The most dangerous thought about Ft. Hood

...comes from Roberta X's blog, as outlined by Say Uncle.

I cannot imagine a more dangerous thought than to try to put a smiley face on the Ft. Hood tragedy by saying that we must think also of the thousands of military Muslims who did NOT develop "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" (a Say Uncle invention, and a good one!).

In fact, Roberta X may have just brought us closer to the truth without trying: Those 3,999 to 13,999 Muslims she cites have long ago made a conscious decision NOT to eject the Jihadists from their midst, so they are guilty of concealing the Jihadists in their midst.

Is it morally just for us to cite our right of self-defense and kill every Muslim we can find, just to get at the tiny fraction of them who are Jihadists?

Probably not.

Is it morally right for the vast majority of Muslims to declare their innocence of the Jihad atrocities just because individually, THEY didn't pick up weapons to use on non-believers?

Definitely not.

The history of religion is replete with instances of minority sects hijacking the main religion, whatever it's flavor. If you study that history, you will note that most of these religious uprisings are soon put down, and the religion restored to it's mainstream course. Islam is different, in that the religion has ALWAYS tolerated the Jihadists amongst them, and in fact, there are great periods of it's 1,200-year existence where the minority Jihadists have forcibly controlled the entire religion. I wouldn't say that's the case now, but it's headed in that direction, and has gone far enough in that direction to where no Muslim can be trusted, without fail, to end the threat of a Jihadist either personally, or with the aid of outside assistance.

Sorry, Roberta X, you are wrong, and you could be DEAD WRONG if you allow your actions to mimic your published thought.

Comments

[Ragin' Dave]

Crazy stuff written in a holy book? Hmmmmmm... Let's see....

MY holy book says that I should try to bring people over to Christianity by words and by setting an example with my actions, doing good deeds and serving my fellow man. GOSH, THAT'S SOME SORT OF CRAZY RIGHT THERE! You're right! I'm about to go buy a gun and blow people away for my religion! I can see it all so clearly now!

Or, ya know, not. Because my religion calls on me to love my fellow man, not kill him if he doesn't submit. Look, what's the points of connecting the dots if you're not willing to step back and look at the picture they form? You have a religion that calls for it's adherents to either convert unbelievers or KILL THEM. If I can't convert unbelievers to my religion, you know what I'm supposed to do?

Pray for them.

Yeah, that's some good old fashioned crazy. I can see how you confuse that with commandments to behead unbelievers. Pray for them, behead them, IT'S ALL THE SAME, right? It's all just some crazy stuff written in a religious book! Friggin' please. Granny Wisenheimer might be starving on her rip-off Social Security, but her religion and her culture probably don't tell her to go blow people away because of it, unless she's Islamic.

Oh, and can you list the common thread with all of these attacks in the past two months?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

I'm willing to bet you won't even admit it. Tell me, why isn't there a website dedicated to all the terror attacks committed by Christians? Or Bhuddists? Hindus? Wiccans/Pagans? Hell, even the Satanists can't touch the blood and carnage caused by Muslims. They don't come close. But all those wacky religions with their crazy holy books are all the same, right?

And don't even get me started on those "scary furriners", as you so kindly put it. When YOU start getting threat briefings about how the local 12 year olds will shank you for your wallet, then you come talk to me about scary furriners, OK? When YOU start getting briefings about how the locals are making scopolamine from the local vegetation and using it to dose anyone who doesn't look like them, then come talk to me about those scary furriners, m'kay? Or maybe you can keep that snark to yourself for the time being.

Not everything that goes bump in the night is a monster, but that doesn't mean that monsters don't exist. Not all crazy gunmen are Islamic, but there sure as hell seems to be quite a few of them who are. Ignoring the roadmap set by a religion that a person subscribes to is flat out lunacy at best, and shows a willingness to pull the wool over your own eyes all by your lonesome.

[Roberta Ecks]

Judge people by their actions (and not by the crazy stuff written in their holy book, which you can find in any religion's writings) or go stand over there with the Nazis and the Commies. It's all the same to me, because I look on you -- and my baby brother and cops, cabdrivers and co-eds -- with as much suspicion as I do Muslims.

You're misreading the act (which was in all liklihood prompted by Maj. Hasan's religion but which, considered as an act of terrorism was not very effective even by the low standards of modern jihadis; it is a much better fit with the "irrational single male with a gun" model) and seriously misunderstanding the odds of encountering a death-bent loony, especially the odds here in the 'States, where you are most likely to find a white guy who was brought up Protestant as the killing-spree perp -- but he could be Jewish or Black or Asian, too. It is very unlikely to be a woman...but don't count us out.

And the bigger factor is, we have not got so very many Muslims here; even positing that their propensity for killing us infidels, often in spectacularly idiotic ways, cannot be mostly accounting for by the very large number of young Islamic males with too much free time and an overabundance of testosterone with no outlet, they'd have to be way deadlier than they have been before they made much of a blip in the mass-killing stats here in the United States.

If you're gonna paint with a broad brush, the suspect pool narrows like this: Male->50 or younger->Presently single and/or a "loner"->Prior history of conflict resolution by inappropriate violence->Believes himself to be trapped with no way out. (And even those guys are more likely to go lose bar fights than take a crappy SKS to strangers at the mall).

Nidal Malik Hasan fits the profile. Virgina Tech shooter fits the profile. The feckwit in Orlando fits the profile. Do you? Does that guy over there? I dunno. But bedammed if I'll watch the guy dressed like a Muslim so closely I miss Granny, starving on her ripoff Social Security, deciding to strike a blow for equality by seeing how many of us she can shoot before somebody ends it for her. Besides, you guys are watchin' all the scary furriners for me, right?

[Ragin' Dave]

Roberta -

The West elected the biggest Leftist corrupt piece of shit to ever walk out of Chicago to the Oval Office. Forgive me if I don't quite think that the West is up to the task of defeating jihadists. Hell, the West can't even call them jihadists or terrorists. They're "militants". So pardon me if I'm not so optimistic.

We might not be able to pinpoint the predicative behavior of individuals. We can, however, pinpoint the predicative behavior of people who belong to a religion that separates the world into two households: Dar al Harb (house of war) and Dar al Islam (use your imagination).

Guess what house you and I are in?

[Rivrdog]

That's a nice straw-man fallacy to go with your red herring argument, Roberta. When did I ever claim that Jihadis were responsible for the last whatever number of attacks here?

Of course Jihadi attacks are predictive. Here's the formula: Take a religious tome written by a cruel tyrant, give it to millions of cruel people, and the exhortations to mass murder WILL find willing participants. If you tell them that their every dream of paradise awaits, they will even expend their lives to do the mass murder.

If there is such a thing as "moderate muslims", they will have to exterminate these murderers among their own flock, or we might (but won't) or we will pay the consequences.

This attack was on soldiers, because the US Army dares oppose the Jihadis in battle, but when the Jihadis realize that we have weak national leadership, they will start attacking civilian targets, right here in the US of A.

Stay sharp with your pistols, Roberta, you stand a good chance of being able to use them on Jihadis in your lifetime.

[Roberta Ecks]

What, you mean my usual "trust no one" actions?

I'm calling BS. How many of the last ten mass-killing whackjobs here in the US were Muslims? How many had been brought up in a nominally-Christian household? How many were MEN? How many were paler than a paper bag?

...NONE of those things are predictive. None of even the most commonly-shared factors about mass killers is predictive. They can strike anywhere. We had 'em before 11 Sept 2001; we have 'em after. Carry a gun: it's a lighter burden than regret.

As for Jihadists, we outnumber them, we have better arms and armies than they have and I am not terribly worried by them. The West beat Hitler, we beat the Soviets and we'll beat Jihadists.