BREAKING NEWS FROM FOX !! MASS Shooting at Ft.Hood in Killeen Texas !!

[Swarner793]

Originally Posted by larrymeyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Medicine_Crow

On June 25, 2008, he received two military decorations, the Bronze Star and the Légion d'honneur.[4] On July 17, 2008, Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester, and Mike Enzi introduced a bill to award him the Congressional Gold Medal;[5] Crow's name does not appear on an official list of Congressional Gold Medal recipients.[6]

Yeah, I read that. Wonder what that is and if that is what 0bama got screwed up.

Be safe (and maybe, just maybe, the MOH is above politics).

Scott

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by Carnes

This makes as much sense to me as someone saying, "As long as we ignore guns being the problem, the issues will continue..."

Likewise with me. Where we disagree is that Islam, or any religion, is in and of itself the problem. A couple posts above, you posted a list of lines from the Koran, and it is pretty compelling/scary. But as I am sure you know, an equally compelling list can be generated using lines from the Bible. So, if that is the case, it suggests that both Christianity and Islam are extremely dangerous. However, since we are presently in an environment where Christianity is benign, we should recognize that it is not necessary that Islam is the specific problem. If Christaniaty is just as dangerous as Islam, but is not hurting anyone, Islam should be able to be 'made-safe' also. (<--Gun reference, eh?)

I agree that we need to pinpoint the problem. I think that a reason the people bring Christaniaty into this is because if it were the case that religion were the problem that we need to zero in on, we would be experiencing every bit as much trouble with Christianity, and other religions, as we do with Islam. Christians who follow a book that has terribly extreme messages all through it and can manage to live peaceably in our society, therefore it follows that other religions can as well.

So, that being the case, I feel that focusing on Islam itself as the problem will lead the problem solvers to miss the target.

I'm always down for honest and open discussion.

I think the problem that needs to be focused on is the individuals that are using religion for nefarious purposes.

Speech is free, but shouting 'fire' is not protected. Guns are our right, but using them in a murder is not. Religious leaders preaching hatred and genocide simply can no longer be tolerated.

The reason we have such a hard time weeding out the bad ones is because there are masses of Americans that want to pinpoint Islam as the problem, and that elicits a very strong response from lots of people around the world. If a majority of Americans could unite under the banner that we do genuinely support all religion, but we punish bad behavior (whether done in the name of religion or not) then we might actually be able to garner support from inside the Muslim community.

Right now Muslims are rightfully scared that Christian Americans can't differentiate between the evil men that are deliberately misusing the power of religion, and the masses of people that only want to peaceably practice their religion. IMO, the people that are going to have the biggest impact on getting rid of the assholes that are abusing Islam are the Muslims that aren't abusing Islam. I feel that it is important for non-Muslim people to try to foster an environment where Muslims are not so easily convinced that 'the West' wants to destroy all Islam.


Well, it narrows things down a bit. I'm really not aware of any major religion that cannot/has not been interpreted on a large scale to include violent, bigoted premises. I'm not trying to say that violent, bigoted premises are okay, but that I'm not so sure that they are the problem. Since bad premises seem to be so prevalent in other religions, but are not having the negative consequences that we are trying to resolve, I suspect that the religion is not the problem.

The violent teachings of Islam create as much violence as the violent teachings of Christianity, and both of those create as much violence as guns do. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

There are seemingly enormous benefits to being able to conquer the west. If you can twist the words of a religious text in a way that would allow you to build an army that could achieve this end, it would be quite the temptation. Islam is not the problem, it is just the vehicle that some people are using to serve their purposes.

Just like focusing on guns won't stop criminals, focusing on Islam won't stop terrorists. IMO, the US needs to decisively and brutally engage specific targets that are known for weaponizing religion. It would help if more people were willing to believe that the US doesn't identify Islam as the problem, just the individuals.



Well, that is a whole other aspect of the problem. If we were to follow through with the assumption that Islam is the focal point of the problem... It follows that the only solution is some form of 'religion control.' I mean really, I am sure you can come up with a number of solutions to the problem if it is clearly identified as Islam, in and of itself. The only difficulty is that you are not going to let yourself acknowledge solutions that involve religion control, and only then is it the case where no solution is apparent. It's the same as trying to come up with a solution to the problem of guns.

The guns analogy doesn't work. Guns are inanimate objects. The most they can do in regards to wrongdoing is be consciously selected to be the instruments of that act. By people who have decided to do so.
What they cannot do is influence people to make the decision to do good or bad. Theology can. And islam clearly does.

If I started a new religion tomorrow, let's call it "The he-man woman haters club". And in our sacred scripture I included instructions to followers decreeing that all women must convert to being men or be killed, enslaved or taxed. And that by enforcing such tenants one shall be rewarded with paradise. What do you think the response would be if people started acting on those sacraments? Would people say you can't blame my religion, just the people that acted on it? I think folks are being incredibly unrealistic in their desire to be PC. We have freedom of religion in the US but that does not mean I can not be critical of a religion I see is inspiring people to wage war. I am not forbidden from recognizing where these people are getting their hate from. I'm not sure how to react to it. How to even suggest that muslims not follow those instructions, I'm simply acknowledging they exist and are a problem.


As for this "list" of scary phrases and "violent teachings" you claim are in the bible, I'd sure love to see this list. "Christians" have waged war in the name of Christianity in the past, but I can't find any calling to do so in the bible.
As others have pointed out, historical notes are a far different context than the instructions in the koran. I have never seen the bible say to kill the non-believers. But I do see it in the koran. And since no one responded to my question of context when I posted those passages I have to still believe the context is how I interpreted them.

I see a distinct difference between waging war *in the name of* a given religion and the fundamental teachings of a religion calling for same. That is the difference I see with islam.

[Adam-12]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

I see a distinct difference between waging war *in the name of* a given religion and the fundamental teachings of a religion calling for same. That is the difference I see with islam.

To put on my Islam-baiting hat for a moment, the fact is that Mohammed invented Islam out of cobbled-together Catholic ideas he learned during a visit to Rome, and used it to unite warring tribes of arabs into a semblance of a kingdom around Medina. The warlike teachings of the Koran were only intended to mobilize his little cult to expand Mohammed's power.

Ever since, Muslims have been torn between reinterpreting all that as a spiritual struggle against evil, on the one hand, and a more literal struggle for earthly power, on the other. The latter obviously fits into the agenda of any more expansionist leaders, but only within sharp limits: the leaders aren't interested in living up to the loftier ideals of the religion. So we see the Saudi royals, for example, using Islam to channel hostility away from themselves, but also living like decadent playboys--which the Saudi people notice, and despise. For the most part, those in power don't want the people too worked up, because they want to hold on to power and live their debauched lives in peace. For the most part they only pay lip-service to Islam, like Saddam or the leaders in Syria, Lebanon, etc.

The ones out of power like to stir up people's passions by appealing to the more warlike elements just like Mohammed did, in hopes of riding a popular tide into power. Most of them don't give a damn about religion or anything else but their own power, and are just using Islam as a vehicle. It's a convenient vehicle, because that's what Mohammed invented it for. But they're generally not looking for WWIII, or anything else that will end them up dead; they're looking for power, and want to live to enjoy it.

[HiredGoon]

How Fort Hood's Maj. Hassan Was Taken Down

KILLEEN, Texas (AP) ― One of two police officers who confronted the alleged Fort Hood killer says he shot Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan before kicking the man's weapon away, handcuffing him and ending the nation's worst killing spree on a military base.

Sgt. Mark Todd joined Sgt. Kimberly Munley, hailed as a hero for her actions, in a firefight with Hasan that lasted less than a minute. Todd was not wounded, but the exchange left Munley injured and Hasan critically wounded.

Seconds after Todd arrived on the scene, he said he saw a calm-looking Hasan, his gun drawn and his fingers pointing at people outside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center. Todd said he then saw Hasan shooting at soldiers as they attempted to flee.

"He was firing at people as they were trying to run and hide," Todd told The Associated Press Saturday.

That's when Todd, a retired soldier who now works as a civilian police officer at Ford Hood, said he shouted at Hasan to stop.

"I told him stop and drop your weapons, I identified myself as police and he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn't hear him say a word ... he just turned and fired."

There has been confusion since Thursday's rampage about whose bullets actually brought Hasan down. At first, Munley's supervisor said it was her shot to Hasan's torso that leveled him, but Army officials would only say that an investigation was under way.

Munley was down by the time he engaged Hasan, Todd said. He wasn't sure if Munley had wounded the suspect, because "once he started firing at me, I lost track of her."

Todd said he fired his Beretta at Hasan. Hasan flinched, Todd said, then slid down against a telephone pole and fell on his back. Todd says he then heard bystanders say "two more, two more."

At first he thought the soldiers meant there were two more suspects, but then he realized they were urging him to fire two more rounds at Hasan, thinking he was still posing a threat.

Todd approached the suspect and saw that he still had a weapon in his hand. Todd kicked away the gun, which he said had a laser-aiming device attached to it.

"He was breathing, his eyes were blinking. You could tell that he was fading out. He didn't say anything. He was just kind of blinking," said Todd.

Todd handcuffed Hasan and checked to see if he was still alive. "He had a good pulse," said Todd. He also cut off pieces of Hasan's clothes so he could get first aid and noticed Hasan had gunshot wounds on his side and back.

From the time he got to the scene until Hasan dropped was just 30-45 seconds, Todd said. "It was pretty intense. There was a lot of people shouting, a lot of people giving directions," he said.

Munley, whose injuries weren't believed to be life threatening, won wide praise after the incident. Facebook fan pages quickly sprouted up, with well-wishers cheering her heroism and crediting the officers with saving lives.

Todd said there were numerous heroes, including the first responders who helped the injured.

"It's what we've been trained to do. This is what we have to do," he said. "There was absolutely no time to think about it ... you have to react."

[Swarner793]

Todd says he then heard bystanders say "two more, two more."

Sounds like a new battle cry for Ivy Warriors and all the others who had their Home of Ft. Hood violated.

Be safe (and give them "two more").

Scott

[Paradigm]

Munley, whose injuries weren't believed to be life threatening, won wide praise after the incident. Facebook fan pages quickly sprouted up, with well-wishers cheering her heroism and crediting the officers with saving lives.

Todd said there were numerous heroes, including the first responders who helped the injured.

"It's what we've been trained to do. This is what we have to do," he said. "There was absolutely no time to think about it ... you have to react."

Heroes? Absolutely. The sickening part is that this would never have happened if each soldier had his/her 92FS on the hip.

When will the .gov ever learn?

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by Swarner793

Todd says he then heard bystanders say "two more, two more."

Sounds like a new battle cry for Ivy Warriors and all the others who had their Home of Ft. Hood violated.

Be safe (and give them "two more").

Scott

Sounds to me, like he is trying to take credit for what she did........

[Swarner793]

Originally Posted by fingers80002

Sounds to me, like he is trying to take credit for what she did........

I don't know, Todd would have to know the truth would come out, from eyewitnesses, sooner or later. Perhaps, and I do mean perhaps, his story is how the events unfolded and the media rushed to put Munley in the seat. I truly mean no disrespect toward her and as far as I am concerned anyone that ran to the gunfire that day is good to go and high speed in my view. I would not want to switch places with any of them. I have heard the media telling us how it went down, as far as Munley's involvement, but I have not seen anything from her directly.

If he is trying to steal her Honor, the shitstorm will ruin his life.

Be safe (and remember, we get what we deserve).

Scott

[Philbert]

Gun fights are confusing. I'd be hesitant to say that either of the officers are deliberately lying.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Paradigm

Heroes? Absolutely. The sickening part is that this would never have happened if each soldier had his/her LOADED92FS on the hip.

When will the .gov ever learn?

*Red is mine...fixed it for ya...

Originally Posted by fingers80002

Sounds to me, like he is trying to take credit for what she did........

Can't have a female getting credit, in the context of this incident, for taking this guy out while standing up to return fire...some might get the idea that women may be able to shoulder the burden of frontline combat roles....