« New York 2, Philadelphia 2 | Main | Lt. Col. Henry Blake »
The Fort Hood Coexist Bumper Sticker
November 6, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Amen, my friend. NO! No, not "amen." What's the word... Allah akbar! That's it.
Posted by: mike | Nov 6, 2009 10:57:02 AM
I'm sure the incident had absolutely nothing to do with his constant harassment and being called "camel jockey" after 9/11. Giving one's dedication and service to a military whose nation was founded by people seeking religious freedom, only to be insulted for your beliefs couldn't precipitate an extreme violent reaction. nah.
Good thing the army plasters those peaceful coexist stickers everywhere to encourage personnel to respect others' religious beliefs and sexual orientation.
Posted by: tpulley | Nov 6, 2009 12:09:40 PM
So does tolerance mean we must allow people to practice a religion that commands its followers that it's their duty to kill the rest of us?
Posted by: Tom McMahon | Nov 6, 2009 1:49:25 PM
The Koran has a lot to say on murder, justice, and guidelines for such in keeping with Islam. To be brief, here is the gist of it:
- all people's lives are equal
- it is permissible to put a murderer to death (eye for an eye), but you don't have to.
- it is prohibited to fight anyone who wants peace
- violating these things is very, very bad
Muslim groups have been very proactive in denouncing Hasan's action.
Catholicism, on the other hand, once precisely held as its duty "to kill the rest of us", the machinery of which also served to oppress science.
To their credit, they finally came around on the Galileo thing just last year and their systematic child sex abuse seems to be in major decline. All the same, I do not think it would be right or constitutional to prohibit people from practicing Catholicism.
Posted by: tpulley | Nov 6, 2009 3:10:21 PM
But what's happening today? Catholics haven't been shouting out "Ave Maria!!! and killing people lately.
Posted by: Tom McMahon | Nov 6, 2009 4:41:07 PM
Catholics haven't been shouting out "Ave Maria!!! and killing people lately.
From what I hear, that happens on average every 4.5 hours in Juárez. I don't think they say "ave maria" when doing it, but it's funny to picture that :)
From hearing more news, it does sound like Hasan took his faith to serious extremes, such as using a professional medical presentation as a platform for radical preaching. I'm very interested to see how this story develops in regards to his idea of his faith. I would say he strayed immensely from true Islam, with whatever authority a non-muslim can say that.
Posted by: tpulley | Nov 7, 2009 12:57:05 AM
Whenever I see this sticker I can't help but note that in order to avoid that fourth symbol being next to the first one they had to put in a symbol totally unrelated to any religion. I guess they wanted to avoid having their cars torched.
Posted by: Hucklebuck | Nov 7, 2009 11:34:42 AM
tpulley,
I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, it is absolutely inconceivable that in today's hyper-PC environment that anyone would even think of taunting a Moslem in the workplace, especially not in the military, where violating rules against that sort of thing can land you in Serious Trouble.
Also, recognize what is going on here: by saying that he was driven to it by taunting, it places the blame of the mass murder not on the person who actually killed and wounded all those people, but on us. This shows the true wickedness of liberalism: exonerating criminals by saying society is to blame. It excuses the inexcusable--and lets liberals believe they're "superior" to the rest of us.
Second of all, you seem to have read the Koran selectively. It also goes on, at great length, about how non-believers (i.e., "infidels") are actively disrespecting Islam by the very fact of non-belief, and that furthermore, they may be killed for that lack of belief. It goes on to say that Moslems can break any Islamic law as long as it is done to deceive the infidel and forward the expansion--and dominion--of Islam.
As for your Islamic groups' "denunciation" of Islam, that's called taqiyya, which is the Islamic doctrine of lying to the infidel to advance Islam. Read about it here:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm
You, like almost all modern Westerners, have very little knowledge of Islam. I don't blame you; the modern indoctrination centers we call "schools" have done their best not to teach us our own history, so we no longer know anything about Charles Martel, King Jan Sobieski, the Siege of Vienna, the Battle of Vienna, or even what made 1492 a significant year, regardless of Columbus (I'll tell you the answer to the last one: it's when the Spaniards finally retook Spain from the Moslem invaders and occupiers).
tpulley, you believe he strayed from "true" Islam, whatever that may be. Regardless of whatever "true" Islam may be, the fact is that Moslems continue to attack and kill non-Moslems worldwide, and have always done so. It doesn't matter what the "true" doctrines are; what matters is what Moslems actually do. They are constantly plotting to attack, and actually attacking, non-Moslems.
Did it ever occur to you that that is "true" Islam?
Posted by: Sparticus | Nov 8, 2009 3:00:36 AM
@sparticus - my first comment was sarcastically incendiary with the intent of promoting discussion. To that end, I am grateful for your contribution and enjoy learning more.
However, I do not excuse Hasan for any reason, rather I am suggesting that much in the way 9/11 "awoke a sleeping giant", such insults may have provoked a highly disturbed individual. I have heard that the military has resources for dealing with that, none of which he chose.
I admit that I do know very little of Islam, and consequently my limited reading of the Koran is highly selective. After reading more on the "death to infidels" thing, my understanding is that it pertained to a historical period much in the same way Noah's ark spared God's chosen as the rest of mankind drowned. The infidels (Kaafir) were polytheists who knew the "Truth" but rejected it out of pride and arrogance. Christians and Jews, on the other hand, were merely targeted for political subservience. My selective reading of the Koran, pertinent to today, shows respect for people of all faiths.
Meanwhile, Deuteronomy from the Christian/Jew holy tome has guidelines on killing disobedient sons, adulterers, and non-virgin women. And there's a little part in Leviticus about stoning a fellow to death for taking the Lord's name in vain during a fight. Would it not stand to reason that those religions preach the killing of so many qualifying people, despite their faith?
That stuff about taqiyya is new to me. Very interesting - thank you!
And that is keen of you to point out the historical significance surrounding the formation of the Spanish Inquisition, namely booting the invading moors out of their country. I can only imagine the people on the other end of the sword during the crusades felt the same way.
You're 100% correct about the failings of school to even mention this stuff, let alone teach it properly. I learned infinitely more on these subjects from Monty Python and Robin Hood: prince of theives than from the schools I attended.
As far as what Muslims actually do, my first-hand experience has been that they become valedictorians of my high school, keep a very warm and friendly home that they welcome me into (provided I remove my shoes), and make delicious food. My first-hand experience with Catholics, in contrast, is that I get kicked in the balls, stolen from, and subjected to unlawful sexual beratement. Perhaps if I had a television anywhere near me, my views would be manipulated differently.
Posted by: tpulley | Nov 8, 2009 11:11:21 AM
> I'm sure the incident had absolutely nothing to do with his constant harassment and being called "camel jockey" after 9/11.
Interesting claim. You got a cite on that, or are you just making it up like most of the crap you post?
> I don't think they say "ave maria" when doing it, but it's funny to picture that
Oh, yeah. Ha-ha-ha. I'm just bustin' a gut here.
Here's your reasoning: "These guys might be Christian, so clearly the murders in question are religious in nature"
Uh-huh.
You know, I've heard that some black people kill other black people. Does that, by your reasoning, mean ALL black people are murderous thugs? Or is your offensive, disgusting, cliche-based bias only limited to Christians alone? Does it apply to black Catholics? Are all black Catholics murderous thugs because one black Catholic has committed a murder at some point? Just wondering exactly what kind of a racist PoS you really are...
> Muslim groups have been very proactive in denouncing Hasan's action.
No, they've been busy denouncing anyone who might (quite improperly) retaliate, and expressing concerns that will happen (despite the fact that it rarely does, and certainly not as often as these kinds of events, nor with the same death toll). That's not quite the same thing as "denouncing his actions", which is one sentence in 100-200, usually in a passing handwave.
> Catholicism, on the other hand, once precisely held
Save that crap for someone who doesn't know the history of Islam, bozo. Islam spread up across Africa and up into southern Europe through conquest nothing less. Christians and Jews were second-class citizens -- at best. Generally they were oppressed and repressed across the board.
Further, the Inquisition of which you speak was a very brief time period in the history of Christianity. Nice of you to equate 50-100 years of inappropriate behavior in one small subcomponent of Christianity with a thousand years of the same throughout almost all of Islam.
And for all the Catholic "suppression of science", go ahead... name one significant technological, scientific, philosophical, or social development (like, oh, equal suffrage for females, perhaps?) in the LAST 500 YEARS that Islam has been at the center of. For your one item, I'll name you 1000 of which Christianity has been at the center of. Then you can name one more. And I'll name you another THOUSAND. And so on.... You'll run out of developments LONG before I will.
=====
> that's called taqiyya... Read about it here...
He doesn't give a damn, that's what makes him a Useful Idiot. He can't grasp that he'll be one of the first heads on the chopping block if the New Islamic Order (akak "The Caliphate") ever takes hold.
> the fact is that Moslems continue to attack and kill non-Moslems worldwide, and have always done so.
The really important aspect isn't just that there are fights between others and Islam, but that there are fights between virtually everyone and Islam. Go look at all the international "hot spots" in the world -- more than 90% of them, Islam is one side.
In playground terms, this is "Doesn't play well with others". And it's a sign of an internal problem with the antisocial one, not of a problem with everyone else.
===========================
> my first comment was sarcastically incendiary with the intent of promoting discussion.
In short, like I said -- HE MADE THAT SHIT UP, and now that he's gotten called on it, he's trying to backpedal. "Oh, it was just hyperbole".
You're a worthless, lying sack of excrement, Pulley. You cannot carry on a rational discussion if you tried for the simple reason that you are utterly and absolutely incapable of and form of rational thought... much less constructing a coherent reasoning process to justify that collection of biases, talking points, and idiotic wish-thoughts you have floating around in your empty little mind.
I'm not in favor of having people fool-killed, but you're a serious challenge to that position. The human race would likely be far better off without your genes.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Nov 8, 2009 10:42:00 PM
People, how dare you respond to tpulley? Can't you tell by by what he writes that he knows way more and is much more informed than you? What you think you know cannot compare to what he actually knows.
Posted by: Carol Mickle | Nov 8, 2009 10:49:29 PM
The real problem at the heart of this is that, despite the fact that I think there is some accuracy to the notion that Islam CAN play well with others, that's not the rising power in Islam.
And that's creating a major problem between them and the rest of the world.
Those elements of moderate Islam need to start cracking down on these violent elements within themselves. And that's going to mean that THEY will have to bear the price of dealing with it, rather than all the other creeds on earth.
Unless, and until, moderate Islam begins to vocally and seriously oppose the violent elements of Islam, they will be, and rightfully so, tarred with the same brush.
If an anti-abortionist blows up an abortion clinic, or kills doctors who perform them -- do we force other elements of society to deal with it? Or do we make it clear -- this is an unacceptable expression of Christianity?.
Right. They get stopped. And that's the difference between "peaceful" Islam and Radical Islam vs. "peaceful" Christianity and Radical Christianity.
The radical Christians are kept in the minority because the peaceful ones stomp on anyone who attempts to promote the ideals of radicalism.
Islam has not seen such an effort, and the result has been the promotion of Islamic violence and the continued rise of Radical Islam until it rightfully becomes the perceived whole of Islam.
Until the ones tpully whines are the heart of Islam start making it clear that they ARE the heart of Islam, people are going to believe that less and less.
And they will be right in doing so:
"If we don't speak out [against Senator McCarthy], we share responsibility for everything he does."
- Edward R. Murrow -
And if Islam doesn't act to squelch its violent subcomponent, it shares responsibility for everything it does.
.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Nov 8, 2009 10:56:30 PM
Nice site you have a very nice blog you have discovered a new am your follower: D
Posted by: Chris Anton | Nov 9, 2009 10:12:13 AM
@OBH - Sorry I didn't annotate my silly thought with a citation. Still, I think you'd be better served to google "hasan camel jockey" before declaring so loudly that I made all that up.
Secondly - If you've ever been to Mexico (any part, really), you'll notice the prevalence of Catholicism. I don't mean to say the drug gangs' violence is a product of that, just that people of any faith can be plenty violent in the right situations.
Thirdly - I'm certainly disagreeable, but I make an effort to be civil and respectful. You, on the other hand... let's see: "Just wondering exactly what kind of a racist PoS you really are", "bozo", "that's what makes him a Useful Idiot", "You're a worthless, lying sack of excrement", "you are utterly and absolutely incapable of and form of rational thought" (grammar fail) "and idiotic wish-thoughts you have floating around in your empty little mind", and finally "The human race would likely be far better off without your genes." preceded by a pussy-footed suggestion that I be killed.
wow. just wow. and you think I don't play well with others? Onward Christian soldier! Praise Christ!
Posted by: tpulley | Nov 10, 2009 10:40:11 AM
OBH is, for the most part, right, regardless of his contemptuous treatement of tpulley.
However, he is suffering from the liberal delusion that afflicts most Westerners when it comes to Islam: he appears to believe that there is such a thing as "moderate" Islam.
There is not.
There are moderate Moslems, yes. However, the doctrines of Islam were set in stone with Mohammed, and they can never, ever change, because the Koran is the word of Allah. It calls for the creation of a worldwide caliphate, with the whole world under Islamic rule--and nothing else will do. Towards that end, any and all horrific barbarity is not only encouraged but sanctified. This is the eternal, unchanging Islam: a "religion" of unspeakable violence and brutality, with very few redeeming features. There is nothing moderate about it, and moderate Moslems lose every argument they have with their immoderate brethren--because the latter have the Koran on their side.
tpulley is close, but off, on Islamic theology and the violence of the olden days. While the New Testament does, in many ways, supersede the Old Testament, and while we are no longer in an age of prophets and divine intervention, this is not paralleled by Islam. In Islam, the older parts of the text are superseded by the newer--but the older Islam was the "live and let live" one, and the newer one is the "let's convert the infidels by killing them" part. That's because at first, Mohammed was weak, and had to compromise. Later, when he and his followers gained power, they exercised it tyrannically. The Koran was updated to match Mohammed's new bloodthirstiness (did you know that during the last 10 years of his life, he personally led troops into battle no less than 14 times?).
Also, let's get one thing perfectly clear: Before the coming of Islam, Syria, Egypt, and much of the Middle East were among the most heavily Christianized areas of the world. Moslems invaded, murdered, raped, pillaged, plundered, and forced conversion. They did the same in the Eastern Roman Empire, turning Constantinople into Istanbul. They did the same in Iberia, until finally, after 800 years of occupation and repression, the Moslems were expelled. There are NO Islamic "homelands," ONLY what they have taken by brute force.
Finally, the Crusades were mounted by Christians who were horrified at the atrocities and desecration the Moslems were committing in the Holy Land. The Europeans went to save their fellow Christians from the savageries of subjugation by Moslems. When it comes down to it, the Moslems started it by invading, and the Christian Europeans were merely defending the lives and lands of their innocent coreligionists.
If you're going to post about Islam, Christianity, and history, maybe you should read up on the subjects first.
Posted by: Sparticus | Nov 11, 2009 2:44:51 AM
> I don't mean to say the drug gangs' violence is a product of that, just that people of any faith can be plenty violent in the right situations.
Which is totally and utterly irrelevant to the point, which is that the violence associated with Islam IS DIRECTLY tied to the religion involved. So your connection is inherently faulty, which you either ought to have grasped before you made it (in which case you were essentially lying by misrepresentation) or you were actually too stupid to realize the flaw (in which case you're a fool).
So which are you, a liar or a fool? Or is it both?
The religious beliefs in Islam are the express source of the violence -- they do not mitigate it or make any effort to discourage it.
Yes, there ARE violent acts performed by so-called Xtians for religious reasons -- abortion doctors and clinics are the most obvious example -- so sure one CAN make a connection to Xtianity... They are, however, very few and far between -- newsworthy because of their rarity, not because of the volume of them.
And, when such events occur, they are loudly decried by true Xtians, and the true Xtians will make every effort to assist in the capture and punishment of those who violate Xtian beliefs and make religious excuses for violent acts.
> preceded by a pussy-footed suggestion that I be killed.
Not at all. I said you tempt me to support such an action. Not the same. You make it easy to contemplate. It's still a reprehensible action, which is why I cannot actually support it. That's one of the affects of true Xtianity -- you actually DON'T have an easy way to justify such violence. As a matter of fact, it's close to impossible to justify it as the action of an individual towards another outside of self-defense (warfare is not the action of an individual, though it is comprised of individual acts. The motivation and purpose are different, which is why that is excluded from most Xtian worldviews)
> I'm certainly disagreeable, but I make an effort to be civil and respectful.
When you stop cheating and lying and using inappropriate argumentative tactics which waste the time of honest people who are willing and interested in actually debating issues, I'll give you both. Until then, you're just a time-wasting lying SOB, and I see no reason to be either.
You will note, if you actually look at the context of each of those statements, that they were not ad hominem attacks, but followed your own prevarications and distortions. If you want respect and civility, you have to earn more than the initial amount everyone gets in greater quantity than you burn it off by lying, cheating, and distorting. Try it sometime.
When you act like someone who respects your audience and your intellectual opponent, instead of a fraud and a con artist attempting to play them all for fools, then you'll get respect and civility in return.
Until then, you burnt up your initial capital in that regard long ago. You aren't getting any more without earning it.
I don't respect either con artists or fools for their intellectual expressions. Neither is worthy of that kind of respect.
> "you are utterly and absolutely incapable of and form of rational thought" (grammar fail)
No, TYPO. It was supposed to be "any", not "and". Sorta duh, but I'm not surprised you missed that notion.
> "The human race would likely be far better off without your genes."
Note that I specifically and expressly said "likely". I leave open the possibility you might have some redeeming qualities in person, though you exhibit none around here.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Nov 17, 2009 8:58:30 PM
> Still, I think you'd be better served to google "hasan camel jockey" before declaring so loudly that I made all that up.
I quote myself:
Interesting claim. You got a cite on that, or are you just making it up like most of the crap you post?
At what point in that does asking a challenging question turn into a declaration?
Yet another example of the cheating tactics you commonly use -- the lie by overstatement.
You take one thing your opponent does, overstate it extremely and inappropriately, the distortion allowing you an attempt to place your opponent on the defensive, if they do respond, or allows you to write them down if they ignore your blatant, defacto lie. "Bite me".
And as far as your "google it",
a) I shouldn't have to do the friggin' work for you. You made a claim, YOU justify it.
b) Right. Having done so, most, if not all such links appear based on claims of such by his family, not actual reports from any reputable source without a vested interest in telling a blatant lie.
I say "blatant" because, without incontrovertible proof, I agree with the assessment of spartacus:
...it is absolutely inconceivable that in today's hyper-PC environment that anyone would even think of taunting a Moslem in the workplace, especially not in the military, where violating rules against that sort of thing can land you in Serious Trouble.
In short, I want either tape recordings from Hasan's family, or I want official documentation from the military acknowledging it.
Anything less is pretty much guaranteed 100% bovine feces.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Nov 17, 2009 9:01:06 PM
> However, he is suffering from the liberal delusion that afflicts most Westerners when it comes to Islam: he appears to believe that there is such a thing as "moderate" Islam.
There is not.
On the contrary -- I know it exists because I've met them. I'm related to one by marriage to my cousin, for that matter.
He's an ok guy, and I've never seen a sign of any behavior or belief that would qualify him as any more "immoderate" than any church-going Xtian.
Another was a co-worker, around the time of 911 -- I never heard him utter a single word in defense of it, and nothing I saw in him, before or after 911, suggested any sort of anti-American behavior or attitude on his part, nor was there any sign of religious extremism.
I believe the real problem with moderate Islam is that they are scared of the fanatics, and, unfortunately, by doing such force non-Muslims to deal with this fanatical group. The rest follows from what I noted above.
In the end, it's going to force them to choose between their faith and being members of a society which has come to distrust everything about their religion. It's going to force them to choose between fighting this society and joining the fanatics, or joining this society and renouncing their faith.
If they set out to stop the fanatics, then they could avoid that choice. It might cost them, but it would not cost them everything.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Nov 17, 2009 9:10:55 PM
However, the doctrines of Islam were set in stone with Mohammed, and they can never, ever change, because the Koran is the word of Allah.
There is not a religion on the planet whose interpretations are not subject to individual choices. Islam is no different.
The current problem with Islam ties to the expansion of violent interpretations to encompass many individuals' views of The Koran.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Nov 17, 2009 9:23:12 PM
I believe this is a bit more accurate, in regards to the whole "coexistence" meme:
http://jefferywright.com/blog/?p=57
IMHO, of course...
Posted by: JWWright | Mar 26, 2010 10:43:25 AM
