as a matter of course.

When a terrorists is an Arab Muslim who shouts 'Allah Akbar' while killing 13 and wounding dozens, you can safely assume it's the Islamic religion who made him do it.

It's not a safe assumption, because it doesn't follow and it's impossible. Read the thread, since we already answered this exact nonsense, about how Islam made him do it.

I think it's time America treats Islam the way it treated Shinto in Japan after WWII; Islam as a personal belief will not be hindered, but Islam as a state religion be done away with. Enact it in Pakistan and as a rule in Muslim countries you wage war against, currently and in the future, and do so with the same moral vigor you did post WWII in Japan. Otherwise they will continue to encourage, wage, and sponser terrorist acts against America and the western world.

I would think we shouldn't occupy any Muslim countries, there's just way too many of them and it's a futile exercise, but if on occasion we do, we should definitely impose the same political principles we have in the US, including separation of Church and State. That's not just because of Islam, it's because of what religion is, in general. The principle was formulated by the Founding Fathers with Christianity, not Islam, in mind.

[Grames]

via Mudville Gazette one account of What happened at Ft. Hood.

Small world department: The blogger (not the Ft. Hood witness) says he is an Objectivist. What the hell, how many mil-objectivists are there?

[Eiuol]

Is it our fault that they have not had The Enlightenment? Its obvious that in spite of all education and technology available to them, as provided by the western colonialists, the stubborn Middle Easterners have refused to come into a rationalistic world view even after gaining their little "independences".

It is a whole separate discussion of how the Enlightenment even began. But simply that it was a Western movement doesn't say that it meant Christianity was any better, or that Islam was any worse. It should be obvious to you there is no element of reason to religion, since many elements of any religion are ignored for subjective reasons. You can only discuss the specific movements of a religion. Islamic Fundamentalist is always violent. Islam is not always violent. Although maybe I should say that any person who accepts any religion in its *entirety* will become violent. I'm sure any Muslim in the US arbitrarily rejects certain elements of their religion while accepting others.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Eiuol