Mark Steyn on Fort Hood Shooting

The Headline of the Day, from the BBC:

Shooting Raises Fears For Muslims In US Army

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8347586.stm

I have a lot of sympathy for minorities, especially those in the US Army, but for those keeping score the body count is:

Muslim Extremists 0
U.S. Army Active Duty 13

Hi OC,

I note with great displeasure that instead of the obvious issue of making army bases safer, instead the media fear Muslim reprisals.

Obviously all Muslims should not be judged because of the actions of one, and whoever would take "vengeance" on a Muslim becaue of what some other Muslim did would be rightly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

At the same time, as Steyn notes, it is far more dangerous right now to be a US serviceman than to be a Muslim extremist.

That is obvious. It goes without saying. At the same time, the principles of journalism would seem to demand that Major Hasan's religion be mentioned somewhere near the beginning of the story. It is my understanding that the Associated Press' version mentions the Major's religious affiliation in paragraph eleven.

OC,

The problem is that it does not go without saying. The average media consumer, professor, and politician have proven too dumb for such obvious realities to go without saying.

It is hard tio get this thought out with my 3 year old daughter "helping." How insane has the country become that an angry Muslim kills a group of soldiers, and we are worried about.....Muslims. One would think we would be more concerned about protecting soldiers from shootings.

I am not in favor of hate crimes (it should go without saying but again stupid people don't get this but do get elected and hired to positions of prominence). It is obvious that on Sept 12th the primary fear was and should have been repeat attacks, rather than hate crimes against Muslims. I'm sure there were a few and those were inexcusable; however, there were far from 3,000 deaths in retribution.

I am about to have a discussion on mercy and compassion. One of the points I intend to make is that it is not mercy or compassion to ignore the wrongs commited by another. It is not merciful or compassionate to accept every perversion and heinous act that comes down the pike siply for fear of hurting anothers feelings or self esteem.

I think that applies very well in this discussion. It is not wisdom to ignore the religion of the man who did the killing. It is not being morally superior to ignore the willilngness of the muslim extremists to commit such acts and the rest of the muslim community simply because the rest of the muslim community gets upset.

One of the greatest weapons we have is the truth and confronting the extremists and the rest of the world with it. The sad reality is our leaders, the media, the muslim community, and most of academia lacks the intestinal fortitude to speak the truth. Even sadder is that a good number of our citizens seem unwilling to face the truth either.

Cato

Even sadder is that a good number of our citizens seem unwilling to face the truth either.

It is not their unwillingness to face the truth, ...... it is that they are unwilling to object to anything deemed Politically Correct.

They fear being singled out and criticized by their peers for facing up and speaking the truth.

OC,

My wife just saw your avatar and thought it curious, hoping that it was photoshopped.

To expand the thought that obvious statements need to be made anyway, some liberals have gone so insane that someone who uses the word "niggardly" is a racist. One would feel it obvious that the correct use of a synonym for "stingy" need not be elucidated to educated people, but that one would be wrong.

Similarly, when someone mentions that there are aspects of the Koran that can and have incited violence, and that some seem to be acting out of them and committing violence in the name of Allah, it needs to be said (not for the commentator but for the idiots in office and in academia) that this same person does not encourage violence against Muslims in retribution.

I think that liberals have gained a great amount of ground just on the basis of others not having the foresight to put in roadblocks to absurdity in the belief that they were unnecessary.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572862,00.html?test=latestnews

OC here is a case in point.

Whenever the hate crimes bill has been debated, Christians have said that there needs to be real protection for religious objections to homosexual behavior, including amendments to given bills. Such amendments are often laughed off as unnecessary because there would never be a thought police preventing someone from speaking out of their faith.

Then, behold, the above story. Had there been necessary legislation protecting the right of Christians to respectfully state their opposition to gay sex, just as it is the right of others to favor it, then Christians in Boston and California would not be in the present position of risking losing their jobs over their statements of Christian practice. This would be different if it were happening rather than,. say, doing their jobs.

It should be obvious that in America we have the right to say what we want, but it is not, and therefore it needs not only be said but legislated.

Jimmy,

I have waited days to respond to this because I wanted to give it time to see if my thoughts on the matter would change. They have not.

I am worried for Muslims in this country. I am worried that innocent people will face retribution for this and other crimes. We don't have to look too far back in our nation's history to find an entire group of people unjustly denied their liberty because of acts they had nothing to do with.

It seems to me the headline shouldn't be that a Muslim extremist killed and injured all those soldiers but that our soldiers were unable to defend themselves against a lone gunman because of stupidity. Stupidity creates gun free zones and the gun free zone is why so many died and were injured.

Hi Steph,

I certainly agree that gun rights should be the primary way in which soldiers are protected; however, the rush to de-emphasize the shooter's religious motives (which would never have been extended to a Christian or a Jew, as proven by yesterday's Tom Hartmann radio show) is foolish.

As for retribution against Muslims, it can and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and anyone taking such actions will prove nothing more than they are hateful idiots. However, the potential of such idiots to do evil should not lead to a gag order on the truth of the shooter's religious views, and neither should it preclude legitimate questions as to what extent of religious fervency (including Christian, incidentally) is helpful for a soldier to have.

For example, a graet many Christians are pacifists. They have no business in the army, even as psychiatrists. My grandfather was one such individual, and they drafted him anyway.

Michael,

I'm not suggesting news organizations should conceal his religion. What I'm saying is it shouldn't be the primary focus of reports. Doing so only creates hate and fear.

Look at this......

Marine reservist accused of attacking Greek priest

TAMPA, Fla. -- A Marine reservist has been charged with attacking a priest visiting from Greece who he believed was a terrorist.

Tampa police say Jasen D. Bruce hit 29-year-old Alexios Marakis with a tire iron over the head and chased him for three blocks.

The priest was taken to an area hospital where he was treated and released.

The incident took place Monday evening when Marakis, a Greek Orthodox priest visiting from Crete, got lost after performing a blessing of another priest.

Police say Marakis tried asking Bruce for help but instead was attacked. Bruce allegedly called 911 during the ordeal and told an operator an Arabic man was trying to rob him.

Police could not immediately provide the name of Bruce's attorney.

Is this the America you want to live in?

As for retribution against Muslims, it can and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,

And if that lady cop had been a better shot or he had been a "suicide terrorist" then it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a $1,000,000+- to prosecute him and plenty more to keep him imprisoned.

Stephanie,

That is one example of an obviously deranged idiot. It does not make a trend. Did Mr. Bruce shout "Jesus is Lord" or something before attacking the Greek Orthodox priest?

No, he claims the priest was shouting Allah is great, or whatever that thing is they say.

So he was wrong, a fool, and under arrest.

I just don't think there is anything you can do to prevent idiots from acting out of idiocy, and the kind of censorship that such an endeavor entails is dangerous. Should we colour everything we say in the light of how someone "might" take it? That handcuffs freedom of speech.

Michael you seem to be missing my point.

I'm not suggesting news reports conceal the religion of Hasan or others like him. What I'm saying is I don't believe it should be the focal point of their reports.

That reservist wasn't just wrong, or just a fool. He brutally assaulted a man based on his appearance and he it is very likely he did so because of all the media hype surrounding Muslim extremists.

In the immediate aftermath of Hasan's murderous rampage there were a couple of brief blurbs about Muslim leaders who denounced his actions. If you blinked you missed them, yet reports of extremist cleric al Awlaki's praise of Hasan has been reported by just about every media outlet because that's what the media likes to report. Look for the condemnation of Hasan & al Awlaki......it exists, may Muslim groups, clerics and mosques have condemned them but you really have to search for the reporting.

I don't know what to say to you if you don't agree that this has an impact on people. Look at what the people in this forum say. Read what Keli & Cato have to say about Muslims and Islam. I should forward you a message I got from one local pastor about his thoughts on Muslim in which he states, "It is in all of them to be violent."

Isn't it in all of us to be violent? Don't you find it rather convenient that Americans calling themselves Christians can overlook the Inquisition and the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials and a litany of other atrocities committed in the name of Christ and all of the bloodshed and violence and threats in their Bible while they're busy pointing out the violence of a minority of Muslims and the threats some interpretations of the Koran contain?

What the heck, it was only one little innocent Greek priest. It will be alright, I suppose.

I certainly agree that gun rights should be the primary way in which soldiers are protected; however, the rush to de-emphasize the shooter's religious motives (which would never have been extended to a Christian or a Jew, as proven by yesterday's Tom Hartmann radio show) is foolish.

I must disagree. Watch the news. Criminals, some black (usually around the urban areas, many white (rural and urban) How many times do you see, "So-and-so, a CHRISTIAN, raped two girls..." or, "Blah, blah, a CHRISTIAN of CAUCASIAN descent killed his wife and then himself...".

The only time you see christian religious affiliation mentioned with a crime is when it is germane - like a preacher that molests his/her own youth group.

If this wasn't the case, if religious affiliation was mentioned with EVERY crime, I feel a good many of you would roar in outrage.

Soldiers, unfortunately, go over the high side all too frequently. This wouldn't have surprised me out a person of ANY religious affiliation. I don't think his religion was necessarily related to the crime.

Give me better evidence and I might change my tune.

The only time you see christian religious affiliation mentioned with a crime is when it is germane - like a preacher that molests his/her own youth group.

NO FECES!!!

That is AMAZING that a Copy Editor would permit that to happen.

The shouldn't be publishing the root cause of one's dastardly actions in the media for everyone to read.

That would be awful embarassing and would surely hurt their feelings.

NO FECES!!!

That is AMAZING that a Copy Editor would permit that to happen.

The shouldn't be publishing the root cause of one's dastardly actions in the media for everyone to read.

That would be awful embarassing and would surely hurt their feelings.

What is your point, Sam? Do christians ever go over the edge and hurt innocents or commit violent crimes. Sure they do. Does the media usually make a point of mentioning their religion?

Can you defeat my argument? Is it "embarassing" that you can't?

Like I said, if there is evidence that this cat was fighting a personal holy war (as seems to turn out to be the case), fine, his religion is germane. I think he was just nuts, period.

When this first broke, however, there was no such evidence. That didn't stop people from highlighting his religion.

If violent criminals had their religion exposed with the crimes they are charged with, I think you will find the vast majority in this country would call themselves christian. This isn't because christians are necessarily bad people, it is because most people in this country call themselves christian - simple demographics.

That is why you won't generally see it [religious affiliation] in the news. Christians would flip.

TerryRC wrote: Can you defeat my argument? Is it "embarassing" that you can't?

HA, it's "embarassing" for you to even pose such an argument.

TerryRC wrote: Like I said, if there is evidence that this cat was fighting a personal holy war (as seems to turn out to be the case), fine, his religion is germane.

When the News story broke ....... the evidence was obvious ...... to all those capable of interpetating it. Nit-wits had to wait to be told.

TerryRC wrote: I think he was just nuts, period.

You mean Hickory nuts or testicle nuts or lug nuts? GIMME A BREAK

Doesn't your adherence to the PC nonsense prohibit you from stating what type of "nut" you thought he was?

TerryRC wrote: When this first broke, however, there was no such evidence. That didn't stop people from highlighting his religion.

You are right again Inspector Clouseau, no such evidence there to be seen or heard.

TRC, your wife should call Ruby or CAMC and schedule you for an Optoectomy.




.

TerryRC,

Psychoanalysis notwithstanding, at least in the Fort Hood shooter's mind, religion was a factor.

Unless you want to say that the Tiller murderer was not religiously involved either. He just fell over the edge, right? Religion had nothing to do with it?

No.

Sam, you didn't really address a SINGLE one of my points.

How... typical.