Streiff has a must-read post putting the Fort Hood shootings in their historical context within the U.S. military: “[w]hat has happened in the past 6 years is that assurance that the men in uniform were if not loyal Americans at least loyal to their comrades has been shattered.”
16 thoughts on “There Is A History Here”
Comments are closed.
Knowing the fact that 75 solders have committed suicide at Fort Hood over the last six year and the fact several months ago another solider attacked his fellow soldiers kind of does not make this a Muslim problem. Being a Veteran I know first hand the stories of severe domestic violence and soldier on soldier violence. Also, I know the military does a very poor job of recognizing the symptoms of a troubled soldier and properly addressing the issue. But, for some it is easier just to blame an entire religion and ignore all the other Muslim soldiers who have done great things in our military.
allahu akbar
Is it not PC to point out the Orlando shooter was Catholic?
Historically, cops, military men and trades people have the highest propensity for suicide because of access to weapons and other dangerous implements.
Oh, I guess sometimes identity is destiny. Good thing we have Streiff’s in our country to separate “us” from “them.”
also, make sure we keep those gays out of the military, too.
Any other groups, we should tatoo on their wrists, Crank?
“identity is destiny”
You guys really do work at this sort of obtuseness.
There is a highly influential and well-funded strain of Islam that commands the commission of violence against non-Muslims, Muslims who are not sufficiently ‘faithful,’ etc. This is not identity, it is doctrine.
All political movements and all religious faiths attract some nutcases, some of whom are violent. That’s why you can’t overdraw conclusions from the occasional act of individual violence. But in no other major world religion or mainstream political movement is there doctrine that is in any sense comparable to jihadism in its combination of (1) explicit incitement to violence and (2) material and ideological support for that doctrine from the wealthy and powerful.
I understand you need to remove yourself to a high level of abstraction to avoid that problem.
“But in no other major … mainstream political movement is there doctrine that is in any sense comparable to jihadism in its combination of (1) explicit incitement to violence and (2) material and ideological support for that doctrine from the wealthy and powerful.”
This is a political argument, really. When I think about American involvement in Vietnam and Iraq, I really see no difference in our support for totally destructive and unnecessary acts of violence. I recognize that conservatives will argue that I am proposing some kind of moral equivalency. But it seems to me that Americans love war and cannot bring themselves to admit just how violent their government is. Whether our love for war is religiously-inspired or not, the fact remains that Americans love war. We love soldiers, we love generals, we love shock and awe, and we love war heroes. We sit in judgment of violent Muslims, but we should look in the mirror.
“[thinking people] will argue that I am proposing some kind of moral equivalency”
You are.
“We love soldiers, we love generals, we love shock and awe, and we love war heroes.”
Loving doctors doesn’t mean you love disease. You love those who use violence appropriately and morally in the pursuit of appropriate goals.
Kind of a tangent on Crank’s point though. It doesn’t change the fact that this person (I use the term loosely) is motivated by an ideology shared among many Muslims. There is an ideology at war with America and freedom in general, and closing your eyes to it doesn’t make it go away, it just makes it more likely to result in more death.
Obtuse? Moi?
Some Muslims adhere to teaching of violence and terrorism.
Some Americans are Muslim.
No Muslim Americans can be trusted.
I’m in no way defending or sympathizing with the attack on Fort Hood, nor do I dispute that some strains of Islam teach violence. When are you, however, going to shine the light on the strains of evangelism in the base of what “Nobody” (how apt) terms “thinking people” similarly espouse violence?
magrooder, actually my point about thinking people is that any thinking person would read Steve’s post and say he was engaged in moral equivalency, not just conservatives.
Evangelicals espousing violence is no where near the equivalent issue with Muslems. Sure it happens very rarely, but more importantly when it does it isn’t part of a larger ideological war against America and western values in general that represents a serious existential threat to large swaths of western civilization.
If there was a case of a huge story of evangelical violence and the media or conservative blogs were trying to deny that the evangelical beliefs had anything to do with the violence, you might have a point. However, the point here is that the media and left wing posters on this very blog (“troubled soldier” like any other, to state the obvious is to tattoo all muslims on the wrist, “we should look in the mirror”) want to look away from the obvious implications of what is going on, close their eyes and pretend that all is well. Obtuse, toi.
It’s become a matter of faith to the left. They know we’re all over this jihad in America thing and because of that they must take the other side by reflex. It’s shameful but they’ll always tell you how you are responsible for this schism, not them.
Plus there’s that reflexive defense of the media, who behaved ptifully yet again, even while telling us the media isn’t left-biased. Funny that.
steve, that’s not moral equivalency, it’s moral illiteracy.
Magrooder –
strains of evangelism in the base of what “Nobody” (how apt) terms “thinking people” similarly espouse violence
Like I said, every political or religious movement has its crazies and its fringes. But you cannot seriously be suggesting that the doctrine of jihad (the 1300-year-old doctrine or its two-centuries old radical variant), the vast quantities of terrorism committed worldwide in its name in the past 30 years, the organized terrorist movements and theocratic regimes built around its principles, the incitements to violence by major and influential imams and state-supported media, the vast sums of wealth directed to promulgating such doctrines – that these have any sort of counterpart in modern-day Evangelical Christianity. Simply to state the parallel is to refute it.
would it be irony that Crank just complained about the treatment of the Catholic Church in regards to sexual child abuse but he is quick to point the same finger at Islam in regards to violence?
But, the bigger question still remains how should the military address this rash of violence in the military? Or should we just keep the watchful eye on Muslim’s while ignoring the elephant in the room?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7565251&page=1&page=1
So Crank, is the problem Islam or extremism? You seem to start on the extremism side, but quickly track off to the religion side.
BTW, your reasonable approach and the use of “history” may be disquieting when judging who the political (or global) extremists are vis-a-vis the nations of the United States and Iran. (i.e. history of terrorism used worldwide in it’s name, history of invading and occupying other countries, etc).
Berto, the threat is the political project of Islamism/jihadism, but that threat has deep roots and entanglements with Islamic doctrine dating back centuries.
Just when you convinced me there was no parallel between Evangelical Christian ideology and the doctrine of jihad, you answer my question by stating the current threat of Islamic Jihadism has “deep roots and entanglements” dating back centuries.
Are you saying that Evangelical Christianity doesn’t have “deep roots and entanglements” with the threat of American Empire? Seems there are plenty of centuries old parallels.