#1. "Major Hasan's motives are still being investigated, though his family and acquaintances cited stress fro his counseling job, his opposition to the wars, his pending deployment and his feeling that he was being harassed as a Muslim."
#2. "But those who work day in and day out treating the psychological wounds of the country's warriors say Thursday's rampage has put a spotlight on the strains of their profession and of the patients they treat."
#3. "Major Hasan was one of a thin line of military therapists trying to hold off a rising tide of need....nightmares, panic attacks...many military professionals, meanwhile, describe crushing schedules with 10 or more patients a day, most struggling with devastating trauma or mutilated bodies that are the product of war and the highly advanced care that kept them alive...some of those hired to heal others end up needing help themselves..."
-- From the New York Sunday Times (Duranty Times), November 8, 2009, p. 23
This is what may be called part of the "fog of war." In this case, it's the deliberate obfuscating fog of the American press, or much of it, trying to hold off, to delay as long as it can, any fulfilling of its responsibility. This is a responsibility it has been carefully avoiding since 9.11.2001: to tell us what the texts of Islam contain, what the tenets of Islam are, what those who take Islam most seriously, and most literally, as Muslims are supposed to, believe. Such believers are willing - even in an Infidel nation-state - to choose violence rather than other means as their instrument of Jihad, and rather than participate indirectly (through financial, or moral, or other forms of non-violent support) in violent Jihad, do so directly, with no need for any participation with others in a plot. They are perfectly capable of acting alone.
The "fog of war" in this case is that emitted from the great fog-emitting factories of the American (and Western) media, determined to avoid looking sensibly at the obvious, and in coming up with the most preposterous kinds of distractions and confusions. In this they really do damage to the collective consciousness by refusing to enlighten. They only make things more difficult for those who have not only retained their sanity, but have also intelligently informed themselves, given the abdication of the responsibility by the media to properly inform us about the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam. We're not all dopes. We are not all willing, and forever, to remain in the dark.
Now let's just deal, as a preliminary throat-clearing or anacrusis, with those bits of text from The Times I've quoted just above.
Excerpt 1: "Major Hasan's motives are still being investigated, though his family and acquaintances cited stress fro his counseling job, his opposition to the wars, his pending deployment and his feeling that he was being harassed as a Muslim."
So his family and acquaintances come first, with their citing of "stress" from his counseling job. But what sort of "stress"? Was it the sort of "stress" that was just like the stress that any non-Muslim military psychiatrist might feel, when confronted with so much suffering from fellow, non-Muslim soldiers? Implicitly, it is, but a moment's thought would tell us of course it wasn't. Major Nidal Malik Hasan had no sympathy, none, for the American non-Muslims, and he was not moved to tears, not moved to anything at all, at the spectacle of the suffering, mental or physical, of those who were entrusted to his care or who, though not so entrusted, he might have seen on the wards at Walter Reed Hospital.
And his "opposition to the wars" needs elucidation. Was that "opposition" based on a Quakerish hatred of violence? Was it based on his feeling that America, the country he was born and raised in and that paid for his medical education, was losing too many men, squandering too much money, in a vain effort? Not at all. For Nidal Malik Hasan, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were wrong because American soldiers were killing Muslims (even if at the same time they were, at great danger, and great cost, doing all they could to make Iraqi and Afghan civilians more comfortable, safer, and less of a threat to one another), and that was intolerable. That Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan killed or severely wounded Americans did not bother him; whatever "stress" he felt was that of someone who, having accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in free tuition, found himself obligated to fulfill his own side of the bargain and serve in the military, when he identified completely not with the American military but with those Muslims they were fighting. So to write of his "opposition to the wars" without explaining this, importantly clarifying reality for readers, is to do a great disservice.
And what about that "pending deployment"? Again, it sounds as if he is just like all the other soldiers who might be apprehensive about a "pending deployment." But of course that isn't true. The non-Muslim soldiers worry about physical safety. They worry about the dangers of combat or of I.E.D.s, or of treachery, with hidden weapons, that may come from the very people they are supposed to train, to live and work beside in order to "obtain their trust" -- when, of course, the real problem is that the way apparently to "gain their (Muslim) trust" is to put American lives, their own life, in danger. This is because the bigshots in Washington can't dare to recognize that Muslim soldiers should not, cannot, be trusted. It makes no sense to believe they can.
Nidal Hasan was worried about "deployment" because he did not want to be in a situation where he might have to help Americans in an active war situation, rather than help those trying to kill those Americans. The tension was palpable. And that is what both explains, and distinguishes, his possible anxiety over a possible "deployment." As for repeating Nidal Hasan's claim of harassment, apparently the writers for The Times do not think it worth explaining that that claim was investigated and found to be completely baseless. It's enough that Nidal Hasan - who was in fact treated with kid gloves throughout his career in the army - once made the charge. Just the way so many Muslims so aggressively and systematically do, egged on by such organizations as CAIR.
Excerpt #2: "But those who work day in and day out treating the psychological wounds of the country's warriors say Thursday's rampage has put a spotlight on the strains of their profession and of the patients they treat."
Ah, the "psychological wounds" business, which "has put a spotlight on the strains of their profession and of the patients they treat." I do not wish to make light, I am not making light, of the strains that many in the Army feel, not least among those psychiatrists or other physicians who see the returning soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital. But in the fog of the coverage of Nidal Malik Hasan's mass-murdering based on the promptings of Islam, the attempt to enroll his story in that of his non-Muslim colleagues, who were under stress of a completely different kind, a kind that has its origin in sympathy for the returning wounded, not in indifference or rather hatred of them, is disturbing, and worse. But apparently anything and everything is possible when one is determined to avoid the obvious.
"Major Hasan was one of a thin line of military therapists trying to hold off a rising tide of need....nightmares, panic attacks...many military professionals, meanwhile, describe crushing schedules with 10 or more patients a day, most struggling with devastating trauma or mutilated bodies that are the product of war and the highly advanced care that kept them alive...some of those hired to heal others end up needing help themselves..."
Again, look at the attempt to paint Major Hasan as just one more brave and overworked military man, indistinguishable from all the rest, just as conscientious, just as concerned, just as splendid a fellow altogether, one of a "thin line"(echoes of that stirring "Thin Red Line" of British military history) of military therapists attempting "to hold off a rising tide of need....nightmares, panic attacks....crushing schedules...devastating trauma...mutilated bodies." Was he? Was Nidal Malik Hasan deeply disturbed by the sight of Infidel suffering? Or did he, in fact, not only have no sympathy at all for that suffering, but actually engage in arguing with his wounded patients, haranguing them with his own violent views, instead of offering them sympathy of any kind? Any reports on this? Any at all? If he had been a splendid, caring, hardworking psychiatrist, why did he get such bad reports? Why were his colleagues alarmed by him? Why was he transferred far away, to Fort Hood - a standard procedure, apparently, in the military for dealing with such cases. In the case of a Muslim you can bet few were willing to call, as they ought to have, for his prompt dishonorable discharge, accompanied by a further demand that he pay the army back for the sums shelled out for his medical training.
A great deal of nonsense has been written about Nidal Malik Hasan, and about the terrific "stress" he was under. What was that "stress"? It wasn't the famous "Post-Tramautic Stress Disorder," or PTSD, that some soldiers, having experienced the terrors of the battlefield, can experience in various degrees. Nidal Malik Hasan served on no battlefields. Nor, apparently, was he stricken, overwhelmed from his sympathetic identification with the terribly-wounded returning soldiers he was supposed to treat, as his assigned task, at Walter Reed Hospital. By all accounts he not only was not sympathetic with these soldiers, but argued with them angrily about the war they had been in, about the value and rightness of their own service. Some military psychiatrists, some military physicians, working at Walter Reed might have been deeply distressed at the wounds suffered by American soldiers. Nidal Malik Hasan was not among them; the spectacle of such suffering, indeed, very likely pleased him. What displeased him, what maddened him, was the thought that any of his Muslim "brothers" in Iraq or Afghanistan might have suffered. That was cause for anxiety. That was cause for fury.
American newspapers are suddenly full of stories about army doctors, army psychiatrists, army therapists, and the truly terrible stresses they are under. Why, on the Front Page of last Sunday's Times, right next to the story about the health care bill, is one entitled "A MiIitary Therapist's World: Long Hours Filled With Pain." Right next to it, on the left, is a companion piece, in every sense, with the title "Preliminary Fort Hood Inquiry Turns Up No Link to Terror Plot." The story about a military therapist's world leaves no doubt, none, that it is a wonder that military psychiatrists manage somehow not to become unhinged, not to do the kinds of things people who become unhinged - whatever their background - of course naturally do nowadays, which is to suddenly decide to mass-murder a large group of people, the larger the better. And in case you might for some reason miss the obvious point, the Times writers make it clear: "the terrible stresses on army doctors, and especially on army psychiatrists." No specific mention is made of Nidal Malik Hasan, and there need be none. An atmosphere is being created, through the fog of newsprint, to make us all dwell suddenly on how difficult, how nearly-inevitably-leading-to-a-crack-up, the profession of army psychiatrist now is. And we can hardly miss the implied point. Nidal Malik Hasan, you see, was just one more military psychiatrist, suffering just the way so many of them do, and he happened to crack. That's it.
The P.T.S.D. canard subsided, because it was obvious that someone who had never served on the battlefield could not have such a condition attributed to him. So it's on to the next theme: the theme of the crack-up, a crack-up that can happen "to anyone." Forget about his deep devotion to Islam. Forget that even at Walter Reed he was ranting about Infidels. Forget the clear and articulate and sensible testimony of Val Finnell, a classmate who studied with Nidal Malik Hasan just a few years ago, and who reports on his clear expression of loyalty to Muslims, not to Americans, and the ferocity of his views. But those views, and that ferocity, are not signs of mental illness. If they were, then one would have to declare many of the Muslim clerics, all over the world, and hundreds of millions of their followers, to be mentally ill. Is that the way out? Is that the last refuge of those who would do anything they could, no matter what, to prevent having to face up to the real, as opposed to the imaginary, contents of Islam? Should we ignore the great scholars of Islam, who spent their lives studying those texts, and the history of islam? Should we collectively decide that the scholarship of C. Snouck Hurgronje, Joseph Schacht, Henri Lammens, St. Clair Tisdall, Geoges Vajda, Maxine Rodinson, Sir Henry Muir, David Margoliouth, and dozens of others, are without worth, are null and void, because since they studied and wrote, in that century of mental freedom and lack of inhibition, roughly from 1870 to 1970, somehow Islam has itself changed? Or is it, rather, that we are no longer allowed, we no longer allow ourselves, to be truthful about some things, to see them steadily and whole, and we instead abdicate the field to the Muslims and the non-Muslim apologists for Islam who have so successfully hired and promoted and pushed one another, backed by the sinister and steady deployment of Arab oil money to buy up, in some cases by creating, academic chairs or departments or whole "centers" of Islamic-themed studies? Are we to ignore all of the testimony of such articulate and intelligent apostates - truly, defectors from the Army of Islam even more valuable to us for their testimony than were the defectors from the KGB during the Cold War - such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Magdi Allam, Nonie Darwish, and so many others? Are we to ignore all of this? And are we to ignore the evidence of our own senses, including that of sight, which permits us to read and reread not only the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, but also to read the commentators, Muslim and non-Muslim, on the meaning of those texts? And are we to ignore the history of Islamic conquest, of vast areas of the world, and the subsequent subjugation, the grim fate, of so many different non-Muslim peoples who were first forcibly Islamized and then, in many cases, arabized, losing through cultural and linguistic imperialism a sense of, and appreciation for, their own pre-Islamic histories? How many Pakistanis ever think of the conditions of their Hindu or other non-Muslim ancestors? How many have the slightest interest in the civilisation of Mohenjo-Daro? How many think of India, the Wonder That Was India, Bharat, before or aside from Islam?
But now we have the explanation of Unhingement, of Craziness, of a Man Who Went Mad from all the stress, of this and of that. But he didn't suddenly go mad. This act was not, as others have said, the sudden result of finding his wife in bed with someone else, one of those crimes of passion that, at least in the Latin countries, were treated with a certain understanding and indulgence. This was premeditated, and based on a deep and abiding hatred, not only for his fellow soldiers, but for the Infidel nation-state in which he was born and raised, and where he and his family were in a sense rescued from the misery and misrule of Muslim societies, including wretched Ramallah, which when his family left it was still under the Jordanians, and after a brief period of semi-decency under the Israelis, has reverted to Muslim misrule under the "Palestinian" Authority. Nidal Malik Hasan and his whole family, and indeed all Muslims permitted to live in Infidel nation-states, whose legal and political institutions are flatly contradicted by the Shari'a and would not last one minute if Muslims intent on spreading Islam until it dominates had their way, should be full of gratitude to this country. They should feel permanent gratitude to the U.S. for allowing them, despite what the ideology of Islam inculcates, to settle here and enjoy the benefits - political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral - of an Infidel society. If they do not deeply and permanently feel such gratitude, there is no reason for us to unnecessarily add to our woes, to allow within our midst to settle those whose presence makes for trouble, makes for danger, makes for unpleasantness, makes for worry. We have plenty to worry about already.
Hugh, as usual excellent. You have my respect for your diligence, integrity and acumen. God bless you and I am not religious. However I am aware.
"...his family and acquaintances cited stress from his counseling job..."
Following this line of reasoning, 99% of D.C. Beltway commuters should have murdered millions of people by now.
Salam,
The press and media say what they say about us muslims because we would stand up to them and challenge their lies.
"How can you hold a whole religion responsible for the actions of one man?" You cannot, therefore other reasons HAVE to be found for this man's actions....nothing else makes sense.
What prompted Major Hasan to see Red; who insulted him to the point of lunacy?
Holding all muslims responsible means that you have to look at yourselves, to unravel the fabric of American society and then be mired and bogged down in law suits on everypart of your society for years to come.
What will you say for example to a muslim mother who lost her son when defending America (and there will be some of them)...you just cannot go there.
Mr. Fitzgerald is just blowing on cold milk, "other" logical reasons will be found...and then we can all move on from this un happy story.
"Such believers [as Hasan] are willing - even in an Infidel nation-state - to choose violence rather than other means as their instrument of Jihad, and rather than participate indirectly (through financial, or moral, or other forms of non-violent support)..."
I have tried to articulate a paradox many times before, and have not once seen anyone in the still amorphous anti-Islam movement so much as allude to that paradox, let alone discuss it, or agree that it is a significant factor.
And what is that paradox? Like all paradoxes, real or apparent, it presents two seemingly contradictory things. This particular paradox presents the following:
Violent jihad enables non-violent stealth jihad.
On the face of it, this doesn't make sense. The whole point of stealth jihad is to avoid detection; and the last thing one wants to do when trying to avoid detection is have one's fellow Believers exploding or shooting Unbelievers in broad daylight on their soil -- particularly a part of their soil in the Dar-al-Harb that one has been over the years carefully trying to paint as having little or no problem with "radical Islamist extremism" because all of its Muslims are decent, productive citizens.
All this would be the simple case, were there not a peculiar context. And that context we have seen wax in all its inane glory in the wake of the Fort Hood razzia: A Muslim slaughters non-Muslims for Islamic reasons on American soil and instead of a rational effect and response from non-Muslims, we get the precise opposite. It is almost as though Hasan's action has served to redouble the denial and whitewashing of Islam in our surrounding society. No: make no mistake, not "almost as though" -- it has massively redoubled that denial and whitewashing. And of course part and parcel of that denial and whitewashing is precisely the strengthening of the stealth jihad.
Thus, the perverse paradox that violent jihad actually enables stealth jihad we have seen on display all around us, from top Generals on down to local broadcasters, from Texas chaplains to Louisiana newspaper editors, from Geraldo to Larry King and all talking heads in between. And this context, this "fog of war", is not sustained willfully and consciously, as Hugh yet again for the umpteenth time implies with his locutions of "...the American (and Western) media, determined to avoid looking sensibly at the obvious..." and "...refusing to enlighten" and "the deliberate obfuscating fog of the American press" (to which must be added the deliberate obfuscating fog of most media throughout the entire West): It is sustained rather by a curious psychosocial phenomenon that subsists by its own paradox, between will and un- or semi-consciousness; between intelligence and stupidity; between knowledge and ignorance. All these pundits, who are only the most visible and well-manicured tip of a sociological iceberg, for the most part really believe what they are saying. They are not willfully lying. PC MC would not have achieved its mainstream dominance were it a superficial patina or a winking lie foisted upon people. It has achieved its profound influence over the past 60-odd years by insinuating itself into the hearts and minds of people. When PC MCs look out at Muslims, they see an ethnic people of hundreds of millions, and this in turn automatically triggers a complex bundle of bleeding heart associations, among which is the righteously ethical recoiling from doing or saying anything that might smack of bigotry, prejudice, "racism". And noticing, much less criticizing, the evil and danger of Islam, the culture that binds all these Brown People together, is surely by inexorable logic to lead to such Capital Sins, and must be avoided at all cost.
"What prompted Major Hasan to see Red; who insulted him to the point of lunacy?"
That's your greatest fear, isn't it Yom-seem, being ridiculed, embarrassed, made to feel the fool. What is it in the Muslim psyche that makes you so insecure, so fearful of what others think about you? What is it that makes you cling to a belief system that allows you to perpetrate such disregard for your fellow man, celebrate that destruction of lives and then lie so (in your mind) convincingly as to pretend it doesn't happen and you don't know anything about it?
"How can you hold a whole religion responsible for the actions of one man? You cannot, therefore other reasons HAVE to be found for this man's actions....nothing else makes sense."
Sell it to the military high command, Naseem. Sell it to Eric Cantor or the Puff-Ho. Nobody's buying here, babe. You approve of what Maj. Hasan did because your religion tells you to, and not being able to develop a thought outside the prison cell of you mind, you think we are forced to submit to it too. Wrong again. Just remember, in your approval there is complicity and therefore you are no better than the murderer that you secretly admire. And you have your religion to thank for that.
"Holding all muslims responsible means that you have to look at yourselves, to unravel the fabric of American society and then be mired and bogged down in law suits on everypart of your society for years to come."
-Yom_al_Juma
Well unfortunatly an American city will probably be vaporized before we have to "unravel the fabric of American society". That is where this is going, we all know it. So you might as well just leave now Yom, our responce to this won't be so rational.
Yom : "How can you hold a whole religion responsible for the actions of one man?" You cannot...
Really? When all we see regarding your RoP is violence we STILL can't make that association?
EPIC_FAIL.
Yeah, we can and we do. Try your lies somewhere else.
The decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, a struggle which preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe:
http://www.missionmodels.com/files/t_123394.jpg
You were defeated, once and again, and you will be once more.In fact, you have already lost.
"Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world."[
Hugh,
Aren't we forgetting the most important evidence here? These tenets are the law in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in Pakistan, and increasingly, in the so-called "moderate" Islamic nations such as Malaysia, Indonesia... enacted and enforced by the highest councils of Islamic clergy.
That apostasy is punishable by death, that someone who criticizes Muhammad could be executed or imprisoned for life, that an adulteress should be stoned to death, that a non-Muslim's blood money is pittance when compared to that of a Muslim - these are not misinterpretations, or misunderstandings of the tenets of Islam. Fatwa 371/B issued by India's Darul Uloom Deoband on homosexuality says, I quote:
Note that the fatwa is not disputing that homosexuality is a crime, and therefore, punishable; it only pleads impotence on the grounds of lack of authority!
The tenets of Islam are the law in the citadels of that religion, the law that is admired and approved in the Cairo Declaration of Human Muslim Rights of the OIC, as upholding Allah's Way.
Until they remain so, the claims of misinterpretation of "the religion of peace, compassion, justice, or whatever" are vacuous at best!
"Violent jihad enables non-violent stealth jihad."
Stockholm Syndrome II? This could be a case where the attackers are 'forgiven' in a strange kind of Stockholm Syndrome, something stemming from guilt and christianized secular sentiments of 'turning the other cheek', so violent jihad begets more acceptance of stealth jihad. The Arab masters who designed this vile noxious ideology knew how to enslave mankind with its own weaknesses of kindness, loving the abuser syndrome.
Psycho sick!
Battle of Tours
I think you're onto something.
Because this extraordinary delay, confusion and incoherence in Infidel response to massive Muslim assault - psychological and physical - on all fronts, has happened before. Long, long before. Think about it: it was not until Christendom (broadly conceived) had endured *four centuries* of Jihad, and lost huge swathes of territory, that there was any attempt at a serious counter-attack (the Crusades); and even that was not aimed at the centre and focus of the ideology (Mecca and Medina).
And even the other significant actions we celebrate, which saved Western Europe from the fate endured by the Balkans and Anatolia - I am thinking of Tours 732, of Malta 1565, of Lepanto 1571, and Vienna 1683 - nearly didn't happen. At Malta the Knights of St John fought almost alone and were seriously assisted (toward the end) only by one external power; they had already come to be regarded by many as a 'spent force', old-fashioned and obsolete. The Pope's emissary had to bargain hard, to cobble together the alliances that made victory at Vienna possible.
The thing that amazes me about the liberation of Greece and Bulgaria, for example, is that it was achieved at all. Same deal, for the resurgence of Israel and its survival in 1948, 1967, 1973.
I don't know enough about what happened in India, from the initial 8th century Muslim invasion of Sind onward, but I have an impression that there, too, it took the non-Muslim forces a long time to realize that they were dealing with a totally amoral enemy that did not and would not respect any of the 'rules of war' that they themselves observed among themselves; that to hold their ground against Islam would require a special kind of fighting and a special kind of mental clarity and resolution.
Conceived of as a gestalt, the Ummah behaves like a psychopath/ sociopath writ large. It rejects the Golden Rule. And: it practises deception on an overwhelming and all-pervasive scale; its signature is the ambush, the broken promise, the smile, the lie, and the knife in the back.
That means that any other society it comes up against, that does practice some variety of the Golden Rule, that values truth-telling and oath-keeping, that assumes and practises the principle of reciprocity, is initially - and sometimes, disastrously, for far too long after the first bruising experiences of Mohammedan lies, bribes, infiltration and 'split the camp' , hudnas (written on toilet paper in disappearing ink) and spectacular soul-destroying brutality - caught on the back foot.
I don't think our present state of confusion is necessarily much different from the sheer confusion that afflicted Byzantium, western Christendom and the Hindu and Buddhist Indian kingdoms.
As a post scriptum to my posting above, here is Nonie Darwish - ex-Muslim and, incidentally, a trained psychologist - telling it like it is, about Islam and sharia.
"While some religions cater to the side of humanity that values fairness and the golden rule - to treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated - Islam discovered and preserved {and, I would argue, deliberately fosters, validates and rewards - dda} the side of humanity that wants to take from others, subjugate others, and perhaps even be subjugated to reinforce the feeling of victimhood. Islam exploits the dark side found in all of us to some degree". ['Cruel and Usual Punishment', p. 200].
The Dominators and Submitters in other societies - unable to fully satisfy their dark desires within the healthier cultures that surround them - are drawn to Islam by a kind of spiritual suction; in exactly the same way as the spiritually warped or spiritually damaged might be drawn to an S & M dungeon, the illegal kind that gets shut down when the deaths on the premises become too numerous to ignore. It's no accident that so many Nazis took refuge in dar al Islam after WWII, and readily converted to Islam; they were spiritually pre-programmed to do so.
My own suspicion about, for example, the conversion of so many prominent French intellectuals to Islam, which Jacques Ellul remarks upon, is that their own nihilist philosophy (the Deleuze, the Foucalt, the Levinas, inter alia) had set them up for it. When, in 'The Beauty of the Infinite', I read D B Hart discussing these modern philosophers, and exposing the fascist impulses - the will to power, the fascination with the mystique of Power - lurking beneath the apparent relativism, I thought: now I know why so many modern western intellectuals in Europe are so fatally attracted to Islam. (The lure Islam holds out, and the satisfactions it offers, for other less-intellectual types: for the simple criminal, the pathologically misogynist, and for Jew-haters, is obvious).
And within Islam, the born-psychopath flourishes and prospers and frequently rises to be warlord, jihad gang boss, 'president', dictator, pasha, bey, or [in the old days] emperor or caliph, because his personality type (a perversion or a 'monster' in most other human societies) is in fact the 'ideal' or 'norm' of the Ummah; whereas in other societies his type is not the 'norm' and he may not get anywhere much. In Islam he is most likely to be 'offed' merely by a rival psychopath who is younger and tougher.
I don't think our present state of confusion is necessarily much different from the sheer confusion that afflicted Byzantium, western Christendom and the Hindu and Buddhist Indian kingdoms.
How could the entire Western world forget the history of brutal conflict with islam? How could so many brilliant minds (our elitist leaders) believe that islam has changed and that muslims no longer desire to conquer the world for allah, or are they bereft of historical knowledge? How can the talking heads repeat ad nauseam their hackneyed mantras "islam is a religion of peace", "you cannot blame a religion for the acts of one man", etc., etc., etc.? One man????!!! When there are incidents of islamic terrorism every day somewhere in the world and hundreds of imminent attacks are thwarted, when do they become relevant to islam in the minds of political leaders and the disgusting mainstream media? How many innocent non-muslims are expendable when one of those rare, radicalized muslims goes on a rampage? They imply that it is our fault lunatic muslims exist so I guess we're all expendable. As Hesperado said, the more of us they terrorize and kill, the more denial and whitewashing of islam ensues.
The media, pundits, talking heads, and political whores have gone too far this time in their shameless defense of islam and muslims. They have shown more sympathy for the mass murdering jihadi than for his victims and more concern about backlash against the "muslim community" than for the grieving families. I hope the ignorant syncophants for islamic supremacy and terrorism know that they aren't fooling the American people, only insulting their intelligence. When muslims are the only people committing heinous acts of senseless carnage in the name of their malevolent, blood thirsty god, one does not have to be an islamic scholar to realize that islam is a predatory, supremacist death cult and that all muslims are potential terrorists.
According to General Casey, any threat to diversity would be a greater tragedy than the massacre of American soldiers on American soil by an muslim army officer. How sick is that? It makes me so sick I could throw up.
Brilliant, Dda, you see it more clearly that I, in total agreement. Regarding:
"And within Islam, the born-psychopath flourishes and prospers and frequently rises to be warlord, jihad gang boss, 'president', dictator, pasha, bey, or [in the old days] emperor or caliph, because his personality type (a perversion or a 'monster' in most other human societies) is in fact the 'ideal' or 'norm' of the Ummah; whereas in other societies his type is not the 'norm' and he may not get anywhere much. In Islam he is most likely to be 'offed' merely by a rival psychopath who is younger and tougher."
This is the difference between those who love Freedom and those who love (sic) slavery. This makes it an important historical milestone for humanity, to resolve whose love will prevail. We are in the present the middle of it for generations to come.