Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Tucson vs. Fort Hood


S.W. Anderson said...

I don't recall the Fort Hood being treated as just individual craziness. The guy was linked to a jihadist cleric in Yemen from the beginning of the investigation.

"Political Islamist" is an ironic and contrived term in itself. Nowhere in that incident did politics play any part. "Terrorist crime" makes more sense.

Bottom line: OK drawing, bogus premise.

T. Paine said...

Anderson, from the very beginning all of those on the left (from the media and pundits to those in the federal government) were warning us not to "rush to judgement"; "we don't know what Niddal's motivations truly were", etc.

free0352 said...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember getting called a racist, ummm... by YOU over the Nidal shooting because I blamed not only him but a signifigant portion of the Islam which chooses to be part of the Islamist movement.

And for the record, Islamism is VERY political. It's whole goal is to fuse politics, government, and religion under Shiara and spread it world wide. That's a definite political goal. That's a side issue and a technical point, but an important one none the less.

free0352 said...

I will say Anderson, it was over at Major conflict and yeah I'm pretty sure you were one of the rather um... intelectually challenged that though I was some type of Nazi for not being a fan of radical Islamism as it pertained to the Nidal shooting... but I may be wrong. If I was, fine- my mistake. My point is, all of us "EVIL NEOCONS" took a beating for accusing Nidal of being a member of Al'Queda and for linking Islam with such... even though it turned out to be absoulutely true.

John Myste said...

Mr. Paine, do you take requests? For example, if someone were itching to hear your biting commentary on a specific issue, would you then bite and comment on said issue?

T. Paine said...

I don't recall if Mr. Anderson was specifically one of those that was appalled at our condemnation of Nidal for being a Islamofascist murderer or not. I know I got a lot of guff from my leftist friends for my comments against that evil piece of human debris though.

Mr. Myste, I have never had anyone specifically ask for my commentary via a specific blog posting before. I am not sure exactly what that means though. Please give me your request and if I have the mental ability to tackle your request in a semi-competent fashion, then I will endeavor to do so, my friend!

free0352 said...

I seem to remember being an evil nazi for daring to suggest muslims shouldn't be allowed into the military.

John Myste said...

Free says ... "I seem to remember being an evil Nazi for daring to suggest Muslims shouldn't be allowed into the military."

I would like to defend Free0352 of the charges made against him. That is NOT why he is an evil Nazi, no sir!

And Free, I agree with you completely. No Muslims in the military. No men, either, as I can name specific men who are terrorists.

I have had it up to here with them men and Muslims. I just raised my hand really high.

S.W. Anderson said...

FWIW, I don't go around calling people Nazis and never have.

Saying Muslims should be barred from serving in the military is wrong. It's mindless discrimination, based on one of bigoted people's favorite bogus notions: "They're all alike."

In WW II, Japanese American troops served brilliantly and courageously, despite the fact their families back home had their constitutional rights stripped, their property confiscated and their lives put on hold in desert detention camps. The almost universally held assumption in America was that people of Japanese extraction were all alike, all loyal to the emperor of Japan, all devious, all genetically predisposed to hate Caucasians in general, and Americans most of all. The assumption was foolish, and our country acted shamefully.

Muslims, many of them of Arab extraction, have served honorably and well in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ones able to translate the local languages are critically important not only to our troops' operations, but for their safety.

None of which really bears on the cartoon or my comment on the cartoon. I stand by my statement that the MSM reported early on about the psychiatrist's tie to the terrorist cleric in Yemen. I read a bunch of liberal blogs and none tried in any way to exonerate or make excuses for that shrink. He was and is regarded as a Muslim extremist, and what he did is considered an act of terrorism.

There are plenty legitimate points of disagreement without making stuff up. You come off looking hard up and more than a little silly when you do it.

John Myste said...



Fortunately for you, I do not wish to debate you on the issue. I have already written a very long article on the matter. Were you to read it (which you cannot do at this time), you would probably have no idea my stance on the issue. I am a bit of an agnostic, so that is no surprise.

It is possible that any argument you make could end up included in the article. However, it is not that likely, as it is a complete as it stands, I think. You may prove me wrong.

I am going to let the article sit for a while. I would like to hear an intelligent conservative viewpoint, though. I have heard conservative viewpoints already, but the need was not met.

Hint: I have no interest in hearing the Bible quoted. I am very capable of representing both the conservative and the liberal typical position on this matter. In fact, in my article I argued both, and with extreme skill.

I am just trying to see if I missed anything.

T. Paine said...

Myste, I have written several pieces on abortion in the past, but I am not certain they are necessarily what you are looking for in your article. (An article that I would very much like to read upon its completion, by the way...)

My previous posts are more from a personal appeal against this pernicious practice. Feel free to read them and take what you will from them, if anything.

The two most relevant to your request are below, sir:

John Myste said...

Thanks. Both pieces were interesting and neither was precisely what I sought.

I argue both sides of this issue and then conclude on the pro-life side from a strictly philosophical perspective. I find the non religion pro-life case overall to be stronger than the pro-choice case in theory and the in practice it is virtually unexamined logically.

I have examined with greater logic than I think you usually find, both sides of the argument. I am looking for strong arguments to incorporate in my thinking and have yet to really find anything new and compelling.

That we should not abort God's fetus or that we should respect the moral imperative of life because God commands it, turns the whole argument into a religious one based on faith. Not only do I reject imperatives of any kind, but I also reject Gods of any kind.

I have tons of refutations / arguments against pro-choice without invoking the name of God. I was hoping to find more. I support Roe V. Wade, not because I think pro-choice is right, but out of practical need. I do not want to force people to mess up their whole life because of an unwanted pregnancy; nor do I think people who choose this kind of self-preservation are evil for doing so. If this position is wrong, I still have it; moreover, I still want it. I cannot defend the pro-choice stance as well as I defend the pro-life one. That does not change my mind, as it that fact in no ways answers the pro-choice concerns. If the issues that surround abortion were clear, then I would change my mind. Like most pro-choice advocates, I tend to be dismissive of arguments that state that the problem is obvious, as is the answer, and that do not acknowledge the complex issues involved.

I think I will tidy up and then go ahead and post the article soon. I am hoping to get useful comments, which may persuade me to repost an edited version later.