It's not the whole truth. It's not "Fort Hood massacre was jihad," although even that word comes up. It's not an acknowledgment that the attack was motivated by the same murderous ideology that took down the Twin Towers and that threatens Israel and other free nations around the world every day, but it's a step.
"Senators say Fort Hood shooting was terrorism: Several lawmakers and terror experts at Senate hearings on the Fort Hood shooting Thursday called the incident a terrorist attack, and warned of the danger of homegrown jihad," by Patrik Jonsson for The Christian Science Monitor, November 19:
The Senate Homeland Security Committee Thursday began its probe into the Nov. 5 Fort Hood shooting with few details about what everyone really wants to know: the true motives of alleged shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.Nevertheless, several lawmakers at the hearing called the rampage a terrorist attack.
That label was supported by most of the terror experts who testified at the Senate hearing. Addressing questions about how red flags were missed in the lead-up to the rampage, experts pinpointed a rise in homegrown terrorism and expressed the need for the government to establish, in the words of retired Army Gen. John Keane, "clear specific guidelines as to what is jihadist extremist behavior, how do you identify this behavior, and how does it manifest itself?"
Uh, yeah. One would think that such a thing would have been in place for years now -- long enough for clear-eyed and clear-minded people, i.e., those more interested in truth than in political correctness, to realize that there was nothing "extremist" about Hasan's actions from the standpoint of the Koran and Sunnah. But of course nothing like this is in place at all. CAIR and its allies, with their campaign of intimidation and obfuscation, have made sure of that.
The Fort Hood shooting, like no other incident, has "fueled discussion about the spectre of violent extremist ideology in our midst," said Juan Zarate, the former Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism."There is no smoking gun that reveals Hasan's true motivations and signaled intent, so the patchwork of data points and behavioral clues in light of the incident ... appear to point to a path of violence," he added. "The question then is whether the data points were seen and evaluated properly."...
No smoking gun. He passed out Korans on the day of the shooting and shouted "Allahu akbar" as he shot, but really, it all could have been about the poor quality of the food available at Fort Hood.
News reports have detailed the failure of the military to report up the chain of command the disturbing and delusionary behavior Hasan exhibited. Some have suggested this was partly because of the fear of appearing to be targeting a Muslim."Political correctness played a role," according to Keane. "It shouldn't have to be an act of moral courage on behalf of a soldier to report behavior that we should not be tolerating within the military; it should be an obligation."
Yep.
I believe it was an Islamic terrorist attack..
It seems that a Mr. David Coughlin told these Congressmen in a 165 page report that Islamic terrorism was based on religious views gathered from the Koran and other Islamic sources. Mr. Coughlin was forced to resign for his views upon the advise of a Muslim named Islam who was advisor to the Deputy Secretery of Defense. Will these senators look into this?
Appeasing hardline Muslims is always dangerous.If their demands are accepted for the time-being, it doesn´t end there. Instead, the list grows and then if they are denied, they play the game of victimhood to perfection - using the laws which are guaranteed to the citizens in general. They are the very same laws that they want to replace with Shariah. This is something that has happened time and again in countries like India and also elsewhere in the world.Its time that the Obama administration realizes this.
if jihad is an integral part of islam then is it not more correct to say
"Fort Hood massacre was Islam"
?
l do not understand the mindset of the PC mind. it seems those illusive dots are so difficult to connect.
Since the shooting happened on a military base, wouldn't that make the victims military targets and wouldn't that negate the charge/claim of terrorism? It's not terrorism, if the attack is directed at a legit military target.
I admit that I haven't really followed this story, so I may be wrong. I don't know what a soldier readiness center is, nor if the victims were civilians or military personel on duty(if they're off duty, they're civilians).
Regards
"There is no smoking gun that reveals Hasan's true motivations and signaled intent...
He had two smoking guns...His intent was clear, it's his 'true motivations' they can't figure out...
"Political correctness played a role," according to Keane.
While they pretend to condemn PC, they continue to practice it...
Since the shooting happened on a military base, wouldn't that make the victims military targets and wouldn't that negate the charge/claim of terrorism? It's not terrorism, if the attack is directed at a legit military target.
For a Christian,Islam is terrorism, but not so for a Muslim. How can obeying the Commands of Allah be described as "terror?" To a Muslim, those words must sound blasphemous.
A Jihadist is a Muslim who faithfully puts into practice what Allah Commands in the Koran. A Jihadist is one who imitates the actions of the perfect man, Muhammed. A Jihadist is a faithful Muslim.
Far from it being the case that a Jihadist has hijacked Islam, it is, rather, the case that Islam has liberated the Jihadist from the soft apostasy of Muslim Moderation, an ideology which repudiates the very words of Allah himself.
As a side note;
The Hadiths are boring and dreadful to read and so it is understandable why so many Christians and Muslims argue about who the perfect man Muhammed is and how one is to imitate his actions as a way to apply the Koran in their lives.
Christians and Muslims can read, "The Imitation of Christ," by Thomas a Kempis but we Christians and Muslims must await publication of "The Imitation of Mohammed" so all and sundry, if they choose to do so, can see Mohammed more clearly, follow Mohammed more dearly and love Mohammed him more dearly day by day.
I'd loved to read "The Imitation of Muhammed" which summarised, in clear and easy to understand language, what it means to be a disciple of Muhammed, the perfect man.
If the West doesn't pull itself out from the mire of political correctness and its blind worship of multiculturalism, then it'll keep killing us. As we could see here at Fort Hood, other military personnel were afraid of reporting on Hasan's very suspicious behaviour because then that would have looked like the big bad white guys were targeting the poor little Muslim psychiatrist. No, we can't have that!
I'm sorry, but I'd much rather hurt someone's feelings than see people dead and wounded.
"....but really, it all could have been about the poor quality of the food available at Fort Hood."
Robert, you keep getting funnier everyday! Love it!
Is that a crack in the dike? Where is that little brave Ibe from CAIR to stop the crack from widening? What happens if the dike breaks and the water of truth wipes away all the taquiyya?
"Lucy, you got some 'plaining to do!"
un be liev able:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/major-hasans-mail-wait-join-afterlife/comments?type=story&id=9130339
Mr. Coughlin was forced to resign for his views upon the advise of a Muslim named Islam who was advisor to the Deputy Secretery of Defense.
Like all of Dar al Harb, the armed forces are in a tough spot. Islam is so awful, Moslems are so awful, that it just can't be true. And to prove that, we do the craziest things.
*** 33:21 ***
The Hadiths are boring and dreadful to read and so it is understandable why so many Christians and Muslims argue about who the perfect man Muhammed is and how one is to imitate his actions as a way to apply the Koran in their lives.
That says it all. He was the absolute worst, so he must be the absolute best. That's the only way out of the mind bending conundrum Moslems put us in.
*** 4:142 ***
Even after General Casey's fantastic statement last week, my personal fave is still the FBI responding to 9/11 by launching a diversity recruiting program to bring in Special Agent Moslems.
Some words and phrases that indicate the writer/speaker is ignorant of Islam's true teachings, or is lying:
Extremists
Muslim extremists
Radical Imam
Radical Islam
Radical Muslims
Radical Islamists
Radical jihadists
Radical Islamic jihadists
Violent extremist ideology
A violent strain of Islam
A strict version of Islam
And one of my favorites: Mainstream Islam (as practiced in Kansas City, not Karachi)
Feel free to add your personal favorites to the list.
Some words and phrases that indicate the writer/speaker is ignorant of Islam's true teachings, or is lying:
Extremists
Muslim extremists
Radical Imam
Radical Islam
Radical Muslims
Radical Islamists
Radical jihadists
Radical Islamic jihadists
Violent extremist ideology
A violent strain of Islam
A strict version of Islam
Islam prohibits the killing of innocents
The religion of peace
And one of my favorites: Mainstream Islam (as practiced in Kansas City, not Karachi)
Feel free to add your personal favorites to the list.
Some words and phrases that indicate the writer/speaker is ignorant of Islam's true teachings, or is lying:
Extremists
Muslim extremists
Radical Imam
Radical Islam
Radical Muslims
Radical Islamists
Radical jihadists
Radical Islamic jihadists
Violent extremist ideology
A violent strain of Islam
A strict version of Islam
Islam prohibits the killing of innocents
The religion of peace
War on terror
And one of my favorites: Mainstream Islam (as practiced in Kansas City, not Karachi)
Feel free to add your personal favorites to the list.
Some words and phrases that indicate the writer/speaker is ignorant of Islam's true teachings, or is lying:
Extremists
Muslim extremists
Radical Imam
Radical Islam
Radical Muslims
Radical Islamists
Radical jihadists
Radical Islamic jihadists
Violent extremist ideology
A violent strain of Islam
A strict version of Islam
Islam prohibits the killing of innocents
The religion of peace
War on terror
He shouted Ali Ahkbar
And one of my favorites: Mainstream Islam (as practiced in Kansas City, not Karachi)
Feel free to add your personal favorites to the list.
I saw someplace the words applied to a moslem terrorist:
OVERLY ZEALOUS
I saw someplace the words applied to a moslem terrorist:
OVERLY ZEALOUS
No smoking guns? Literally TWO smoking guns.
Psychiatric Dictionary Definition of "Delusional State":
"...a thinking disorder of enough import to interfere with the subject's functioning since in the area of their delusion they no longer share a consensually validated reality with other people."
Karthik, do you reallly think the Obama administration is going to admit to this jihad on America?
Just like mainstream media(CNN, MSNBC, NBC etc.) turns it's back on the truth of Islamic jihadism, the Obama administration will continue to push the subject aside as something on the order of post traumatic stress disorder.
Yes, they use the Consitution of the United States to their advantage to destroy it and replace it with shari'a law.
CAIR, is using its Saudi bucks in wise lobbying efforts to indoctrinate our government officials.
Money talks...truth walks! End the al-taqiyya now!
I generally have a firearm in my car but rarely have it concealed on my person..I'm thinking that it is time to get reaquinted with this habit. It is a little trouble but I repeat, I think it is time.
Why the continued focus on whether the attack was "terrorism" or not?
The focus on "terrorism," as we all know, was a diversion from the Bush administration AWAY from the real problem -- jihad. Why keep encouraging this folly?
I suggest that when someone asks, "was it terrorism?" the answer should be, "it was jihad."
The posters here are used to digging to the bottom of the Islamic barrel, and identifying the real culprits...Unfortunately, most of the people in power positions have not...Those that have, and continue to shield Islam, are not really kufrs, they are quasi-shahadicts...
They crawled out of the woodwork in the Rifqa Bary case, and they crawled out again in behalf of Husan...Watch them swarm on the KSM trial...Not guilty by reason of torture and prejudicial statements made by Rasool Obama and Holder...
But don't worry enough will come out to implicate Bush/Cheney/CIA in practicing black magick...
Worth a read; Caroline Glick's piece in the J. Post, "Column One: Whither American Jewry?"
excerpts:
"Some of Israel's most high-profile supporters in the US are conservative talk radio and television hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. But rather than thank them for their support, the Anti-Defamation League, which is supposed to be dedicated first and foremost to defending Jews from anti-Semitism, published a special report this week where it insinuated that they cultivate a climate of hatred and paranoia which could endanger Jews among others.
"The ADL report, "Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies," dubbed Beck the "fearmonger-in-chief," for his opposition to Obama's domestic and foreign policies. It similarly castigated the so-called "tea party" movement which has attracted millions of Americans opposed to high taxes, and the townhall meetings this past summer where millions of Americans peacefully argued against Obama's healthcare policies.
"The ADL's decision to issue a special report attacking Obama's political opponents and insinuating that Americans who oppose him cultivate an environment in which paranoid and dangerous fringe groups feel comfortable operating is strange given that the ADL never put out a similar report against parallel anti-Bush movements. As Commentary's Jonathan Tobin noted this week, the ADL was more likely to see overt and vicious anti-Semitic statements and placards being waved around at anti-Iraq war rallies than at anti-Obama healthcare and tax policy demonstrations.
Ironically, the ADL has a specific institutional interest in combating leftist paranoia. A recent movie attacking the ADL called Defamation, by leftist, anti-Israel Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir, is currently hitting the film festival circuit in the US and Europe. A major hit among anti-Israel activists and regular anti-Semites on the Left and Right, Defamation accuses the ADL of exaggerating the Holocaust and anti-Semitism to justify what Shamir views as its nefarious aims. Apparently, tribal loyalty to the Left trumps the institutional interests of the ADL.
"It certainly trumps the interests of New York University's Hillel director Rabbi Yehuda Sarna. As James Taranto reported on Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, this week Sarna called for NYU's Jewish community to join NYU Muslims at a rally that both commemorated the massacre at Ft. Hood and denounced NYU professor Tunku Varadarajan for writing a column in Forbes magazine. In his article, Varadarajan committed the crime of stating the obvious fact that Ft. Hood terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was motivated by his Islamic beliefs when he shouted Allahu Akbar and shot some 40 people, killing 13......
Read it at: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1258624595737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Why the continued focus on whether the attack was "terrorism" or not?
It is a play on words...Terrorism is only one tactic used by jihadi's...Terrorism has different targets...Hasan could have chosen to bestow his brand of terrorism on a school ground, but he chose instead his fellow soldiers, who had a much stronger significance to him than school children...
The terror has been installed...Soldiers in groups will be looking over their shoulders, and ready to duck...Hasan succeeded, except he planned to get killed and go directly to Paradise...That part has been delayed...
"but really, it all could have been about the poor quality of the food available at Fort Hood"
All he wanted was a Pepsi.
(http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Institutionalized-lyrics-Suicidal-Tendencies/A7752BCECA75E6F648256C7E002CEAAE)
The Fort Hood shooting, like no other incident, has "fueled discussion about the spectre of violent extremist ideology in our midst," said Juan Zarate, the former Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism.
The fact they're asking questions and looking into Fort Hood massacre more deeply, despite CAIR and their ilk's best efforts to obfuscate the truth, may in fact backfire on CAIR and cohorts. People, even politicians, are not idiots. The truth of homegorwn "allah akhbar" fanaticism is staring them in the face. Will they blink?
DD : Since the shooting happened on a military base, wouldn't that make the victims military targets [SNIP]
I admit that I haven't really followed this story, so I may be wrong. I don't know what a soldier readiness center is, nor if the victims were civilians or military personel on duty(if they're off duty, they're civilians).
So, what you're saying is you have no real information on this story other than there was a shooting on a military base?
First we'd all need to agree on what terrorism actually means. Then we'd have to know what was on Hasan's mind. Then we'd need to prove it.
I believe, from the information that is available from various sources, that it was a terrorist attack. It was an attack made by a stated enemy of the United States of America, namely a moslem, and that all efforts should be made to rid the U.S.A of islam.
Anyone trying to excuse Hasan for what he did needs to evaluate the evidence a little more closely. It's really not that tough a puzzle.
I watched a little over an hour of these hearings last night on C-SPAN chaired by Senator Lieberman.
At least they weren't using those stealthy words put out by Janet Napolitano IE "man made disasters, and Contingency something. The words jihadist, Islamic, radical, etc. where used by all committee witnesses.
The only time I was disappointed in their understandings for the time I watched was when Senator Carl Levin bashed the recent Pat Robertson comments for referring to Islam as more of a political entity than a religious one and that Islam was bent on taking over the world. Levin almost demanded from the witnesses, including retired General John Keane that they adhere to his opinion on Robertson about those comments-- and unfortunately most of them capitulated.
The truth is that Pat Robertson is 100 Pct. correct when it come to the fundamental practices of Islam.
THEY STILL DON'T GET IT
PRCS,
"Some words and phrases that indicate the writer/speaker is ignorant of Islam's true teachings, or is lying..."
One entry on your list should be slightly tweaked:
"Radical Islamic jihadists" -- rarely is the "-ic" ending used, since that denotes a more respectable derivation; usually, the "-ist/-ism" endings are preferred, to help add a little buffer between the Islam referred to and the pathology under discussion (I'm surprised they haven't come up with more padding, like "Islamish" or "Islamoidal".)
And to your list there are a few more linguistic ways that have been developed to keep avoiding the Camel in the Room:
fundamentalism/fundamentalists
youths
Asians
al Qaeda
Taliban
terrorists
militants
restive guerilla forces
-- and don't forget "conservative", a common epithet for Muslims who stab their daughters 100 times, or who murder barbers for giving blasphemous haircuts, or who call for walls to be toppled on top of homosexuals.
See my blog essay on this:
The Camel in the Room: Prefixes, Suffixes, Qualifiers and Euphemisms
The analysts over at Jihadica(whose bios indicate that they work for various governmental and/or para-governmental and private sector institutions, ranging from the most official (West Point) to shadowier think tanks) have been perfecting this avoidance of the Camel in the Room to a veritable science, and have added many more Isms to the Ist List:
Aside from the more conventional Islamism, Jihadism, extremism, and Wahhabism, the Jihadica analysts also employ terms like Salafism, Deobandism, Sahwism, and Qutbism -- just to name a few.
Another of my blog essays on this:
Jihadica: pullulating mosquitoes, the swamp, the camel, and no cigar.
P.S.: Unfortunately, "Jihadism" has become such a term used from within the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement that tends to function as an avoidance of the crux of the problem:
Another asymptotic cacophemism to add to the “-ist” list
Question_Everything
I just wanna make it clear that I'm not trying to excuse Hasan's crime. My concern is that the term "terrorism" is being watered down, like racist and fascist, by excessive use. Hell, in Europe even acts of vandalism are reported to Europol as terrorist acts. When military targets get hit, then IMHO it's not terrorism, as they are legitimate targets in a conflict.
I know there were 40+ victims of this jihadist attack, but I don't know if they were on or off duty or if they were even military personnel. I was hoping someone could clarify those points, but that hasn't happened yet.
Furthermore, if it would be wrong to call it a terrorist attack, then that would just add another argument to why it should be called a jihadist attack.
Regards
Some words and phrases that indicate the writer/speaker is ignorant of Islam's true teachings, or is lying:
To name is to know, to know is to control.
*** 92:8 ***
So the situation is well under control now. Everybody knows what to publicly say, or not say, and although our shared fictive reality around Islam came under whithering attack right now it'll hold up fine.
*** Bukhari Vol 7 Bk 71 Nbr 661 ***
As PRCS points out: a fake reality must consume fake names to operate properly, and even after this most recent speed bump named Major Malik, it's got plenty of gas to run on and armies roadside help (O'Reilly, Hannity, Brokaw, Obermann, Couric, Oprah, et al.).
"When military targets get hit, then IMHO it's not terrorism, as they are legitimate targets in a conflict." -DanishDynamite
By your definition, then Hasan shooting fellow soldiers should be declared an "enemy combatant"? Then what was this enemy combatant doing inside a US military installation, if not terrorizing fellow soldiers?
Semantics aside, Hasan acted in good faith towards Islamic jihad, and in bad faith towards fellow members of the military, men and women in uniform, in a terroristic act of mass murder. Call it a "legitimate target" in a military campaign, if you will (IYHO), but mass murder in the name of an evil creed (allah akhbar!) is terrorism, IMHO.
The only dissenters to this are fellow Muslims, who see men and women in uniform as legitimate targets for their jihad, so "not terrorism" in their eyes. For the rest of us, killing fellow soldiers en mass is terrorism in spades.
First and foremost, if you are a politician or the media, conduct poling, get a writer-adviser (Axlerod?) to tell you what to say! Your lips will move, but it will be them speaking. Here are your talking points as you spin.
Dont Rush to Judgment (on Hassan) however you are free to Rush to Judgment on all other matters: He Was Mentally Ill, He Was Discriminated Against, It Is The Army's Fault For Not Acting On The Signs, It Is The DOJ and FBI's Fault For Not Acting On Intelligence, Gun control failed, assign blame liberally to all but Hassan, avoid even saying the M word, make a speech (that if one did not know the circumstances and read the speech) that sounds like a funeral for a car accident victim, etc. Pick a card, any card!
Pick it up, throw it on the wall and see what sticks. Convene some focus groups to assess opinion. See what gets play and monitor the angst level to assign blame on others. Only if absolutely necessary, pull trump and assign the T word for another Man Made Disaster. Try to avoid religion, but at the same time Roll out the interfaith meeting, and "Religion of Peace" playbook. Keep the Some of ... card at the ready. Some of our best soldiers are .... Some of my best friends are .... Some of our best citizens are .... You got the idea, you are catching on! And above all dont call it a hate crime.
Once the T word is played, bring out the left wing liberal pinko--or--right wing nut job playbook as appropriate. Equate to domestic terrorism, use the Fort Hood massacre to your own political advantage, control your opposition, and rally your base or readers or viewers. Win the next election! Win the Neilsen ratings.
Push for stronger gun control, greater military spending, push for stronger EEO policies, push for stronger monitoring of domestic intelligence but be sure it applies to all-to avoid the appearance of profiling. It is all good, as long as everything settles down for a while. Just pray ... no strike that... HOPE that nothing CHANGEs and other mentally ill, deluded, victims of discrimination don't start strapping on vests to make other Man Made Disasters.
But even if, it is still good, get out your 9-11 playbook and dust it off. You are ready for it, and you can change your mind. After all, as an old saying goes, It is a ....'s (like Mad Libs pick a noun) prerogative to change (his-her) mind. And above all remember, Don't let a Crisis go to waste.
Hesperado,
Very funny.
Thank you.
Mackie,
Though I didn't watch, did you detect from his statements that his performance was intended to impress Michigan's Muslim population/voters?
Mackie, you wrote: "The only time I was disappointed in their understandings for the time I watched was when Senator Carl Levin bashed the recent Pat Robertson comments for referring to Islam as more of a political entity than a religious one and that Islam was bent on taking over the world. Levin almost demanded from the witnesses, including retired General John Keane that they adhere to his opinion on Robertson about those comments-- and unfortunately most of them capitulated.
The truth is that Pat Robertson is 100 Pct. correct when it come to the fundamental practices of Islam...."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think we need to be careful. Spencer posted - I believe it was yesterday - the following on Robertson:
"Pat Robertson said: "If we don't stop covering up what Islam is. Islam is a violent...I was going to say religion but it's not a religion...it's political system; it's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."
Spencer: "I disagree. I don't think Islam is NOT (emphasis mine) a religion. A religion purports to relate human beings to a deity, and Islam does purport to do that. But is Islam a political system that teaches world domination? Don't take Pat Robertson's word for it, or mine. Let's go to Majid Khadduri, an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. ...."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/virginia-pol-jumps-at-hamas-linked-cairs-command-but-not-high-enough.html
If Spencer is quoting Robertson accurately, Robertson did not say, Islam is more of a political entity than a religious one. What he said was, 'Islam is NOT a religion'. Period.
Little doubt Spencer and others have been relentlessly attacked. Yet Spencer is careful with his terminology and research. Thus he can defend himself. Why leave oneself open to attack as Robertson did? If Wellington is right, this "Islam is not a religion," is a dishonest attempt to strip Islam of its First Amendment protection as a religion. I agree with Wellington. This is not the proper approach. More importantly it is deceptive. It is dishonest; the purview of the far left. Why do we on the right want to resort to dishonesty and deception?
Spencer: "I disagree. I don't think Islam is NOT (emphasis mine) a religion. A religion purports to relate human beings to a deity, and Islam does purport to do that.
What makes a cult DOES is much more,although....
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50218
What makes a cult DOES is much more,although....
I meant "What a cult DOES is much more...."
ARGH!!
COFFEE FAILING!!!
ARGHHH!!!
In a nutshell, all the Senators (or anyone) have to understand is that the term "radical Islam" is redundant. Comprehend that and everything else will start to fall into place.
On a related note, I thought Catholic Guy above had a good point about Kempis' Imitation of Christ and what an "Imitation of Mohammed" would read like. Everyone, religious and non-religious, would do well to compare Jesus with Mohammed. To do so is like comparing day and night.
OK good. Thanks for this link. Can we examine this piece?
Quoting your article:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50218
"Can 1.2 billion people be wrong? Well, in logic we have something called "argumentum ad numerum". It states that something is true if a lot of people believe in it. But argumentum ad numerum is a logical fallacy....."
Absolutely. I agree. "Argumentum ad numerum (or) ad populum," is clearly not a defensible argument in and of itself. We know this from history. Majorities can and often are dead wrong. Prior to the second world war, vast majorities were either radically isolationist (here in the US) or radically in favor of appeasement (England and France).
From your article: "The following is a description of what cult is:
1.A cult is a religious group with extreme beliefs and practices - beliefs that are often contrary to science and logic but they are believed as "obvious" truth by the cult members.
2.The members of cults often isolate themselves from friends, family and society and use deceptive and unethical recruiting techniques
3.Use manipulative methods to control the minds of followers
4.Venerate a human leader or leaders
5.Recruiting work is performed by all of the members
6.People are not allowed to criticize the leader, the doctrine, or the organization, or read information that is critical of the cult.
7.Members are trained to reject and disbelieve criticism of the cult as lies from Satan......"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Herein lies the problem. Much of this could apply to Christianity from a strictly monotheistic standpoint; especially #4 and #6 and 7. From a monotheistic standpoint, God is incorporeal. Human beings are not objects of worship. Many, perhaps most Christians venerate a human being in the form of Jesus Christ. Devout Christians are not allowed to criticize Jesus because he is a perfect and infallible man; sort of like Muhammad, except Muslims claim they do not worship Muhammad; perhaps a dubious claim. Many Christians are trained to reject and to disbelieve criticism of Christianity are lies from Satan.
Herein is the problem with this "Islam is a cult" approach.
Danish Dynamite,
On the definition of terrorism, the UK Guardian had a helpful piece a few years ago -- ironically published about 4 months prior to 9/11 (just avoid the Leftish assumptions the writer slips in here and there) -- analyzing the official US definition put out by the State Department:
"Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
However, the State Department adds qualifiers to clarify what is meant by "noncombatants":
The state department regards attacks against "noncombatant* targets" as terrorism. But follow the asterisk to the small print and you find that "noncombatants" includes both civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time. Several examples are given, such as the 1986 disco bombing in Berlin, which killed two servicemen.
The most lethal bombing in the Middle East last year was the suicide attack on USS Cole in Aden harbour which killed 17 American sailors and injured 39 more.
As the ship was armed and its crew on duty at the time, why is this classified as terrorism? Look again at the small print, which adds: "We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may/07/terrorism
I'd say Hasan's slaughter was terrorism under this definition; though calling it "terrorism" is like calling an orange "a plant" -- when it's more pertinent to call an orange "a citrus fruit": and Hasan's operation was an instance of qital (which is the violent form of Jihad) known as a razzia -- albeit a one-man one. It's not apples and oranges: By their fruits ye shall know them.
In my opinion,the end road of a cult is to be a controling power.
In mainstream Islam this control is total while in mainstream Christianity it isn't,for the most part...
Islam demands surrendering your life,property,logic and humanity.
Other religions?
Ehhh..not so much.
DanishDynamite,
I'll try to answer your questions. According to stories I've read, a reasonable interpretation of "soldier readiness center" is an area or a meeting place where soldiers receive information and orientation about an upcoming deployment overseas, usually to a conflict zone such as Afghanistan. At such centers soldiers may also receive help in filling out forms required for the deployment as well as advice on personal matters associated with their deployment such as maintenance of credit accounts, maintenance of personal possessions for a possibly extended period, as well as needed updates to essential documents such as wills and insurance policies.
For the average soldier these details can be daunting and the US military does all it can to help, including assigning experienced personnel for this help.
Of the 13 killed and 32 injured, only one, a 62-year-old retired soldier was a civilian volunteer at the center. The US military does not consider any military personnel to be civilian during the term of enlistment or commission.
"there was a shooting on a military base" Major Hasan went to the readiness center armed with two privately-owned "personal" weapons, a .357 (old and not fired during the attack) and an FN 5.7 (recently purchased new) with several full 20-round magazines. He jumped onto a desktop (giving him excellent view of the area and the people there) and opened fire upon them. Because this occasion was to help the soldiers deal with paperwork etc., none were armed. In fact, on American bases, all weapons and all ammunition are required to be checked into the armory unless they are actually being used in exercises. Privately-owned personal weapons are also under the same requirements by order of the Base Commander.
According to most accounts, the attack lasted two to three minutes, at the end of which the Major began to leave the area and was intercepted by two civilian police (one male and one female) called to the scene. During that interception, the female police received three gunshot wounds and the Major, four. Because of the number of wounded and dead, it must be assumed that the Major fired about 60 to 100 rounds into and at his victims.
"First we'd all need to agree on what terrorism actually means." There is no commonly accepted definition of "terrorism." To the military it usually means asymmetrical tactics against troops and civilian non-combatants. To civilians it usually means an attack against civilians using bombs, guns, knives, bludgeons, and toxic substances. To the politician or ideologue it usually means any action taken to terrorize a subject into compliance with an intended goal.
I believe that the discussion about “terrorism” in this case is merely to ascribe blame either to an “insane attack” (not terrorism) or a planned attack with ideological or military objectives (terrorism) and possible support from others not present at the scene. Note: Hesperado has posted an excellent response to the question of “terrorism” in this same thread.
Knowing the contents of Major Hasan’s mind before and during this attack is not possible without his active and willing coöperation. If it is determined that the Major is and was sane, then whether or not the attack was “terrorism” is irrelevant to the court martial except to show motive and to determine punishment.
In the case of sane or insane, I hope that an examination will be made of Islamic ideology, its effects on individuals, their beliefs and actions, and the long-term goals of Islam as well as its blood-filled exploitative history of anti-humanity.
From Wildjew
"Many, perhaps most Christians venerate a human being in the form of Jesus Christ."
We do not venerate a man. We venerate God Who took the form of man, and in some way we cannot now understand, emptied Himself (kenosis) of His God attributes, temporarily, in order to live as a perfect human, take the sins of humanity upon Himself by submitting to His execution by humans, and one day will serve as the perfect judge of mankind as a result of His knowledge of what it is like to live as a human.
"Devout Christians are not allowed to criticize Jesus because he is a perfect and infallible man; sort of like Muhammad, except Muslims claim they do not worship Muhammad; perhaps a dubious claim."
From personal experience, I can tell you that there are times in a believer's life when he does whine and moan, and yes, even criticize the Lord. Sometimes he gets angry at God. In many a Bible study, questions are raised as to why Jesus did or said this or that. Admissions are made that His actions don't make any sense. Christians are more critical than you think. But with each challenge a believer raises to God, when the answer comes whether by Scripture, preaching, singing, prayer or another believer, it strengthens one's faith.
"Many Christians are trained to reject and to disbelieve criticism of Christianity are lies from Satan."
You are right, many are told this. But a great number of discerning Christians understand that the church here on earth is not perfect, that the church fails, because individuals who make up the church, though redeemed, still are under the old nature. There are plenty of believers that maintain a questioning, investigative mindset, and place their faith up against the light of scrutiny constantly. Because we know that Satan is the father of lies, so even our own beliefs, convictions and actions must constantly be examined, lest we are led down the path of error.
I would agree. In Islam there seems to be this notion of surrendering oneself to Allah or as Major Hasan put it on his business card, SoA or "slave of Allah." This kind of abject surrender to God is not as pronounced in Judaism and Christianity as freedom in combination with serving God. I believe I can have a certain amount of freedom (albeit freedom exercised responsibly) while at the same time serve God. Nonetheless uncritical devotion worship of a mortal can be defined as a cult. The Christian sect in Waco, Texas that Janet Reno burned out and destroyed might be described as a Christian sect as well as a cult. I have a friend in Israel who works with Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi through the Root and Branch interfaith organization. Perhaps you've heard or read of Palazzi. Check this piece out from David Horowitz's Frontpagemag.
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7298
Sheikh Palazzi might agree with your characterization of Wahhabi Islam as cultic, but not true Islam or pure Islam. I'm not saying I agree with Palazzi though it would be hard to make the case that Palazzi's thoughts on "true" Islam are either cultic or violent.
"We do not venerate a man. We venerate God Who took the form of man, and in some way we cannot now understand, emptied Himself (kenosis) of His God attributes, temporarily, in order to live as a perfect human..."
As my professor of the History of Christianity said when introducing the topic of the Nicenoconstantinopolitan Creed:
The orthodox Christian understanding was that Jesus is 100% divine and 100% human, while heretical views that diverged from this understanding tended to posit variations on this crucial paradox:
that Jesus was only 100% divine,
or that Jesus was only 100% human,
or that Jesus was 50% divine and 50% human
or that Jesus was 70% divine and 30% human;
etc.
One thing all the heresies had in common (and continue to have in common) in their approach to the Christological mystery is that they try to make sense of it -- by eliminating the paradox that is its heart.
I understand what you are saying about Jesus. I have read the Christian bible. I'm trying to make the point that in the view of pure monotheism, God is one and only one (not a Triune being, etc.) and He is incorporeal; that is, without human form. Islam holds this view as well though I would argue Allah, as he is described in the Qur'an, is a very different god from the God of Israel (YHWH) described by Moses and the prophets in the Hebrew Bible. Very different. Thus, we must be careful when we call Islam a cult.
As to your point about criticizing and / or arguing with God, of course you are right. Abraham, you might recall, argued with God over the destruction of Sodom. Arguing with God - even challenging God's justice as Abraham, Job and other men did - is different from maintaining that God is imperfect like a mortal is imperfect or that God sins like humans sin. As a Jew, I would have to maintain messiah is imperfect because messiah is portrayed in the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament) as less than perfect. That is why messiah is the son of David. He is often called David in the Bible. David was a great king but he was in no way perfect or without sin. No man is without sin, including messiah. Yet Christianity maintains Jesus is perfect; without sin. From a purely monotheistic point of view, this can be seen as cultic. That is all I am saying.
Yes, I agree with your professor. In some way we cannot understand, Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man, therefore, He is the God-man.
I've seen and read I don't know how many refutations from mainstream Islamic scholars that Major Hassan's actions violate Islamic law for a wide range of reasons.
I've seen them use the concept of a covenant of security , ethics during warfare that need to be upheld.
I've not seen one attempt to justify from the Qu'ran and the hadith the actions of this Major Hassan.
Yes of course it was terrorism but is it in anyway related or justified in Islam, and Islamic theology, to carry out these acts ?
In this i've not found one example.
And i check back each day to this website hoping to read a proper Islamically based source as to why what he did constitutes and follows Islamic law.
Is there any hadith or action that compares to what this man did from the entire collection of Sirah and hadith?
We need to be man enough to say we are wrong if we cannot find actual justification for his actions in Islamic scripture and it is beyond all bounds.
Okay, I see what you are saying as well about the criticism you are referring to being more like denying God's sinless perfection.
I have a question about the Old Testament messiah then, if you say he is not perfect. What is the purpose of Him coming if not to keep the whole law as we humans have been unable to do? How does God satisfy His justice which demands we be put away from Him due to our sin? Are we then condemned to eternity away from God because God's penalty for our sin cannot be paid?
The blood sacrifice is no longer offered up by the sons of Aaron as a covering for our sin. How then can we hope to live with God when we die? We are still stained with sin. Thanks.
Okay, I see what you are saying as well about the criticism you are referring to being more like denying God's sinless perfection.
I have a question about the Old Testament messiah then, if you say he is not perfect. What is the purpose of Him coming if not to keep the whole law as we humans have been unable to do? How does God satisfy His justice which demands we be put away from Him due to our sin? Are we then condemned to eternity away from God because God's penalty for our sin cannot be paid?
The blood sacrifice is no longer offered up by the sons of Aaron as a covering for our sin. How then can we hope to live with God when we die? We are still stained with sin. Thanks.
Just like the attack on civilians and law enforcement by Muslim ghazi raiders in Mumbai last year, what happened at Fort Hood was an act of war.
An act of war carried out by a Muslim against non-Muslims.
In Mumbai the people attacked were non-Muslim civilians and law enforcement.
In Fort Hood the people attacked were the military - but attacked (in very typically Muslim manner) by ambushing unarmed men and women.
Unlike Nazi Germany, say, or Imperial Japan, however, the amorphous blob that is currently the Ummah, with its OIC but no identified Caliph, has plausible deniability: any given ghazi raid is not currently identified by the non-Muslims as coming from the total gestalt that is the Ummah.
It's harder to see a declaration of war, when it isn't coming from a single head of state, or even a single 'nation', but is enshrined in an Old Book and may be acted upon at any time by this or that individual Muslim or Muslim entity (such entities may range in size from a local newly-created group of two or three thugs getting together down at the mosque, right up to a tribe or 'nation/ state') according to perceived opportunity.
It's about time the whole of the non-Muslim world took a long hard look at this passage from Ibn Ishaq, the Sira or Life of Mohammed, a canonical text of Islam with enormous weight among all pious Muslims, and had a long hard think about it.
Ishaq: 204 - “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?’
‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him *we are pledging to wage war against all mankind*.’”
John Quincy Adams saw it very clearly, back in the 19th century:
"he [Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind."
And again:
"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
"The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute;
"the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace;
"and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat:
"but *the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective* {my emphasis - dda}.
" The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."
Third data point - the words of Muslim 'protesters' in January 2009 on a sunny Sunday in Australia's third largest city, to an inquisitive non-Muslim who had engaged them in conversation; as reported by that non-Muslim, in a comment to a newspaper column:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_jews_are_to_blame/P75/
Jonathan Whybird
Mon 19 Jan 09 (05:24pm)
....
'Marcus (the expert on everything) I cannot agree with your view that most of the Palestinians are peaceful people.
'On Saturday [17th Jan] in Brisbane there was another demonstration in favour of Palestine at which anybody who bothered to go (I live in the city and they marched in my street so I had a front row ground level seat as my fiance and I had come back from a run) would have heard Muslim Australians chanting “kill the jews”.
'I even spoke to one protestor who confirmed he was Muslim and from Iran who said there would only be peace when Israel and the rest of the west was destroyed.
'Now this man was supported by many of his fellow protestors who screamed with him, but for three men in the crowd who shook their heads and at that point left the protest (and apologised to us for the comments of the others).
'When I asked the man why he hated the west he said “because you reject the prophet”.'
END QUOTE.
'When I asked the man why he hated the west he said, "because you reject the prophet [Mohammed]'.
So: a Muslim in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 2009, tells a non-Muslim point blank that he hates 'the West' because...it rejects the prophet.
J Q Adams was bang on target when he observed and reported, for his fellow Infidels, in the late 1820s: "The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God."
*That* is all it takes. *That* alone is sole and sufficient casus belli, for those who take seriously the Book of War that is the Quran and its associated canonical texts, the Sira and Hadith.
Dear Hesperado. Thanks for the link to your piece about the use of the word Jihadist.
I just returned to what I had posted previously and, mentally, substituted "Muslim" for "Jihadist" and I think the substitution resulted in paragraphs that were more reasonable, accurate, effective, and illuminating.
Thank you.
Senators getting closer: Fort Hood massacre was terrorism
It's not the whole truth. It's not "Fort Hood massacre was jihad"
.................................
No, it's not—but it *is* closer. In times when government and media have taken to referring to acts of violent Jihad as simple criminal acts, or even as the actions of "mentally ill" persons, the return to the use of "terrorism"—imperfect as it is—is a *huge* step in the right direction.
In addition, there seems to be a widening gulf in the coverage of Jihad, in the wake of the Ft. Hood shootings. I was astonished that news commentators Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Dennis Miller all referred to the slaughter as a massacre, as an act of terrorism, and—most notably—as *Jihad*.
Of course, there have also been the usual caveats about how most American Muslims are good people, etc. etc, still—I have been *very* heartened by this.
On the down side, many commentators on the left seem inclined to actually defend Hasan's actions—for instance, Chris Matthews actually asked if "it was a crime to contact Al Qaida"—and he didn't ask cluelessly, or plaintively, but *angrily*–and this was *following* the Ft. Hood massacre.
And Rachel Maddow has been blasting Rep. Pete Hoekstra for his concern over that same exchange—as though we want military personell in close contact with those who want to destroy us.
Still, it does seem that more people are—if not willing, exactly, to call a spade a spade—are at lest willing to acknowledge it as some sort of digging implement. A move in the right direction, at least.
You are asking the wrong Jew these difficult questions. That is why I go by the nome de guerre "Wildjew." We Jews do not believe in vicarious or substitutionary atonement, if you can believe it. Thus Jesus death on the cross for the sins of humanity is foreign to Jewish thought.
Wildjew does not believe in blood sacrifice as a basis of appeasing or propitiating the gods or God. End of story. So you might ask, why did God legislate and regulate blood sacrifice in the book of Leviticus? Good question. This forum might not be a good place to explore this topic in depth. Needless to say, I believe when we sin before God, we must make atonement to God by means of acts of repentance, contrition, restitution, etc.
If I wrong my neighbor, I must make restitution to my neighbor, what good does shedding the innocent blood of my pet goat or sheep do to make restitution? Same holds true with God. Do Christians actually believe blood propitiates sin? Why do millions of Christians - as well as Jews - believe God likes the shedding of innocent blood, whether animal or human?
When Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, I took it to mean he came to live it; to fulfill it. He tried to live the life of an observant Jew as God intended an observant Jew to live according to the law of Moses. That is all Jesus meant. That is why he allegedly said, "I did not come to abolish the law or the prophets...." etc.
Messiah did not come to die for our sins. Messiah does not atone for our sins. Only we can atone for our sins. Our sins are a matter between us and God. There is not one animal or person that can die for your sin or for my sin. This is superstition.
Wildjew
LEARN HOW TO PREVENT FUTURE NIDAL HASANS
The dilemma caused by the shooting at Fort Hood by Major Hasan exemplifies how each of our programs have failed us. When supervisors, counselors and task forces members rely on subjective references of culture and mental illness, observers miss the signs specific to aggression referenced in post analysis. When observers focus specifically on aggressive behavior, the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” standout, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters.
Major Hasan was under surveillance by two Terrorist Task Forces, one with Department of Defense oversight and the other with FBI oversight. So why wasn’t he stopped?
The use of subjective/qualitative indicators, prone to stereotype individuals by culture or religion; versus quantitative indicators and the use of mental health references know to mislead and misconstrue, fails us repeatedly in our attempts to prevent acts of violence. Only when we use the specificity of “aggression” and its objective, culturally neutral indicators can we get-out-in-front of these acts of aggression and prevent them. Why are current systems uses on campus failing us?
The answer is quite simple – The military does not have an objective and culturally neutral system that collects information and evaluates it to determine the degree (or level) of aggression an individual is displaying, nor has it people who have a clear responsibility to observe and report this information. Learn more about the problem and the solution by reading our Blog: http://Blog.AggressionManagement.com
Why do millions of Christians - as well as Jews - believe God likes the shedding of innocent blood, whether animal or human?
--posted by wildjew
Hey, why did the writers of the Tanakh (Old Testament) include the following:
Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
If you permit me, wildjew, to intervene here, I would like to make a comment. As I think you know by now I am not a religious man. Don't have a religious bone in my body. My approach in trying to comprehend why there is anything rather than nothing is a philosophical and scientific endeavor, not a religious one. I respect those who constructively pursue a religious approach to explore the mysteries of the cosmos, with the exception of Muslims and some whacko minority religious cultists out there, but such a route is not for me.
Nonetheless, what has long struck me about Christianity is its uniqueness respecting the willingness of the deity to humiliate itself (via the crucifixion) in order to save its creation. It's a powerful and humbling approach to contemplate and it has had the capacity to inspire the better sort of Christian to ponder all the depths of life and what life is for and what true courage and love really mean. The legacy of this unique view of the deity has resulted in one of the greatest, if not the greatest, artistic and intellectual legacies known to man. From Gregorian Chant to Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals, from Thomas Aquinas' magnificent philosophical works to Italian Renaissance religious paintings and Baroque art and music, the Christian theological framework's many consequences respecting the best of what man is capable of are extraordinary by any standard which is rooted in reason and fairness. So, even though you and I will disagree with Christians about the nature of Jesus, the Christian understanding of ultimate reality, I would argue, should always be held in high regard and as one of man's finer attempts to understand creation. My best to you and yours.
Wellington, you wrote: "....what has long struck me about Christianity is its uniqueness respecting the willingness of the deity to humiliate itself (via the crucifixion) in order to save its creation. It's a powerful and humbling approach to contemplate and it has had the capacity to inspire the better sort of Christian to ponder all the depths of life and what life is for and what true courage and love really mean."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hear what you are saying. By deity, I take you are talking about Jesus. Why is it that we've got to look to Jesus and not to the Almighty as a merciful and gracious God who cares about His creation?
That is how God presented Himself to Moses. "The LORD God....compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth, who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin...."
Exodus chapter 34.
Why do so many non-Jews and Christians have this view of the OT God as an angry, vengeful God who is lying in wait for his creation and wishes to visit His wrath on each and every one of us for any tiny mis-step?
If messiah is an intercessor between man and God, why isn't that good enough? Why must the deity humiliate itself (via the crucifixion) in order to save its creation?
I'm only asking.
http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/responding_to_the_fort_hood_tragedy/
From muzammil's link : One of the unfortunate consequences of tragic and highly emotive events like the shootings that recently occurred at Fort Hood, Texas..[SNIP]
This was no tragedy and to try to repackage it as one does a disservice to the dead and wounded.
Shove your taqqiyah where the soap never reaches.
And : Certainly, the heightened levels of hate speech, the whispers of a coming backlash, and the elected officials who have gone on record promising to do nothing to mitigate such a backlash are all unsettling.
[PUKE]
Good questions, wildjew. Here are two answers for what their worth. First, for Christians, Jesus and the Almighty are one and the same. There is no difference whatsoever. Miss this and you miss the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, which is the Trinity.
Two, I was educated as a Catholic and went through twelve years (yeah, count 'em----twelve) of Catholic grade school and high school. I and my fellow classmates were always taught great respect for the God of the Old Testament. We were told that the OT version of the deity emphasizes the might and majesty of God and that the New Testament version of God emphasizes his love and mercy. Never were we told that one version was inferior to the other. It was two sides of the same coin. I might add that in all my years of Catholic schooling I do not remember a single instance of any nun or priest making an anti-Semitic comment. We were always taught that the Jews were the Chosen People but that they missed the real Messiah. This was never said in anger or with any kind of derision, just as a statement of fact as Catholics saw it.
I think many Jews do not realize in what true respect Jews are held by the Roman Catholic Church when its operating at its best. Yes, the Catholic Church at times when functioning through fallible human beings has been less than sterling at times respecting Jewish rights, but I have found over the years that Catholic assessments about the Jews are almost infinitely preferable to the Mohammedan assessment of them. For what it's worth, I thought I would convey all this to you.
Wellington, do you think Mel Gibson is a good spokesman for the Catholic Church? You might remember Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of Christ." Vatican II says the Church is the "New People of God." Doesn't this imply that like Islam, Jews are rejected by God. You were not taught in Catholic school that Jews are Christ-killers? This was taught for centuries, wasn't it?
Some Jews, including myself expressed misgivings about Gibson's movie, based on church history of bloody persecution against the Jews. Joseph Farah (World Net Daily) and other Christians came out against me and other Jews in defense of Gibson. So did the pope. I'll never forget (Fox News analyst) Bill O'Reilly, Gibson friend and business partner warned on his radio program, there would be a huge public backlash against the Jews like me for expressing our concerns.
Turns out when Gibson was arrested for DUI, he angrily expostulated how the f*&ing Jews are responsible for all the wars, etc. The Jews are responsible for every evil in the world. I cannot remember Bill O'Rielly saying anything since in defense of his friend. Can you?
Wellington, I've seen R. Spencer waving an Israeli flag at public protests and gatherings. I submit to you, Spencer is way out of line with respect to his church and the Vatican. Can you imagine Pope Benedict waving an Israeli flag, much less coming to the defense of Israel's Jews? No. Benedict is on the side of the Islamic jihadists who want to destroy Israel? Sorry to say this. The Vatican is no friend of the Jews or Israel.
I don't think Mel Gibson himself is a good spokesman for Catholicism (for more than one reason) but I did find his film, The Passion, to be an extraordinary one and not anti-Semitic in the least (the woman who played Mary in the film is a Romanian Jew in real life and she said she wouldn't have played the role if she had concluded it was anti-Jewish).
As for the Vatican, I regret its hesitancy to establish formal diplomatic relations with Israel long ago (it should have) but Popes have to consider the fate of Catholics in that miserable part of the world which is Islamic. I also remain a defender of Pius XII's many efforts to save Jews during WWII. Had he spoken out against Nazism more times than he did (and he did), far fewer Jews would have been saved. Behind the scenes he did wonders.
Finally, I gave you a personal perspective from my early years and, even though I am an agnostic as an adult, I remember most forcefully that no Catholic clergy ever said to me something that could be construed as anti-Semitic. Quite the contray, we young Catholics were taught to respect the Chosen People; it was just a shame we were futher told that they didn't realize that Jesus was the Messiah. I will close by pointing out that the Catholic Church, unlike some fundamenatalist Protestant churches, avers that Jews (and other non-Christians) can still go to heaven (a fairy-tale place for me personally) as long as they live a good, Christ-like life.
WildJew--
This is simplistic buuut... in looking at God in his infinite perfections, consider that an infinite being is infinitely offended by His finite creature. In perfect justice an infinite offence could only be rectified by an infinite atonement. Unfortunately for the fallen creature of an all-loving creator, his fallen finiteness could never atone for an infinite offense; therefore, the all-merciful creator takes on the creature's humanity becoming Isaiah's Man of Sorrows yet remaining mysteriously 100% divine. In this way infinite satisfaction is provided for the infinite offence thereby ransoming the finite creature. All done by an all-just, all-merciful, all-loving God.
WildJew--
Perhaps this is simplistic but... Consider that an infinite God Who is infinite good would be infinitely offended by a finite creature who He made in His image and likeness. Unfortunately a finite creature could never make infintite atonement or satisfaction for an infinite offense; moreover, for the sake of absolute justice, the infinite offense having been perpetrated by a man would have to be satisfied by a man. The solution gifted to the undeserving creature was that the all-merciful, all-loving creator became Isaiah's Man of Sorrows all the while mysteriously remaining 100% divine thus perfectly and infinitely satisfing for the infinite offense showing His finite creature the divine perfections of mercy, justice, charity, providence, etc...and at the same time giving to all men the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Perfection of the Law and the Prophets in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Thanks Catholic Guy.
For wildjew, the Catholic Church has taken many steps to have sincere dialogue with Jews in the past few decades. That said, the Catholic Church has some serious problems with PC MC infecting its ranks. I'm not sure how much of that stems from a general amorphous Christian tendency to want to "save" Muslims, and how much stems from multiculturalism reaching even the Vatican (if it can reach Bush and Rumsfeld, it can reach the Vatican!).
Very interesting debate! I havent posted for a long time, but will say that the people who perished at the hand of Major Hasan are Heros of the first magnitude if only to finally have the lid ripped off all the P.C. crap. Did they lay down their lives for their friends? At the final "review", I believe that will be the case.
Wellington, you wrote: "As for the Vatican, I regret its hesitancy to establish formal diplomatic relations with Israel long ago (it should have) but Popes have to consider the fate of Catholics in that miserable part of the world which is Islamic. I also remain a defender of Pius XII's many efforts to save Jews during WWII. Had he spoken out against Nazism more times than he did (and he did), far fewer Jews would have been saved. Behind the scenes he did wonders....."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Respectfully, I must disagree. Pius XII was the "silent pope." Pius was "Hitler's pope." This is not befitting a man of moral courage. Can you imagine Robert Spencer's epitaph reading: "Robert Spencer, The Silent Scholar on Islam. Spencer: The moral coward who was silent in the face of a great evil. Spencer was afraid to speak out. Spencer remained silent like Pius XII."
Evidently, wildjew is unaware of the copious refutations to the myth of "Hitler's Pope" marshalled over a year ago in a Jihad Watch thread (to which, among others, Wellington and Robert Spencer himself contributed):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/08/the-next-war-may-well-bury-western-civilization-forever.html#c564731
There is also this important book, The Pius war: responses to the critics of Pius XII, edited by J. Bottum and Rabbi David Dalin (the latter of whom wrote the major refutation of the myth, aptly titled The Myth of Hitler's Pope) -- particularly its Introduction, which is a brief history of how the myth gained traction over the past few decades. It may be read for free at Google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XRAD4-xMqysC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=pope+pius+dalin&source=bl&ots=L8JNoeQigi&sig=eYpoH6_4AfJvBf3dUULA0dvwQYk&hl=en&ei=Kn4JS87VD4vllAeF5PyEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=pope%20pius%20dalin&f=false
A Muslim launches a jihad at Ft Hood and wildjew takes the occasion to attack various Popes, living and dead.
Mel Gibson? T'Hell does he have to do with the topic of this thread?
wildjew. I think it is you who bears an antiChristian animus and it is spilling out on this thread which has zip to do with your obsessions.
As the great Dr John Zmirak asked on another occasion:
I wish that other religious groups would look to their own extremists: Hindu fanatics who murder nuns, and Moslems… well, where to start?
Jewish organizations in America, who are rightly disgusted by Williamson, should take action to rein in the worst members of their own community. How about the “settlers’ movement,” composed largely of American ultra-Zionists who have gone to Israel to squat on stolen land, and make impossible the establishment of a Palestinian state? On a more intellectual plane, consider the Jewish counterpart to Bishop Williamson, Hyam Maccoby. If I might quote an essay I wrote on Mel Gibson’s The Passion:
“Interviewed for Ron Rosenbaum’s fascinating book, Explaining Hitler, Maccoby blames Christianity itself, its central doctrine of the divinity of Christ and His sacrificial death, for subsequent anti-Semitism and for the Holocaust. Maccoby asserts in his various writings that the core narrative of Christ’s death on the cross led directly and inevitably to Jews being sacrificed, en masse, in Nazi death camps. ‘Christians say the Holocaust is part of the evil of humanity,’ he told Rosenbaum. ‘It isn’t the evil of humanity. It’s the evil of Christendom.’ For this reason, Maccoby considers that the only forms of Christianity that are not intrinsically anti-Semitic are those that reject Christ’s divinity and redemption. On the same page, Maccoby insists that for him, ‘Christmas is a sinister festival,’ since it points ahead to Easter.”
While Maccoby lived, he was not some excommunicate outlaw, awaiting rehabilitation by Jewish authorities. He taught at the Centre for Jewish Studies in Leeds, U.K. Best-selling Rabbi Shmuley Boteach quotes Maccoby without embarrassment. Maccoby never backed down from his embittered opinions—nor are Jewish authorities raked over the coals for failing to denounce him adequately. But by most, he is written off as kind of a crank—as Williamson should be.
The NY Times has taken this opportunity to rake up the dying controversy over Pope Pius XII—whom everyone agrees saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Holocaust—and his decision to criticize Nazi persecutions in a guarded way.
Well, I’d like to turn the tables: How forthright were Jewish organizations in the 1920s in denouncing Stalin’s genocide in the Ukraine? Where are the statements by Zionist groups decrying the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico in the 1920s, in Spain in the 1930s? Can anyone point to action by Jewish groups that saved hundreds of thousands of Catholic lives? I’d be happy to hear of them.
But in their absence, I’m not going to blame “the Jews” for Bolshevism any more than they should blame the Catholic Church for the Nazis. And I won’t hold a grudge against Jews or Jewish groups because they didn’t risk their own necks to help save ours. We are none of us perfect. We all have our crackpots, and must learn to forgive each other.
Wildjew. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. It is not his job now, nor was it his job, back in the day when the great Pope Pius was Pope, to save Jews.
This man is entitled to his religion. Clearly.
His religion clearly states "kill the Infidel!" He has done what he was made for. If you go after him for it, Islam will see it as persecution and will have to deal with you. Get over it. Never get angry at a scorpion for stinging you. It is what they do.
Such a thing is best served on the PC. They should enjoy their daughters raped, and their sons killed. In Denmark the girls will need to burqua up, or be subject to Sharia law.
The police will NOT get involved. They are too limited by law, and numbers now.
We will be under Sharia law if something is not done.
Send a Burqua and a genital mutilation kit to your female politicians. Also a copy of "not without my daughter" with Sally Fields. Let them know where we are going to.
No more school and going no out without an escort, girlie.
Lots of beatings until you get your mind right, too.
Marriage to 6 year olds to get them started.