Just sayin’.

Islam is one of the world’s largest and oldest religions.

Just that simple.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 1:16 PM

It is the youngest main stream religion – a johnny come lately.

Why is our president and so many in the MSM making that judgment?

Loxodonta on November 7, 2009 at 12:20 AM

Because they can’t have muslim “terror” happening under Obama’s watch. For a lot of reasons.

Think of all what you’re seeing as 9/11 Truth without the white planes and dopey scientific theory.

No worries. :-)

Laura on November 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM

My apologies to “the other Laura”. I’m very protective of my favorite elephant, and I jumped to conclusions while jumping to his defense.

Loxodonta on November 7, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Amen.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Do you not understand what the word, “explicit” means? Is that the problem?

And, as I have been trying to explain to you, islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology with an attendant mythology. But, you can keep screaming, “No!!!” without any rational defense. If you have convinced yourself, I guess that’s all that matters … to you. Turkey and its structure say that you are wrong. The history of every nation that has been afflicted with muslim populations says that you are wrong. But, don’t bother trying to defend your view. Just keep screaming, “No!!!!” and answering questions with, “Just because.”

If you don’t like the comaprison, then be explicit about why you think it inappropriate.

Islam is one of the world’s largest and oldest religions.

Just that simple.

You surely aren’t comparing Islam to your example, are you?

I guess you are.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 12:45 PM

If you don’t like the comaprison, then be explicit about why you think it inappropriate. You will be unable, of course, to find any qualitative problems, because that is exactly how islam grew. There is not even any mention of Jerusalem in the koran, only a moronic story of Mohammed being whisked away on a winged horse to “the far mosque” to ascend to heaven on a beam of light (through the rock that the Dome of the Rock is built on, is the how the story developed later – rocks are big in islam; they love praying to rocks as one would expect from desert peoples) whereupon Mo and allah met to discuss how many times a day muslims would have to kiss the ground and demonstrate their meaningless stature in the face of the great Oz … er, allah. Allah initially demanded 35 times a day, but Mo bargained him down to five.

But, explicitly tell me how my hypothetical Indian and his political ideology with Washington as a divine prophet is any different from islam, other than my Indian friend having even more of a basis for argument than islam.

Also, you don’t seem to have addressed my point about Turkey and the more general fact that islam seeks the power of state everywhere it is found – which, by itself, makes it more of a political ideology than anything.

All who followed this new ideology would be at war with our nation, and no one in their right mind would call this a religion.

progressoverpeace on November 7, 2009 at 12:23 PM

You surely aren’t comparing Islam to your example, are you?

I guess you are.

And it just hit me, what are people who have real PTSD being told by this sham PTSD excuse?

Don’t seek help for your PTSD, because if you tell a therapist about your traumas, they’ll go kill people.

Heh. Good point.

Second hand PTSD is such a crock that it boggles the mind. I have PTSD. The idea that telling somebody of my experience would traumatize them is laughable, on its face.

Star20 on November 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Ditto. Though mine is many years in the past and I’m fine now, it really makes me mad to have people trivialize it – akin to feminazis saying ludicrous things like “All men are rapists.” That’s a slap in the face to rape victims, and the whole secondary PTSD concept is a slap in the face to people who have the real thing.

progressoverpeace on November 7, 2009 at 11:56 AM

I would add a little hypothetical:

By the same reasoning that people accept islam as an Abrahamic religion, if some guy in India, today, decided to create a political theory that portrayed George Washington as a divine prophet and Washington D.C. as a holy site, that “religion” would have to be accepted and those followers would have to be allowed access to Washington D.C. as it is their main holy site. Of course, no one would accept that, as ridiculous as it clearly is, even though we might be flattered that someone chose to raise Washington – the man and city – to a level of meta-physical importance. If this hypothetical Indian guy went further to call Americans “liars” and “pigs” for ‘intentionally distorting history’ and desecrating the perverted interpretation that this guy created for Washington, and claimed Washington D.C. as belonging to him and his followers, then this would go well beyond the merely ridiculous to an act of war against our nation. All who followed this new ideology would be at war with our nation, and no one in their right mind would call this a religion.

Laura in Maryland on November 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I was agreeing with the other Laura.

And it just hit me, what are people who have real PTSD being told by this sham PTSD excuse?

Don’t seek help for your PTSD, because if you tell a therapist about your traumas, they’ll go kill people.

What a great message to send out to traumatized veterans and crime victims. Thanks, MSM!

That’s a very radical position to adopt, too.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 11:45 AM

No, it isn’t. It’s absolutely true. Only those who don’t understand islam don’t understand this. Ataturk, who was a devout muslim who loved islam, understood that islam was a political ideology above all, all too well, which is why Turkey was structured with the secular military as the supreme power, in order to keep islam at bay in its constant and relentless attempt to grab the power of state.

Islam was nothing but the formalization of desert arab culture, built as the foundation for the rule of a growing land empire. Mohammed wanted to steal some religious legitimacy, so he plagiarized parts of the Old and New Testament (which he took the license to pervert and change to be more in line with arab cultural sensitivities) then calling Jews and Christians liars because Mo’s stories were in contradiction to the ones he stole. But, aside from that theft of an meta-physics from others that was only to serve and establish the state rule as “divine”, islam is all about state power and the constant accumulation of it. That is what islam has always been and what it claims for itself in its canonical documents.

People accept the idea that islam is a religion only because America never really had to deal with islam (other than having to go to war with the savages from the very beginning of our nation) and there was no cost to letting islam claim the mantle of a religion. But, these same people also call islam “an Abrahamic religion” when the idea that Mohammed could trace his lineage back thousands of years to the Biblical line is absurd in the extreme. Sh!t, Egyptians today can’t even get the history of the Yom Kippur war straight, and that was less than 40 years ago, but Mohammed was supposed to be able to claim lineage to Abraham? That is a joke that anyone with a brain would laugh at.

What was fascinating was that his Muslim friends saw this coming, too. He joined a mosque that is known for taking very hard-line views. They tried to discuss things with him, and he became increasingly angry at any suggestion that he was misinterpreting the Koran.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 8:51 AM

See? That’s the tragic irony. Hasan wasn’t misinterpreting the koran. Islam is not moderate and cannot ever be so. There will never be a reformation of islam. I honestly wish it were possible, but it simply is not. Read the koran and the hadiths for yourself. Especially the suras.

There are Muslims that do not follow the letter of their religion, just as there are members of other religions who do not completely adhere to the fundamental tenants of their religions and they are not violent. They are in denial about what islam really is. But muslims who actually do what their religion commands and encourages them to do, embrace jihad and the hate and violence it commands.

That’s the problem. At its core islam is an ideology of intolerance and hate, the exhortation and encouragement to commit violence, and the eternal battle of dar al-islam (world of islam) against dar al-harb (that would be everybody except islam, only sometimes it includes other sects of islam too).

The koran, when taken literally as jihadists do, is the ultimate gangster’s handbook, right down to the encouraging of lying when at a disadvantageous position until you’re strong enough to once again attack your adversary. It is incompatible with anything that is not islam. Its goal is to totally eradicate everything that is not islam. It is a religion of total submission, not a religion of peace.

That’s not my opinion. Listen to the translations on MEMRI of what muslim imam’s preach and say, of what devout muslims actually say. They say there is no such thing as moderate islam. They mean what they say.

Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology with an attendant mythology. We treat islam no differently than we treat other dangerous political ideologies that are oriented in opposition to America and our Constitution and have the eradication of our way of life as a deep and important part of their structure.

progressoverpeace on November 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

That’s a very radical position to adopt, too.

As for some here who argue that the entire religion is dangerous, that’s going against our own principles of freedom of religion in this country and is, definitely, overreaction.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology with an attendant mythology. We treat islam no differently than we treat other dangerous political ideologies that are oriented in opposition to America and our Constitution and have the eradication of our way of life as a deep and important part of their structure.

They have gone through great amounts of vicarious combat stress and then they have the every day chores and confrontations each of us has.

cozmo on November 6, 2009 at 10:32 PM

I would contend that Predator pilots’ battle experience isn’t vicarious at all, as they are living and experiencing the battle in real time. Their battle experiences are no more vicarious than if they were a fighter or bomber pilot sitting in the plane itself.

Any PTSD they might suffer is anything but second hand.

Second-hand PTSD would seem to be a crock, as it would totally affect every fan of horror/war/vivisectionist/hyper-violent/etc films, would it not?

Wouldn’t the films be much more likely to cause the syndrome because the viewer is immersed in an experience explicitly designed and crafted to be as emotionally visceral as possible? A psychiatrist sits and listens to the verbal stories of their patients without the special effects, music, shot placement and composition, etc.

It’s an politically correct excuse to avoid facing the truth that fundamentalist islam, like shintoism, is a death cult and having to wrestle with exactly what to do about that.

Thus, our noble ideals of non-discrimination, diversity, and respect for religion are not ideals suitable for the world we find ourselves in.

Then, frankly. What does it matter? You’re advocating a completely radical shift.

There would be no founding principles to defend in that case.

Laura on November 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM

NOT ME! Not even close. I would NEVER disparage LOX. EVAH!

EVAH!

Even though this has hit us very hard here in Central Texas, the pain will reverberate throughout the US.

As for some here who argue that the entire religion is dangerous, that’s going against our own principles of freedom of religion in this country and is, definitely, overreaction.

That is going against our principles. Unfortunately, while our principles are noble, noble ideals do not always address reality. Islam, by its virtue, creates a subset of believers who become highly political and very angry, and prone to violence, whether it be against their own children, or against the larger society. Even when such a member of this subset was discovered, the military did nothing about him for to do so would be to violate our noble ideals. It would behoove even the military to think that a muslim, with no prior criminal record, was a threat by virtue of his strong religious convictions. Ironic as it is, for it is the military that is charged with protecting us.

Thus, our noble ideals of non-discrimination, diversity, and respect for religion are not ideals suitable for the world we find ourselves in.

This is why George Bush’s excuse for going into Iraq was sophistry. We have to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here, he said. Well, the reality is that they are already here. And not only that, but they are in our military. And they can choose to massacre us whenever they wish and there is nothing our military can, nor would, do even if they could do something about it. The threat to America is not organized terrorists in far off exotic locals. The threat to America is islam itself and none of the liberal, or liberal-conservative, jingoism will address that reality. Hundeds of billions of dollars have been spent in Iraq, ostensibly to keep America safe from terrorists, yet the terrorists who are ready to kill us on our homeland, are already here, and what’s worse, our own establishments won’t touch them because it is not politically correct because to do so would violate our cherish ideals. How many billions of dollars would it have taken to fire Hasan? The military has lawyers who work cheap.

Exit question: How many US airline pilots are muslims with strong political feelings? How many airliners that fly overhead each day are piloted by someone like Hasan? Out of the thousands of airliners that fly across America each day, probably dozens have Hasans at the controls. And the most disturbing question: If the airline knew that such a pilot had strong islamic politics, as the military knew of Hasan, would they fire him? We all know they wouldn’t. Our most cherish ideals don’t allow for such a preemptive action.