Shooting at Fort Hood

[Rick-Parker]

lol

I refuse to believe you don't know that homosexuals are in the military. All of your years in service and you never encountered one?

Homosexuals are indeed allowed in the military- they are just not allowed to state that they are homosexuals at this point. This rule, inacted while President Clinton was in office, was a compromise designed mostly to save face for Clinton, although it didn't fix a thing one way or the other. However, there are active bills in Congress as we speak which will finally strike down this law and give homosexuals freedom to fully announce their sexual preference without detrimental actions against them.

t.

Finally, huh?

lol nice try, but don't go there. By "finally", I mean in their eyes, not mine. In other words, this is something they are looking forward to, not me. It's a time reference thing, not an agreement thing. Personally I don't feel that homosexuality is compatible with military service, but hey, that's just me.

t.

Sparky says "just needed you to be clear." Keep up the good work.

[Rick-Parker]

No, that is just how YOU are spinning it. You are long on spin, but short on substance.

Substance falls on the deaf ears of hatred. You cannot reason with emotion. You cannot make sense of dispair. Fear is the rationalization of the uninformed.

About 90% of the posts on this topic are based on unrational fear and hatred for muslims. The heinous nature of the act is bringing people to react more with emotion and dispair and not really a reasoned and informed response.

Ted is about one of the most loving and reasonable guys on Worthy Boards...and the 'chrsitians' are ready to burn him at the stake over his comments...lol.

Why, because it doesn't fit in your particular version of PC? And nobody wants to butn Ted, just get him to stop drinking the PC kool-aid.

*Edited after a nap.

My comments in the original post here were even more dumb than me being accused of drinking PC "Kool-aid"

t.

Ted, I've been asked to lighten up on you, so I am.

And since I publicly offended you, I give you a public apology.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Parker1

[ayin jade]

oh, so you LIED when you said that mormonism IS a bigger threat to american way of life than islam.... ok... gotcha...

LOL...I see you are still having trouble. No, I didn't lie, and I don't see how what I posted was a contradiction at all. Unfortunately, it appears that your studies of mormonism are on par with your knowledge of Islam. Both are false religions, and both are dangerous...it was my opinion that mormonism is more dangerous. However, it would be inappropriate to expound further on that in this thread.

wow!

Mormons like Donnie and Marie, Trent Lott, Glen Beck vs Muslims like Hassan Nasrallah, Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden?

Im pretty sure my mom regarded Donny Osmond as a terrorist when I used to play his songs over and over again as a kid lol.

[MorningGlory]

oh, so you LIED when you said that mormonism IS a bigger threat to american way of life than islam.... ok... gotcha...

LOL...I see you are still having trouble. No, I didn't lie, and I don't see how what I posted was a contradiction at all. Unfortunately, it appears that your studies of mormonism are on par with your knowledge of Islam. Both are false religions, and both are dangerous...it was my opinion that mormonism is more dangerous. However, it would be inappropriate to expound further on that in this thread.

wow!

Mormons like Donnie and Marie, Trent Lott, Glen Beck vs Muslims like Hassan Nasrallah, Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden?

Im pretty sure my mom regarded Donny Osmond as a terrorist when I used to play his songs over and over again as a kid lol.

[Believer1997]

Hmm... ok - how many muslims does it take to make jihad? 2, 4, 6, 30 - 1000??? I would think more than 1, though jihad is considered a personal goal.. ... Is it not possible that this guy was just another nut job who has a grudge against his boss (in this case the US Army) and took it out on innocent people? I don't think there are too many of us who can 'profile' a terrorist and I think we can read and study a lot about profilers who do this for a career and assume we know a lot about jihadists, sleeper cells, etc. But, even the experts will be the first to admit that they don't always get it right. There will be a lot of people who look back and 'saw' something about this man that just wasn't right - many of the signs seem blatant and it is easy to be amazed that someone who worked with him or taught him or commanded him didn't see it... you know what they say about hindsight. There are a lot of people in this country who are muslim and will never break a law or do anything to hurt anyone. God bless those people who lost their lives to this senseless tragedy and I pray that God will give those families peace and comfort.

[ted]

No, that is just how YOU are spinning it. You are long on spin, but short on substance.

Substance falls on the deaf ears of hatred. You cannot reason with emotion. You cannot make sense of dispair. Fear is the rationalization of the uninformed.

About 90% of the posts on this topic are based on unrational fear and hatred for muslims. The heinous nature of the act is bringing people to react more with emotion and dispair and not really a reasoned and informed response.

Ted is about one of the most loving and reasonable guys on Worthy Boards...and the 'chrsitians' are ready to burn him at the stake over his comments...lol.

Why, because it doesn't fit in your particular version of PC? And nobody wants to butn Ted, just get him to stop drinking the PC kool-aid.

*Edited after a nap.

My comments in the original post here were even more dumb than me being accused of drinking PC "Kool-aid"

t.

Ted, I've been asked to lighten up on you, so I am.

And since I publicly offended you, I give you a public apology.

lol

Don't worry about it. I posted a bunch of junk in response to some of your posts, and then tried to edit them because they really weren't uplifting at all. I was very tired and not thinking clearly and let that into my words. For that, I want to apologize.

Eventually, I just scrapped the whole post. It's not what I wanted to say anyway, not with a clear head.

You don't have to ease up on me, I'm a big boy. There's not a whole lot anyone can say that will offend me in reality. I spent 20 years dogging people out and getting it back, and another 23 honing my skills in areas away from military settings......like heavy metal bands. But still, if I'm joining in and slinging mud, I deserve the same back.

Clearly, this issue is a hot topic and I failed to stay above the fray. Not only did I not conduct myself correctly on a personal level, I could have cast a bad light on the entire Ministry here due to my position as a Moderator.

I'll simply leave my thoughts on the table as these: Islam is a very bad thing. There are many our there who wish to hurt us and I fully support those that are involved in the fight against it. I do, however, know that not all of the people who follow it agree with the radical movements. I wish more of those would stand up against it, but sadly, not enough do to make a big enough impression for people to notice.

As of the other day, I could not see anything which led me to believe this idiot who caused so much death in Tx was anything more that a single instance of rage, using islam as an excuse for his actions. As time passes, we will see more and more about this, and I always remain open to the large possibility that I am wrong on any issue. We have to be careful with what we read in the coming days. On the "local" level, there will be divisive comments and reports that will feed each side of the issue. The important thing is to research each report and weed out the ones that are simply stretching too much to justify their side.

On the higher level, we must keep in mind that satan will literally use anything and everything to cause division among us. If it's something which divides Christians, it will be used. Things like these issues are just the ammo he needs to fire at us. Being human still, we eat it up every time if we are not careful. That is my true worry, not whether or not this guy was part of a larger group or not. If he is, then fine. We simply congirm what we already know abut islam. If he is not, then we only confirm what we know about mass killers who act out of rage. In the end, neither bit of knowledge causes us to gain much.

Take care,

t.

[ted]

edited my post while you made this response, not knowing that you posted. Sorry if it caused any confusion

Yes, it is nonsense, but you are incorrect if you don't think some people here feel this way but are perhaps too shy to come out and say it. The message is clear in some of these threads: the only way to truly eliminate the threat is to either jail all muslims, or to send them out of the country.

No, that is the value YOU are assigning to everyone else. You are making an emotional assertion, not a factual one.

I simply made my post as stupid as possible so that people can take a moment to think about what they are writing, and to calm down a little.

No, what you did was accuse everyone of saying that if a person is Muslim they should be discriminated against, jailed, deported etc. simply for being Muslim. You basically made a straw man argument. Frankly, I am surprised that you would stoop to that level of argumentation.

People get all roid-raged up and post things which don't make sense, and I'm simply drawing attention to the fact that if we are not careful, it's a very small step from "doing what is right" to "falling into the hole of no return".

Again, that is not evident in this thread. I have not seen anyone at this point indict all Muslims as muderers, terrorists or such. That is just a value that people like you assign to anyone who has temerity to tell the truth about how evil and satanic the Islamic idealogy really is.

I dunno, I just feel people are applying the wrong conclusions to this matter in Tx and coming to the false assumptions that all muslims are responsible for this on crazy dude's actions. They are not.

Really, who said "all muslims" are responsible for this one guy's actions?

If the shooter had been a devout Baptist preacher who snapped under the same circumstances (depressed about an upcoming deployment to a war he didn't believe in, got picked on a lot, etc), would the muslim world be justified in condemning all of Christianity just as some people here are doing to the muslim world right now?

Think about that last one hard, my friend (and friends).

Well since no one here is blaming all Muslims for this guy's actions, I don't really see that your tit-for-tat comparison is valid. They would not be justified and neither would we, but then we are not attempting to blame all Muslims, in the first place.

Brother Shiloh,

Have you really missed all of the posts in at least three threads dealing with this matter where people are calling for the deportation of muslims, weeding them out of the Military and Government, and placing guilt upon all muslims due to this incident? Have you really missed the posts that call for the US Government to place muslims under surveliance because we simply cannot trust them due to the war?

You personally may not have called for the deportation of all muslims, or said any of the things I am pointing out, but others have. Please take a few moments and review the various threads tonight (or when you get a chance) and you will see them. If you miss them again, I will be more than happy to take direct posts out and paste them here in this thread (unless of course, everyone scans through them and edits them out just to spite me, which I find impossible to believe lol- besides, I have amazing powers of moderation at my disposal to bring them back ).

Yes, some of my posts were based on emotion last night. I freely admit that here tonight. I took the prevailing thought and stretched it to the next level to provide a somewhat exaggerated approach to some of the arguments. However, I stand by my statements concerning the reality of the posts which I have seen in these threads. People have indeed called for deportation of muslims, removal of all muslims from military service and government jobs, and people have surely stated that this man who shot up everyone in TX was part of a world religion of which all followers must adhere to the call to kill Americans.

Again, please take a moment and review these threads. You don't have to search far, they are all here in the US News Section. If you cannot find them, I will quote directly from them if need be.

Thanks

t.

[humbleseeker]

I dont see whats wrong in the name of National security that we do look at all Muslims. Not out of hate, but out of love for America. We happen to be in a war that is currently fighting Islamic radicals. There may be peacefull ones, but we dont know who is about to snap and go on a shooting spree. If not all America, then at least those who work for the federal government. Its not a crazy idea, its just logic.

[nebula]

As of the other day, I could not see anything which led me to believe this idiot who caused so much death in Tx was anything more that a single instance of rage, using islam as an excuse for his actions. As time passes, we will see more and more about this, and I always remain open to the large possibility that I am wrong on any issue. We have to be careful with what we read in the coming days. On the "local" level, there will be divisive comments and reports that will feed each side of the issue. The important thing is to research each report and weed out the ones that are simply stretching too much to justify their side.

Have you seen this week's Uncle Jay explains the news? He addresses this very thing - about what we can or cannot trust about the news media reporting on the matter - only it's done in a humorous way. Point made, though.

[ted]

I dont see whats wrong in the name of National security that we do look at all Muslims. Not out of hate, but out of love for America. We happen to be in a war that is currently fighting Islamic radicals. There may be peacefull ones, but we dont know who is about to snap and go on a shooting spree. If not all America, then at least those who work for the federal government. Its not a crazy idea, its just logic.

I actually believe in the wisdom of surveillance of people and organizations which we suspect as being subversive to the US. I think it's prudent to follow up on leads, investigate hot-beds of radical activities and people who we may think could be a danger to our country. It makes no sense to not investigate these leads and see where they may take us. In other words, I believe in many of the same ideas as most people here. Trust me, I have no desire to get blown up, shot, or otherwise harmed by a proponent of radical islam.

What I believe we must do does differ than some though. I'm not for rounding up every muslim and containing them or shipping them out of the country. I'm not for automatically removing them from military or government positions, either. Do I think they should be screened? Yes. I think everyone should be screened, though. Every potential military member or government worker should be screened and have background checks completed. I'll even extend that to contract workers. Violence can come from all directions and we have to know who we are letting in the door.

However, I think that is quite different than rounding up all muslims, no matter who they are, and deporting them or containing them, which has been suggested in several posts by several people.

The most legitimate argument I can see is that we simply do not know who to trust during the war. We don't have the resources to investigate everyone so is it wise to consider containment for all muslims? I don't know...but I still do not think so. I still think that we would sacrifice way too much of our freedoms if we were to simply round up every group we suspect to be subversive. It's a fine line we walk when we act like that.

Sadly, no matter how deep we investigate, there's always going to be a few who will slip by. This latest shooting shows that even when some do see signs, they can slip by. Personally I think we should have acted some time ago on this one person but the wisdom of hindsight almost always makes things clearer after the fact, rather than before it.

I think we lose something very important if we decide to accuse by association without hard facts to support back those accusations up. For one thing, it opens the door for the Government to accuse anyone, and act as it sees fit. The trouble with that is that the finger of accusations could one day point to any of us, simply because we are associtated with what they consider to be the wrong group. This is one reason why I say it's not prudent to round up any one group (without concrete evidence, that is) and act without rational thought.

One thing Bush tried to do throughout his time in office was calm the country in the sense of not letting radical islam change the face of the nation too much as a result of our war with it. Yes, he enacted things like the Patriot Act (which was actually a call from the Democrats at first), but he tried to balance such sweeping laws with the freedoms we historically enjoy in America. To some, he went way too far, and to others, it wasn't far enough. History will show whcih is right, I guess.

Personally, I think he did a a fairly decent job of balancing the two. He apporved new laws which made it possible to act in new ways to investigate some of these groups and people and gave our law enforcement tools to work with. In some cases it was a good thing, and in others it turned out not so good. I don't think he was trying to set up such a program that he wanted to be abused, yet the potential for a abuse was there if people wanted to take advantage of it. I think he acted in good faith over all though. This stuff isn't so easy to do with a country so steeped in personal freedom, after all.

Where do we go from here, I guess is the big question.

I don't think guilt by association is the right way to go though. Basically, it's the RICO act all over again but on a much wider scale. Do we investigate everyone who owns a Harley Davidson because the Hell's Angels get busted in a drug sting? Do we even only go so far as to investigate all Hell's Angels because one chapter is involved with illegal things? Or do we limit our scope to only the ones that got busted and broaden the investigation based on new leads found during the case?

This example, of course, is somewhat limited in it's illustration as it applies to radical islamic terrorists, and I understand that there is a difference in the Hell's Angels and terrorists, but just use it for what it is- an illustration of guilt by association. The real question is how far do we want to apply it?

There has to be a way to apply it using the Constitutional freedoms all Americans are covered under, yet while still maintaining a comfortable level of protection to live our lives freely. I feel that radically changing any freedom and applying it to one group is the wrong way to go. While it may provide some protection, it opens up the door to so many other forms of abuse which can be used later with any other group the Government deems a valid target in which to apply it. When our Government has that much power to use at a whim if it so desires, we cease to be America.

I hope this post clears up any misconceptions people have about my views. If further clarification is needed, please ask. I'm more than willing to try. I just ask that people not accuse me of things that do not represent my views.

Above all else, we have to look toward God for our guidance. While we may think we have things nailed down and figured out, God has a unique way of showing us just how wrong we can be at times. I am open to being wrong just like anyone else, of course. and willingly open myself up to His correction.

t.