U.S. Muslims Condemn Attack at Fort Hood

[Nizzy 1]

The only person you have to prove anything to is yourself.

Boy, you really like them fortune cookies...

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'm wondering why it's considered to be ok to tar all Muslims for the sins of a few. It's not done to all Christians when Christians kill. It's ignorance of Islam and intellectual laziness on the part of non-Muslims that make this an issue. Considering that Radials are politically motivated, not religiously (a fact easy to see if you know anything real about Islam), it's a manipulation to hold other Muslims responsible for things they have not done.

It's not okay to paint those in a group as the same. However, that's simply human nature to do so. Is it okay? No. Is it right? No. But that won't stop negative feelings or associations.

People attribute ideas and actions to a group based upon a relatively small acquaintance with that group. Every race, ethnicity and religion has done it throughout history. Many still do it today. No group is immune to this.

And yes, these feelings are associated with Christianity at times. There are a lot of hostile feelings directed at Christianity and Christians. You may not see it as readily because Christianity is the dominant religion in the world, but religious intolerance is most definitely alive and well.

Of course it's manipulation. Islam is the "bad guy." Look at American movies throughout the years and you'll plainly see WHO the United States views as the "enemy." Russians (and most of the Soviet Union), Asians and especially Germans. Nowadays Muslims are portrayed as the "bad guy" in movies. Yes, those are movies and most aren't to be taken seriously. However, the media is a gigantic influence on Americans and it's easy to point and say: "Those Muslims are all crazy dirtbags. We should kill them all!"

Prejudice and bigotry require simplistic processing that lumps all of the "others" not like you into inferior groups whose members all think alike, act alike, believe in ideologies that make them suspicious as a whole. They deserve no nuance or dignity lent to members of the groups(s) projecting their prejudice upon them. Whatever ins their own "side" ever committed in the past (the Crusades, the Inquisition, are relevant here) are merely historical blips that do nothing to prove that their group is not immune the same flaws they can point out in the "others".

Prejudice and bigotry is not a new phenomenon. I'm not advocating the principles involved nor am I suggesting it's right. However, what's "right" is rarely a consideration in these situations.

If someone stops to think, they might realize that Radical Islam is different from Islam. However, that requires serious thought and consideration. The average person is NOT going to put forth that much effort.

History is a great equalizer, but history is not a teacher, because it seems to only allow you to say "that was then, this is now. We were nt the ones who did that in the past." Well, most Muslims are not the ones who kill people now, so why hold an entire group responsible for a few unless you need a way to blunt your prejudice in your own mind?

I agree, Muslims (as a whole) should not be blamed for the actions of terrorists. However, mankind often blames the current group for what their ancestors did.

Look at Germans, for instance. No one can deny that the Nazis were a malevolent force during the late 1930s and early-to-mid 1940s. What many fail to realize is that the Nazi Party did not include every German. There were some who felt the Nazis were wrong, but to speak out probably meant death in fashion or another. Most Germans were convinced -- through Hitler and Nazi propaganda -- the Jews (once again, an idea that collectively includes all Jews) were the enemy. Children were brainwashed to the point where they'd spy on their parents and if anything negative was said about Hitler, the Nazis or the war effort, they'd report their parents to the SS.

Are Germans today to blame for what their grandfathers or great-grandfathers did? Some would say yes. I don't agree with that since today's young or even middle-aged German had nothing to do with WWII or the Holocaust. According to movies, however, a different picture is presented -- unless a "rogue German realizes Germany is doing wrong and fights back" or some such drivel.

Even modern-day Americans are blamed (usually from within) for black slavery. It doesn't matter if you didn't enslave blacks or your family hadn't immigrated to the U.S. yet. The fact that you're American is cause enough to collectively blame the entire group.

I know Islam, and it's not the Islam of the media, the terrorist, nor the one in your head. If you want to know it, ask me, anytime and I will be happy to explain. If you just want to point fingers, point first at yourself.

You know it, but how many other people do? Those who don't know or are unwilling to know (if for no other reason they require a scapegoat) will believe whatever they hear, see or read. No amount of education will help if those involved aren't willing to learn. This goes beyond Americans, as well. Many countries within the Middle East spread propaganda about Israel and teach their young men and women to hate Israelis and Jews. Is that hate warranted? Probably not. But that's the media influencing them, just as the media influences Americans (and Israelis too).

[DEDixon 39]

words are cheap!

[DeadPoolX 9]

words are cheap!

Then I guess you got a fantastic sale on yours.

[AlHayatZween 2]

It's not okay to paint those in a group as the same. However, that's simply human nature to do so. Is it okay? No. Is it right? No. But that won't stop negative feelings or associations.

Really, DP, you think so?

i think this is being too easy on those with the big paint brushes. While people might be angry or disillusioned or upset, i don't think it's human nature to blame a whole group for the actions of a few.

When one person treats me differently because of my name or because of the way i look, i'm angry and disappointed and frustrated, but i don't hate everyone else like that person. i don't wish them harm. i don't generalize, and most often i just hope they arrive in a situation that might change their minds someday...

i would like to think that we as a people should have a higher standard of not stereotyping large groups for the actions of a few.

Edited November 7, 2009 by AlHayatZween

[alienlovechild 75]

For one he was calling the Muslim Major a terrorist & we just don't know if the shooter has any actual ties to terrorists (i.e. could very well be a nut who snapped). As for the "where's the rage" angle I don't buy it. Again the same people automatically assuming the shooter is a Muslim terrorist are the same people who get bent out of shape if they are associated with nuts like Von Brunn (read: hypocrites). I have also seen some coverage from the left leaning media outlets (e.g. CNN) & I don't see anyone feeling sorry for the shooter. Bottom line is that innocent lives were lost & that should be the focus.

Does it really matter if this officer took his orders from someone else or did it on his own? The results are the same but harder to retaliate against suicidial jihadists. You don't have buy the outrage as there is a lot less judging by this forum. Check out the links. People don't feel sorry for the shooter but we get an automatic "but most Muslims are peaceful people" no matter what happened but plenty of rage any one on the right if some nut starts shooting. The focus should on examining how this officer scammed the Army out money for an education, got promoted while spouting off extremist ####### about the armed people our troops are fighting. I posted on Muslims in the U.S. miltary recently but it was naturally ignored as anti-PC.

[alienlovechild 75]

As more information comes to light, if the shooter had acted out because he belonged to a group of radical religious fundamentalists who advocated hatred towards those he lashed out against, then I think criticism towards that group is appropriate. However, given that he was an Army psychiatrist, it sounds more like the guy just snapped.

The Von Brunn incident (listen up Alienlovechild) had to do with a life long Right Wing racist who targeted the people that he has hated all his life. The timing of the incident happened when there was a lot of heightened, anti-federalist talk by many Right Wing extremists...where many were suggesting a violent overthrow of the government. It doesn't take rocket science to see the connection. Although I wouldn't go so far as to see they were legally culpable for Von Brunn's actions, any prominent Right Wingers talking of overthrowing the government were being irresponsible and should expect to see more violent outburst under the current conditions.

Who cares if MAJ Hasan belonged to some organized group? He was in a group called the U.S. Army and he murdered his fellow soldiers in wartime when we are fighting enemies with similiar motives. The idea that trained psychiatrists are more likely to go beserk is one the dumbest things I've heard on this forum. The opposite should be true that he should know better than some 18 year old private from a warzone. This guy was a 39 year old doctor.

You don't see a connection between the wars were fighting and radical Muslims killing people in this country but some you can see it for an old guy who was motived by mere anti-Federal government talk? You can expect more Muslims to blow a cork as they have before a few days earlier as 5 British solders were killed by an Afghan soldier, the American who fragged his officer's tent in Kuwait. . . the difference they are a tiny minority but have killed an inordinate number of American soldiers compared to the far more numerous gun-toting rightwing types in the military. The American Muslim community has largely been "AWOL" in our current wars for the last 8 years and stuff like this doesn't help. It's called divided loyalties.

[nowhereman 1]

For one he was calling the Muslim Major a terrorist & we just don't know if the shooter has any actual ties to terrorists (i.e. could very well be a nut who snapped). As for the "where's the rage" angle I don't buy it. Again the same people automatically assuming the shooter is a Muslim terrorist are the same people who get bent out of shape if they are associated with nuts like Von Brunn (read: hypocrites). I have also seen some coverage from the left leaning media outlets (e.g. CNN) & I don't see anyone feeling sorry for the shooter. Bottom line is that innocent lives were lost & that should be the focus.

Does it really matter if this officer took his orders from someone else or did it on his own? The results are the same but harder to retaliate against suicidial jihadists. You don't have buy the outrage as there is a lot less judging by this forum. Check out the links. People don't feel sorry for the shooter but we get an automatic "but most Muslims are peaceful people" no matter what happened but plenty of rage any one on the right if some nut starts shooting. The focus should on examining how this officer scammed the Army out money for an education, got promoted while spouting off extremist ####### about the armed people our troops are fighting. I posted on Muslims in the U.S. miltary recently but it was naturally ignored as anti-PC.

To answer your first question of course it matters... some guy snapping vs. someone directly or undirectly tied to terrorists is a very significant difference (and at this point we don't know which version is the truth). As for the outrage I have control over what I write & that's it... and my reaction to both cases were consistent (i.e. the actions of an individual do not define an entire group). As for a substandard individual getting by in the Army that happens far too often & it boils down to a failure of leadership. If the Major was really that bad he should have counseled & if his behavior continued given whats called a referred OER (basically saying he's a marginal officer). If after that he doesn't improve you check "do not retain" on his next OER & process him out of the Army.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Nowhereman, this is a side of you that I'm happily surprised to see.

ALC, I'm a Muslim and a conservative. Talk to me.

[almaty 19]

and a #######..you left that out sister..insha'allah

this was a md who should have been monitored ..but over-looked cause he was a major

Edited November 7, 2009 by almaty

[nowhereman 1]

Nowhereman, this is a side of you that I'm happily surprised to see.

ALC, I'm a Muslim and a conservative. Talk to me.

Sofiyya you and I fight like cats & dogs but believe it or not I respect you & your opinions.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Nowhereman, this is a side of you that I'm happily surprised to see.

ALC, I'm a Muslim and a conservative. Talk to me.

Sofiyya you and I fight like cats & dogs but believe it or not I respect you & your opinions.

Thank you, sir. Considering the topic, it's a bit ironic that there are non-Muslims here who are more respectful and responsive to the dilemma of most Muslims under these circumstances than my Muslim brother who, unprovoked, calls me a b!tch. I will long remember this.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sofiyya

[GabiandVi 34]

I hope that this incident doesn't further tarnish the image of Muslims as a whole, because I'm sure most denounce what the attacker did.

They have tarnish themselves with acts such as this.

If I'm tarnished by this man's act, then, so are you Nagi.

Will you agree that radical Islam is giving Islam a bad name?

No. If you are too lazy to understand the difference that's your problem, not that of ordinary Muslims.

He does understand the difference and that's why he wrote that. There's a different between Islam and Radical Islam. We understand and accept that. So those who practice Radical Islam are, by nature of their acts, giving Islam a bad name.

What's publicized and recognized by the public matters far more than the actual facts. Yes, it'd be nice if everyone stopped for a moment and considered the differences. But they won't and because of that, the "average" person will condense Radical Islam into Islam itself. Therefore the common perception will be that Islam and Radical Islam are the exact same thing. That is why Radical Islam is giving Islam a bad name .

AND why it is SO important that Muslims are VERY vocal in their condemnation of this and other violent acts by Muslims. And save the "yeah, buts" for a later time.

Good for CAIR! I saw another group voice their disgust. I don't remember the name, Impact?

I'm wondering why it's considered to be ok to tar all Muslims for the sins of a few. It's not done to all Christians when Christians kill. It's ignorance of Islam and intellectual laziness on the part of non-Muslims that make this an issue. Considering that Radials are politically motivated, not religiously (a fact easy to see if you know anything real about Islam), it's a manipulation to hold other Muslims responsible for things they have not done.

When I was a kid in the DC area, a collective cry of "Good Lord! I hope it wasn't a Negro!" went out every time a heinous crime was committed by unknown perpetrators. Blacks were fearful because they knew that Whites held all Black responsible for the acts of any one Black person. Collectvely, they would all be smeared for it.

Prejudice and bigotry require simplistic processing that lumps all of the "others" not like you into inferior groups whose members all think alike, act alike, believe in ideologies that make them suspicious as a whole. They deserve no nuance or dignity lent to members of the groups(s) projecting their prejudice upon them. Whatever ins their own "side" ever committed in the past (the Crusades, the Inquisition, are relevant here) are merely historical blips that do nothing to prove that their group is not immune the same flaws they can point out in the "others".

History is a great equalizer, but history is not a teacher, because it seems to only allow you to say "that was then, this is now. We were nt the ones who did that in the past." Well, most Muslims are not the ones who kill people now, so why hold an entire group responsible for a few unless you need a way to blunt your prejudice in your own mind?

Having lived thru "Good Lord! I hope it wasn't a Negro!" for decades, I'll be damned if I'll allow anyone to push me into the fear and groveling involved in "Good Lord! I hope it wasn't a Muslim!". I'll put a mirror up to your feeling of superiority, your ignorance, and your bigotry before I let you paint me or all other Muslims as an accompliance to individual criminality that makes of me the same kind of victim as it does you. You will not be allowed to separate me out to explain the reasons why people do things I don't even understand and would not do.

I know Islam, and it's not the Islam of the media, the terrorist, nor the one in your head. If you want to know it, ask me, anytime and I will be happy to explain. If you just want to point fingers, point first at yourself.

OH YES IT IS!!! EVERY TIME A CHRISTIAN USES THE NAME OF CHRIST WHEN HE KILLS, IT MOST CERTAINLY IS DONE!!! And some Christians get defensive and others condemn the action out right. BUT ALMOST NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY CONDONE THE ACT. Just like almost no Muslims actually condone a violent act when it is done in the name of Islam.

[justashooter 430]

words are cheap!

several major buildings in new jerk city and the hundreds of millions of bux required to buy off the families of the bereaved are not cheap.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

and a ####### (GOOD person)..you left that out sister..insha'allah

this was a md who should have been monitored ..but over-looked cause he was a major

honestly, calling females a ####### is off base IMO.