Comments for Regarding the disloyal buddy-betraying lying sack of misguided theology Major Hasan... We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:24:57 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2010 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Regarding the disloyal buddy-betraying lying sack of misguided theology Major Hasan... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:43:45 -0600 Comment from Cortillaen on 2009-11-09  The Guardian, no less:
 New evidence emerged yesterday that Muslim army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan meticulously planned the shooting spree that killed 13 and injured 30 last week.

Jose Padilla, the owner of the apartment complex where Hasan lived, said he was given notice a fortnight ago that Hasan would be moving out last week.

Hasan also gave Padilla a Spanish-language Qur'an, and refused to reclaim his deposit and last month's rent, surrendering $400 and requesting that it be given to someone who needed it.

Jacqueline Harris, 44, who lives with her boyfriend, Willie Bell, in the apartment next door to Hasan, said Hasan called on Thursday at 5am and left a message. Bell said Hasan offered a farewell, saying: "Nice knowing you, old friend. I'm going to miss you."
I've been of the mind that the avoiding deployment excuse is utter crap from the get-go, mostly because there are myriad ways to do so that don't involve shooting scores of people, but this suggests Hasan planned the whole thing well in advance.  Rounding up and bringing in the weapons and ammo for the rampage also speaks to at least some degree of planning, but this suggests quite a bit more.


There's something else I'd like to address, though.  Namely, the concept of "radicalization" and the idea that "Islamists" are, as Sanger claims, using "Islam as the veneer of legitimacy to cover an insane ideological hatred of the West".  Grimmy beat me to most of it, but I basically reject the idea that the ones who want us all dead or converted are the "radicals".  On the contrary, I think the ones who actually believe in peaceful Islam are the radicals.  I'm still studying the Koran and various histories of Muhammad and the early years of Islam (trying to avoid the heavily-sanitized ones), but my impressions thus far are of a "religion" created by cobbling together bits and pieces from local paganism, Judaism, and Christianity, all built around heavy-handed sexism and warrior worship.  The promise of paradise and houris, especially, strikes me as a created tool for producing fanatical, fearless fighters.  In addition, the Koran is rather schizophrenic on the topic of "People of the Book", AKA Jews, Christians, and members of a few smaller religions:  In some places it admonishes to protect them and coexist peaceably, while other parts invoke war against all infidels, of which the "People of the Book" are, due to nonbelief in Muhammad's phrophethood, demanding conversion or subjugation.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of anyone trying to understand the underpinnings of Islam is the multiple, often conflicting, translations.  I have read more than a few claims of a peaceful Islam distorted by lies, claims supported by quotes from the Koran, only to look up the same passages in another translation and find them quite different in meaning.  The permission to lie to those who "lie to the Truth" (infidels) found in some translations makes the matter even worse.  Without being a native speaker and scholar of Arabic, I doubt it is possible for one to have a completely accurate grasp of the meanings of many passages.

I'm not trying to start an argument on the Koran; just see where I'm coming from.  The long and short of it is that I see the supposed "radical" Muslims as actually being reversions to the original form of the faith.
...murderous posers who use Islam as the veneer of legitimacy to cover an insane ideological hatred of the West.
One other issue with this concept:  Why would the "posers" have a hatred of the West?  It has to come from somewhere, and the only options, religion and culture, are actually the same thing in Islamic societies.  That hatred originally came out of Islam.
Even so, I refuse to become like them, to take the easy path of assuming that the problem is the religion rather than the leaders of same.

Basically, I'm all for fighting back, and for being proactive as well, but I also know that it's not the religion, it's how people practice the religion that matters.
The easy path?  Assuming a gigantic population of people believe in a religion that is widely interpreted to call for our deaths or subjugation is easier than assuming attacks are perpetrated by rare, unstable nuts?  I don't buy that.  The only easy path is assuming either one without evaluating the evidence as best as possible.  You can come to either conclusion through easy or hard means, and my hard path led to believing that the majority of them are inherently sympathetic to the jihadi cause, albeit unwilling to do much in direct support (due to fear of total destruction, shaky faith, difficult living conditions, etc.), while a smaller portion really do want to coexist in peace.

As for religion versus the practice thereof, one may distort and corrupt a religion for his own ends, but the religion may also direct one to the ends.  Claiming that practitioners impact the religion but not vice-versa is foolish.  The latter is suggested to me by the way that both major sects see significant violence performed and condoned, not to mention the internal war that has raged between those sects since their inception.  If there is going to be a split in ideology, isn't any disagreement in the use of violence likely to be a major factor?
And frankly, just as the current war is of only passing interest to a good many Americans, it's of even less interest to the muslims who aren't affected by it, but who are causing their own problems, in places like Aceh, Indonesia for example.
I'm not seeing the point.  Muslims who are busy dominating their own corner of the world, geographically far removed from the US, are unlikely to take time away to come join Al-Qaeda?  That may be true, but it hardly proves they don't support our destruction.  That's kind of like deciding the bully in the next school over doesn't mean you harm because he hasn't beaten you up yet.  Geographical proximity and internal affairs are going to dictate the interaction more than their opinion of us.  Case in point, Saudi Arabia and Iran, both well under Islamic control, both near our theatres of operation, and both spawning terrorists who show up attacking us.
Should we treat all of those people as enemies as well because they share a religion with the Sa'uds and Iranians, who really are the enemy?
No, and I, at least, do not advocate doing so, or you'd see me calling for wide-area carpet nuking.  I just don't advocate pretending Muslims are no more likely to attack us than any other religion.  The quip "Most Muslims may not be terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims" sums it up fairly well.  Be wary of the groups from which your enemies come, and keep a sharper eye on them than others.  In essence, it's profiling:  You don't assume any given Muslim is a terrorist without cause, but you do operate with the understanding that he/she is more likely to be such than other groups.  The level of probability is also partially determined by your view of the faith.  It will be considerably higher to me than to you, and my level of caution will be correspondingly higher, because I view the faith as a causative factor in Muslim terrorists, while you claim it is just a cover for something else that just happens to largely correlate with belief in Islam.

I'll end with one more question:  Does a religion that explicitly offers eternal paradise for dying while killing nonbelievers, encourage doing exactly that?]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95235 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95235 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:53:23 -0600 Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-11-08
]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95233 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95233 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:57:52 -0600 Comment from Fishmugger on 2009-11-08
And where did the Crusaders invade? Some little town with no real value except three major religions figured it was a good place to read scripture. No Oil. No Hinterland. No natural resources. They weren't very bright. Ok...so the Pope told them they would get a "Go To Heaven, Go Directly to Heaven" free pass through the pearly gates. And now the only thing left out of all that effort is that their endeavor is a dirty word.

The only thing keeping them on the reservation is the US Army and if they had a single chance to put us all away...you think they wouldn't use it? We should be thankful that these people are impotent when it comes to arms.

So much for ranting.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95230 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95230 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:51:44 -0600 Comment from SangerM on 2009-11-08
11B40, no I'm not disappointed.  You are rarely a one-off top-of-your head ranter who says whatever you find on the back of cereal boxes (like some folks I know), I just think that in this case, we disagree.   And it's not that I think Islam is harmless or guiltless.  I do, however, know that every religion has its challenges, its extremists, and it's growing-up time.  For Christians and Jews that happened centuries ago (but not all THAT many back); and in some places of the world, Christianity is still an intolerant religion.  I would imagine a good many people feel the same way about Judaism, though as you say, those religions are not today on the 'hunt' so to speak to make the world over....  

As to Islam, I would say that this is it's harsh reality time; that the rest of the world is not likely to roll over and play dead just because the believers want us to.  I mean really, it's not like we haven't shown that we're willing to kill any one of them who wants to pick up a weapon, (and no few of the bystanders, too, eh?).  Even so, I refuse to become like them, to take the easy path of assuming that the problem is the religion rather than the leaders of same.  

Basically, I'm all for fighting back, and for being proactive as well, but I also know that it's not the religion, it's how people practice the religion that matters. Sure, and we can scare people into leaving us alone maybe, and we can kill millions of them, but as in insurgencies, you only have two choices, really: You can kill everyone who refuses to go to oklahoma, so to speak, or you undermine the support by changing hearts and minds.  I know THAT will get some folks' dander up, but we are not going to force Islam into remission by treating every Muslim as an enemy.  We will just create a never ending supply of recruits for the leaders.

And yes, there are military/covert solutions to this, but it takes a people who are a lot more ruthless and less concerned about so-called soft power images than we are, to say nothing of our allies.....

As to this: "This argument that attacking Islam ideologically will drive moderates to the extremists is without any real proof."  It's not without precedent and proof.   Sure we can scare everyone so bad that they will cower in their basements rather than screw with us again, and I can appreciate that, but really?  It's not possible unless we're willing to declar total war against whole nations of people.  And frankly, just as the current war is of only passing interest to a good many Americans, it's of even less interest to the muslims who aren't affected by it, but who are causing their own problems, in places like Aceh, Indonesia for example.    Also, it's not always about arms.  The Mulsim brotherhood has thousands of followers in Eygpt and other places because it provides basic human services that the national authority cannot.  Look at Hamas and why it got elected (though that's not a relgious thing, really).  Mauritania, which is an Islamic Republic, was the first to recognize Israel and is actually working hard to avoid the pitfalls of Sharia, etc.  Yet, it stands on balance, having coups every few years to remove the corrupt....  Should we treat all of those people as enemies as well because they share a religion with the Sa'uds and Iranians, who really are the enemy?
 
In the end, I am not saying we have to live with this, only that the solution will not be found in tarring every muslim with the same brush.  They really are not all the enemy, no matter what people may believe.

But to each his own, as always.  More than anything, I appreciate the grown-up way people around her tend to talk to disagree, so again, I am far from disappointed....

VR]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95229 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95229 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:29:47 -0600 Comment from Grimmy on 2009-11-08
Islam, as it is written and intended, demands all muslims be at war with all non muslims until there are no more non muslims.

To play the "Christianity reformed, so Islam can too" is playing the This is a cat, it is brown, therefore all cats are brown fallacy.

Christianity reformed because what was being practiced and preached as Christianity from before the fall of Rome through to the Reformation, and actually for a period after that started, was not representative of the teachings in the New Testament. It's no accident that the Reformation got started after the printing press got invented. Folks were, finally, able to read the Bible for themselves and what it said wasn't what the "Religious Leaders" were saying.

Unfortunately, the jihadiscum are, actually, practicing Islam as the Koran says it should be practiced. Oh, and Islam did have its reformation already, anyway. It's called Wahhabism. That reformation was an attempt to pull Islam back from the moderating influences of other religions and practices picked up along the way as the empire of Islam expanded into new areas.

We can dance around it all we like, make all the excuses we want, but for so long as Islam is allowed to exist as an acceptable ideology (and it is an ideology wrapped up in the guise of a religion), Islam will be at war with the rest of the world.

Oh, and the very same excuses and avoidance's that folk are puking up  nowadays about Islam? Yeah, samey same about Nazism during the '30s.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95228 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95228 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:21:51 -0600 Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-11-08 These conversations usually distill down to talk of the Japanese in internment camps during WWII, but nobody talks about the extra background investigation and loyalty oaths that Americans with German and Italian last names endured... maybe that would be something worth revisiting for our Muslim comrades...
]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95227 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95227 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:11:55 -0600 Comment from 11B40 on 2009-11-08
At the risk of disappointing you, my course remains unchanged.  The "all religions do it or have done it in the past" holds no water with me.  There's nothing in the New Testament that approaches the calls to hate and violence in the Koran.  I don't know much about other religions, but I don't lose any of my mindshare to worries about their practitioners showing up at the mall, armed and dangerous.

I went to Catholic grammar school in the Bronx.  The priest who taught boxing after school used to remind us not to be bullies, but to be anti-bullies.  This argument that attacking Islam ideologically will drive moderates to the extremists is without any real proof.  It's just another excuse for living with the current nonsense.  And, as my father used to say to me, "The difference between a reason and an excuse is that an excuse is a bad reason".   
]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95226 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95226 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:24:43 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-11-08
You and Ry should get along better... at least if word count was a good compatibilty metric!]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95224 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95224 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:40:20 -0600 Comment from SangerM on 2009-11-08
Western democracies' failure to attack Islam as the cause of the current problems guarantees only that moderate Muslims aren't forced into the arms of the murderous posers who use Islam as the veneer of legitimacy to cover an insane ideological hatred of the West.

Here's what I know: Followers of every major religion (except maybe Buddhism, I think) have at some time taken to killing people in the name of their God, and have likewise used their faith to justify mass murder of non-believers. Even Judaism, which is the religion and heritage of my birth has in its farthest history the God-driven mandate to kill non-believers, to take the land God promised, and to leave none of the enemy (or his family) alive. Christians? Please. The modern diluted-faith Christians of the West may not espouse religious intolerance to the point of murder, but some eastern European and African worshipers of Christ certainly don't have a problem taking up arms for their God. Hinduism? Yeah, right up there with the rest of them, at least when it comes to relations in places like India. All religion has as its foundational ethic the premise that "we who believe" are correct and. "those who do not," are not, and therefore, what we do is right, and what everyone else does is not only wrong, but an affront to our God....

Over time, most religions have learned to coexist with others, but over that same time, there have always been adherents who felt it was their duty to make converts or to eliminate the others. Muslims didn't invent Crusades or the Inquisition, and Torquemada and Salem, Mass. still stand out as hallmarks of Christian evil, even among those of us in the West. Consider too, the Balkans. A Serbian friend of mine told me once that to be Serbian, you must be Orthodox--that while it is possible to be Orthodox and not be Serbian, the reverse is not true. When one understands that, one begins to gets a better feel for the causes of the mayhem in the Balkans. eh?

As for Islam, two friendly acquaintances of mine are Muslim. One is Egyptian and a physician/diplomat. The other is Indonesian (the country with the greatest number of Muslims; more than double that of any middle-eastern or Arab country) and is somewhat high up in the government there. Neither condones any of the violence done in the name of Islam, neither espouses Islamic world domination by force, and I seriously doubt either of them would be willing to commit murder just because some idjit mullah or a disgruntled sex-starved misogynist Saudi tells him to... Also, both know I am Jewish and neither has ever given me any reason to think that was a problem for them.

In fact, my Indonesian friend once gave me a book authored by a man named Azyumardi Azra, titled "Indonesia, Islam, and Democracy: Dynamics in a Global Context." The book is worth reading if one really cares to get a sense of the difficulties and aspirations of people who are not inclined to violence. Toward that end, my friend believes strongly in the power of moderation to make the world a better place and he has spoken at and helped promote 'reformist' moderate Islam conferences, etc. I am not sure he'll see changes in his lifetime, but as I've said, all of the major religions have had to struggle with ugly truths and grow beyond those truths. I am certain that Islam will in the future be no more of an enemy to the West than Mormonism or Hinduism, but I am also certain it will take some time. Until then, the rest of us have to be tolerant but vigilant, and above all, we must not assume all Muslims are the same--no more than all Christians, or Jews, or Hindi are the same.

And so finally, it comes to this, I think: What guarantees that we will all be reliving the Fort Hood experience in the future is, unfortunately, our national willingness to take chances on people, our deep seated faith in the essential value of palm-out invitation vice closed fist coercion; and our national aversion to mass-punishment and action based on skin color, gender, religion, etc. It's not a matter of political correctness, but a matter of sticking to our ideals even when doing so causes some pain. I would never want to be the victim of such horror, but I would rather take my chances than sacrifice my freedom and our national honor for something as ephemeral and ultimately meaningless as my personal safety.

Trust me when I tell you that I fantasize about putting a nuke in Mecca every time I hear about another crime committed by a Muslim extremist; however, being Jewish, I do tend to be a little more resistant to the kill-em-all method of making the world safer for our kind.... Also, I truly believe that people like TMSOS (thanks Chuck), are just plain old murderers. Hasan didn't commit treason, as I had one coworker demand last week (at least not that we know), and he didn't really commit a terrorist act (by my standard, anyway), though it is likely easily classed as a hate crime. He just shot up a bunch of people, the same way another MSOS killed 23 people and wounded 20 at the Killeen Luby's in October 91. Islam may have been TMSOS Hasan's excuse, but it was in no way different from what TMSOS Hennard did at Luby's or what TMSOS McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

For my part, I am eagerly looking forward to Hasan's date with the needle, but I refuse to say the same for all Muslims, no matter how much I may want to....

VR


P.S.  The surest and only way to check the growth of Islam is for the West to make LOTS more babies, but we no longer accept that as truth so the West continues to decline while the developing nations are forging ahead.  That's one reason Americans need to stop their silly-a$$ complaining about immigration.  Immigrants are why American alone of all western nations has a positive birth rate, which is CRUCIAL to national vitality.  In the end, it's our open-handedness that made us and will keep us great, not the isolationism and racism we have tended to favor in the past....]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95219 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95219 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:01:45 -0600 Comment from 11B40 on 2009-11-08
The fact that the leaders of the “Western” democracies refuse to attack Islam as the supremacist ideology that it is guarantees that we will all be reliving the Fort Hood experience in the future. That no one national leader is willing to stand up and say look at the hate and violence that is encouraged in their Koran and that Islam puts the non-Muslim population of the world at risk as long as it is allowed to spread unchallenged and uncontrolled. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95211 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/regarding_the_d.html#comment-95211 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:33:44 -0600