The Shotgun Blog
« Sarah Palin in: Who Cares Who's Coming to Dinner | Main | Barrie Libertarian candidate launches website »
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Fort Hood shootings motivated by religious fervour, so now what?
Last week Syed Soharwardy, founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada but better known to Western Standard readers for bringing two human rights complaints against our little magazine, issued a press release demanding that the tragic Fort Hood shootings “must not be linked with Islam or Muslims” and that Major Nadil Hasan, the US soldier who did the shooting, was simply “an American who happens to have an Arabic name.”
National Post columnist Lorne Gunter has a different take on the tragic affair. He wrote:
The most disturbing aspect of last week’s Fort Hood shootings — aside from the horrendous loss of life, of course — has been the triumph of political correctness in the analysis of Maj. Nadil Hasan’s motives. Many “experts” have assiduously avoided the obvious cause: Hasan’s fundamentalist, radicalized Muslim views.
A man runs into a room of unarmed people and starts firing away while shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is Great”). He has had frequent arguments — many of them extremely heated — with several fellow officers in recent years over the alleged stupidity and immorality of the West’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He expressed public agreement with the Koran’s exhortations to kill infidels, justified suicide bombings, attended a radical Virginia mosque, sought permission from superiors to have Muslim-American soldiers exempted from service in Middle Eastern wars and, among other things, attempted to make contact with al-Qaeda recruiters.
Yet many analysts and commentators have ignored this evidence and put forward, instead, shallow war-psyche diagnoses they seem to have copied from M*A*S*H episodes. Most centre around the theory that Hasan snapped under the pressure of his forthcoming deployment to Afghanistan.
To his credit, Soharwardy said it is the “obligation upon all Muslims to condemn this massacre.” But notwithstanding his protests, Maj. Hasan is not just “an American who happens to have an Arabic name” and his murderous rampage is very much “linked with Islam and Muslims.”
Soharwardy is obviously concerned about a possible backlash against peaceful Muslims, but that legitimate concern doesn’t change the facts.
Maj. Hasan was clearly motivated by religious fervour, but what more should we take away from this tragedy? The answer to this question is not obvious to me.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on November 15, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Maj. Hasan was clearly motivated by religious fervour, but what more should we take away from this tragedy? The answer to this question is not obvious to me.
Posted by Western Standard on November 15, 2009
Take a step back Johnston and it's clearly obvious to anyone who looks. Islam by definition as written in the Qur’an is the Muslim call to war. Once people read the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira, they will realise that Islam is a political ideology that seeks total domination of all lands in this world and they will not stop until every land is controlled by Islam. Whereas in the past the west fought Islam from outside its walls and borders, it will soon have to fight them from within. The siege of Troy will be repeated in every western country as the population of muslims comes closer to the majority as they seek total power in their respective lands. This is what appeasers like you do not see. That will be their ultimate downfall, as they have no understanding of their enemy, therefore, themselves. There is only one solution; ending muslim immigration and the repatriation of muslims to wherever they came from.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-11-15 6:15:34 AM
Yet many analysts and commentators have ignored this evidence and put forward, instead, shallow war-psyche diagnoses they seem to have copied from M*A*S*H episodes. Most centre around the theory that Hasan snapped under the pressure of his forthcoming deployment to Afghanistan.
Posted by Western Standard on November 15, 2009
There was a simple solution for Hasan. He could have resigned his commission and left the US Army. The fact that he didn't is clear evidence that his was a premeditated attack and not the result of someone going "postal". The bigger question for someone in the US military is would they trust a muslim to cover their back in battle.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-11-15 7:08:50 AM
He killed in the name if Islam.
This is very significant, and follows directly from the teachings of the Koran.
The problem is that MSM (with some rare exceptions) refuses to acknowledge these simple facts.
The West has to wake up and realize the that the threat to its capitalistic, democratic, liberal, and free society comes from within, not from some external Muslim (or other) force.
But I am hopeful, I predict that in 5-10 years, the common man will have understood what is going on, and will take action. It will be dramatic, but not revolutionary, kinda like -89 and the fall of the wall.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2009-11-15 8:28:13 AM
Maj. Hasan was clearly motivated by religious fervour, but what more should we take away from this tragedy? The answer to this question is not obvious to me.
Posted by Western Standard on November 15, 2009
Take a step back Johnston and it's clearly obvious to anyone who looks. Islam by definition as written in the Qur’an is the Muslim call to war. Once people read the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira, they will realise that Islam is a political ideology that seeks total domination of all lands in this world and they will not stop until every land is controlled by Islam. Whereas in the past the west fought Islam from outside its walls and borders, it will soon have to fight them from within. The siege of Troy will be repeated in every western country as the population of muslims comes closer to the majority as they seek total power in their respective lands. This is what appeasers like you do not see. That will be their ultimate downfall, as they have no understanding of their enemy, therefore, themselves. There is only one solution; ending muslim immigration and the repatriation of muslims to wherever they came from.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-11-15 6:15:34 AM
This is your typical Marxist Claptrap. We would not be hearing about this "News" story if the "alleged suspect" was Christian. If you have an opinion, back it up with fact.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-15 9:05:10 AM
This is your typical Marxist Claptrap. We would not be hearing about this "News" story if the "alleged suspect" was Christian. If you have an opinion, back it up with fact.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-15 9:05:10 AM
It's not surprising that an appeaser like Gilchrist is a libertarian. To suggest that someone who while massacring thirteen people was yelling " Jesus Christ is great", wouldn't make the headlines shows either stupidity or naivety on a mindnumbing scale. It's also a perfect representation of why libertarians deserve the disdain of sane people.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-11-15 9:27:37 AM
Johan: "But I am hopeful, I predict that in 5-10 years, the common man will have understood what is going on, and will take action. It will be dramatic, but not revolutionary, kinda like -89 and the fall of the wall."
Unfortunately, by the time most people wake up to fact of a 5th column in our midst, it will probably be too late.
A lot of people in the West do not seem to realize that there are people in this world who do not like our civilization or anything about us, and mean to do us harm.
It is every Muslim's fervent belief that the green flag of Islam will eventually fly over every land in the world, hence their propensity not to criticize even the most barbaric act against non-Muslims.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2009-11-15 11:58:23 AM
I suppose we could take comfort in the reality that the muslim reign will be a short one. Europeans don't deal well with slavery, and without our technical skills, the world will soon be a crumbling mess.
Posted by: dp | 2009-11-15 12:33:19 PM
So Doug when someone clearly states his intentions, over and over again, and then carries them out, and a member of the target population recognises it, you call it Marxist claptrap. I have to wonder how people can claim to be ignorant of the cause and reason when the enemy does not even try to hide his intentions.
By the way this is not an alleged suspect. Furthermore, had he been identified in the least way as a Christian, there would be no end to the editorials blaming Christians in general.
If we are to judge based on our leaders and authorities and most of the MSM, it is clear that we are determined to lose this war, which is a war with Islamo-fascism. As long as we refuse to accept our enemy at his word and continue to invite him and his supporters to provide advice for government policies, we have lost.
It is up to Muslims to reform Islam, not us, but we have a responsibility to support Muslims who reject the ideology of Islamo-fascism instead of the current practice of giving the stage to the supporters (including most Muslim organisations, mullahs and clerics) and followers of Islamo-fascism. It is also the responsibility of those same Muslims to denounce it and to de-normalise it. I cannot agree with painting all Muslims with the same brush, but those living in the West seeking to impose such things as Sharia should not be made welcome.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-11-15 5:29:03 PM
Lighting Rod, and who other than yourself said the West should reflect Christian values. I am talking about individual freedom, such as freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and religious freedom, which also include the freedom to change religions or to reject any or all of them. Furthermore use a normal identifier instead of a silly phrase.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-11-15 5:56:23 PM
"How about if in 80 years, they are the majority of Canadians, would you feel the same? Who is to say who's god is to rule Canada, we took it from the aboriginals and the Muslims or asians will take it from us in time, why should it reflect christian values?"
Christian values have succeeded in establishing democracy, liberty, rule of law, suffrage, ending slavery, etc.
Nations founded upon the Islam religion have changed little in the last several hundred years.
Slavery, female genital mutilation, punishment by dismemberment, poverty, chauvinism, terrorism, and general backwardness are some of the contributions to humanity by Islamic nations.
"You will know them by their fruits."
Matthew 7:16
Posted by: Cid the Cidious | 2009-11-15 5:58:35 PM
Lightning : "How about if in 80 years, they are the majority of Canadians, would you feel the same? Who is to say who's god is to rule Canada, we took it from the aboriginals and the Muslims or asians will take it from us in time, why should it reflect christian values?"
If you are saying changing demographics will determine the culture, I think that goes without saying. Canada's culture has changed radically since the Second World war, with the biggest changes in the last 20 years.
It would also be fair to say that if things changed so radically here in such a short period of time, then it would not be called Canada either. Chances are good it might just be a smoking black hole.
The real question here is are you merely goading the people of northern european descent on this board with this type of questioning?
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2009-11-15 11:00:58 PM
Is Islam is a mistaken entity? Are its followers wrong? Is Mohamad is a false and fraudulent 'prophet'? All over the world, should people be resolute in helping those trapped as Muslims to break free? To helping Muslims see the light of freedom by not catering to their 'right' to their 'beliefs'? Should we all openly tell them that they are mistaken in their beliefs? [Personaly, I find difficult the prospect of broaching that kind of subject with my own Muslim relations.]
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2009-11-16 12:09:16 AM
Agha, Muslims, at least those living in so-called free countries, should be free to choose for themselves. They should be free to convert to another religion or to reject all religions without fearing of being murdered for their choice. Furthermore, women should be equally free to choose their husband or not to marry without becoming victims of honour-killings.
As for the questions you raised, one can only speculate. Personally I admit to being unable to embrace any religion claiming that it is the only truth and the only way to "salvation". It seems to me that the core of all religions is the same in that it teaches people how to be better and to have compassion for others. In other words they should be different paths leading to the same place. The problem is when man then gets involved and begins to add things that clearly are no divine, and we end up with "my god is bigger or better than your god" . In ending I would say that man is the problem, not religion.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-11-16 12:32:56 PM
It's not surprising that an appeaser like Gilchrist is a libertarian. To suggest that someone who while massacring thirteen people was yelling " Jesus Christ is great", wouldn't make the headlines shows either stupidity or naivety on a mindnumbing scale. It's also a perfect representation of why libertarians deserve the disdain of sane people.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-11-15 9:27:37 AM
You are'nt even on the subject you idiot. Anyone who thinks government should be involved in the economy and tell us to live our lives is a socialist.
As far as libertarian. It depends what your view is. I believe the government has no right to interfere in the economy. My politics are fiscal conservative social moderate, classical liberal influenced By John Stuart Mills and Ayn Rand. If you can't understand this you are an illiterate moron. If you can say something go ahead, but if you don't know the facts you,should shut your mouth you stupid, illiterate, loud-mouthed communist
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-16 1:00:34 PM
@Alain"So Doug when someone clearly states his intentions, over and over again, and then carries them out, and a member of the target population recognises it, you call it Marxist claptrap. I have to wonder how people can claim to be ignorant of the cause and reason when the enemy does not even try to hide his intentions.
By the way this is not an alleged suspect. Furthermore, had he been identified in the least way as a Christian, there would be no end to the editorials blaming Christians in general."
Your words not mine. Everyone has their prejudices but won't admit it. I have only two. Hypocrites and stupid people. I don't give one flying fuck what people think about me. Live and let live. But if you want a fight, be prepared for a fight.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-16 1:07:41 PM
"How about if in 80 years, they are the majority of Canadians, would you feel the same? Who is to say who's god is to rule Canada, we took it from the aboriginals and the Muslims or asians will take it from us in time, why should it reflect christian values?"
Christian values have succeeded in establishing democracy, liberty, rule of law, suffrage, ending slavery, etc.
Nations founded upon the Islam religion have changed little in the last several hundred years.
Slavery, female genital mutilation, punishment by dismemberment, poverty, chauvinism, terrorism, and general backwardness are some of the contributions to humanity by Islamic nations.
"You will know them by their fruits."
Matthew 7:16
Posted by: Cid the Cidious | 2009-11-15 5:58:35 PM
You wan't to quote the bible. I can give quotes that the bible promotes genocide. And if you want to quote revelations, it says only 144 000 people will be saved. These are the descendands of the 12 tribes of Israel. So if your not Jewish, your screwed. Heaven there are only virgin men there that have never lied in their life. If you believe this your a stupid moron.
Arguing the bible is like arguing the theory of evolution with a creationist. So we will take the bible as true as you believe, but it has to be word for word.
Big Bang Theory: Adam and Eve Fuck to populate the world.
Therefore: incest is okay
Therefore: The most accurate history is the Flintstones.
See how the bible falls apart with logic. The bible reads like translated epic poetry. The Question is which one is true.
Can you answer this question or are you too much of a coward?
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-16 1:17:16 PM
Trying to play the bully, Doug? It would be more productive to provide evidence that Hasan did not clearly indicate his motivation prior to and during the mass murder rather than childish name calling and threats.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-11-16 1:18:46 PM
Agha, they are all false prophets, fabrications intended to trick retards, and I am not goading. The scurge populates at such an alarmin rate, that I am being relaistic.
Posted by: Lightning Rod of Controversy | 2009-11-16 6:56:01 AM
And the Christian religion is full of false prophets too, Have you ever read the idiotic prophecies of Michael Nostradamus, a Christian in the 1550's. Prophets can't predict context. Every religion is full of profits.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-16 1:21:37 PM
My politics are fiscal conservative social moderate, classical liberal influenced By John Stuart Mills and Ayn Rand. If you can't understand this you are an illiterate moron.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-16 1:00:34 PM
It's John Stuart Mill, not Mills. When someone professes to adhere to a philosophy of a person whose name they can't even get correct it generally indicates they have no real clue what they are talking but figure that dropping his name gives them some credibility.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-11-16 5:19:09 PM
Cute debating style, Doug.
Make a statement, punctuate its validity with a disrespectful comment.
Pitiful.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-11-16 5:42:52 PM
And the Christian religion is full of false prophets too, Have you ever read the idiotic prophecies of Michael Nostradamus, a Christian in the 1550's.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-16 1:21:37 PM
More BS. Nostradamus claimed that his prophecies were based on astrology not religion. Had he claimed to be a Christian prophet he undoubtedly would have been burned at the stake by the Inquisition. Gilchrist must have been watching The Discovery Channel last week.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-11-16 5:58:30 PM
"Every religion is full of profits."
You got that right. $$$$ and power. If this guy did it for Allah, would it be any different if he did it for Christ? Its all bs. Anybody that would kill over a delusion is ill. I think most people are just hedging their bets. Just in case... haha. Its like believing in Santa. With the same results, no presents under the tree. He was just another religious nut that took a few with him. Did we have this argument about Christians when Timothy McVeigh (did I spell that right?) blew up that building? He was a god fearing Christian. Maybe he yelled "Christ is good" when he threw the switch. Religion is a plague on humanity, just another way to divide ourselves. Is there a solution? Not in our lifetimes.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-11-16 6:35:46 PM
Now that you have made the assertion, Steve, I have one question.
Could you point to the New Testament text that justified Timothy McVeigh's actions?
It would serve to give your statement some credibility.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-11-16 6:47:52 PM
My house is the house of prayer for ALL nations.
That's a script that's written above the main entrance to our church.
Could you explain, Steve, how that statement divides ourselves and is a plague on humanity?
Thank you.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-11-16 6:51:55 PM
"Once people read the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira, they will realise that Islam is a political ideology that seeks total domination of all lands in this world and they will not stop until every land is controlled by Islam."
-Stig
"Slavery, female genital mutilation, punishment by dismemberment, poverty, chauvinism, terrorism, and general backwardness are some of the contributions to humanity by Islamic nations."
- Cid
One of the few advantages of being constantly harass by fear mongering Medias is that, while it is true I agree with both statements, it forces you to make comparisons.
When most humans will finally realize there is no gods and all religions are political tools invented to justify atrocities and restrict human rights, rational thinking and discussions will be possible.
Posted by: Marc | 2009-11-16 7:47:55 PM
Since the former Muslim who will be baptized in our church after he renounced Islam has made similar observations to Cid and Stig, I would tend to agree those are the characteristics of Islam confirmed by our new truth-seeking parishioner.
Since I have been a Christian most my life, I would disagree with Marc that all religions are political tools invented to justify atrocities and restrict human rights.
Since you make those claims, Marc, I would challenge you to produce some New Testament themes that would support your assertions. Any one of them.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-11-16 8:13:41 PM
I don't care if you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, Satanist, or Raelian (sp?); if you attempt to violate other individual's rights, you are wrong and an aggressor.
And yes, I agree that Islam, if followed to the letter, is a disturbing ideology. But it does not follow that all Muslims will adhear to a strict Islamic ideology. As should be obvious, human beings have a tendency to rationalize and conveniently ignore things. How many Jews still follow the laws which prohibit usury?
Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-17 10:04:17 AM
Those who are determined to stamp out any and all religions are as dangerous as those who are determined to impose their religion on everyone else. They are all fanatics.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-11-17 11:42:54 AM
Alain:
My Christian practise uses self-control as a means to connect with the Creator through an understanding of the peace, beauty and logical order of creation.
The only weapon I have is my example.
My religious beliefs are a recognition of gratitude of the gifts of life and ability to attain understanding and have nothing to do with coercing anybody else who chooses to reject these freely-given gifts.
Therefore, an individual who believes he is somehow oppressed by the love should search within himself to find the source of his disturbance, not blame others for it.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-11-17 2:22:38 PM
SYF, you have never given any indication of imposing your beliefs on others. I was referring to forced conversions. In to-day's age Christians are free to change religions or drop their religious beliefs without fear of death. That, as you know, is not the case of radical Islam to which I was referring.
While I am not Christian, I have no problem with those who are and can respect their beliefs without believing, and I feel the same about other religions/beliefs provided they do not seek to impose their beliefs on me. Radical atheists, like radical Muslims, however are determined to impose their beliefs on everyone and are equally dangerous to a free society.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-11-17 5:53:25 PM
In my opinion, Islam and Erebus occupy the same philosophical space. Islam is not one of those entities trying to bring Heaven closer to Earth. A religion that promotes death over life is not one that sees the image of God in Mankind. Such a religion draws its believers and non-believers into a physical and psychological Hell on Earth.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2009-11-18 8:28:26 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.