Lars Larson: Time to take another look at Muslim extremists
Maybe it’s time to take a second, hard look at Muslim extremists within our military and American society. I know it’s controversial to suggest it, but maybe we do need to take a hard look at people who have extremist points of view in their religion. I’m talking about Muslims. I’m talking about followers of Islam and especially those who are in the United States military.
We don’t know what exactly happened that caused that shooting and murders of twelve people at that army post in Texas. But, when we do find it out, no matter what, we’re going to have to take a hard look at who is serving in our military. We need to find out whether some of their religious beliefs will lead them astray, will lead them to do murderous acts like this.
Maybe it was simply the prospect of his deployment overseas. But when we hear from the witnesses about the wounded being carried out after the shooting, saying the gunman was shouting out in Arabic, it certainly does make you wonder.
“For more Lars click here”
Maybe it was simply the prospect of his deployment overseas. But when we hear from the witnesses about the wounded being carried out after the shooting, saying the gunman was shouting out in Arabic, it certainly does make you wonder.
“For more Lars click here”
This afternoon I saw an interview on FOX with the Army Chief of Staff, General Casey.
During the Q&A period, every question and answer centered around Combat Stress and suicides among our military.
Not ONE person addressed the FACT that this was an individual practicing his view of Islamic Jihad.
After the press conference, the cameras went back to Shep Smith at the FOX studios. The first thing he said was, "The question on everyone's mind is, 'Why did he do this?'"
Why? WHY, you ask??
Let me tell you cowards in the media WHY. Hassan was a Muslim Fundamentalist Extremist. He did it to strike fear and grief in the hearts of Americans. He did it to hurt our military and to further the cause of Islam.
He didn't do it because he had PTSD, compassion fatigue or combat stress. He is not your average everyday PVT Joe Snuffy.
He is a TERRORIST. He is a terrorist sympathizer. (As indicated by his internet postings.) He is a Muslim Extremist.
And you damn well know it.
Today I am ashamed of our media. I am ashamed of our President. I am ashamed of our leadership.
Those of you who lack the ability to accept and report the truth of this situation are nothing more than cowards who are terrified of giving offense. You do a disservice to the brave men and women who have been killed and injured in your defense.
Stop insulting the solders by implying that they're all capable of this due to the stress of war. Stop insulting our military by implying that they don't take care of our troops.
Grow a pair and call it what it is - TERRORISM.
Good grief.
Why single out Muslim extremists? Why not single out anti-government extremists, too? Certainly when Tim McVeigh blew up the OKC Federal Bldg and we learned about the problem of the militia movement infiltrating the US military? What about Christian extremists..? Are they left alone--even though they're extremists?
And what is the threshold for "extreme"? Who gets to decide that?
Um, we did that with McVeigh and the OK city bombing, did you miss the congressional hearing on the matter? They went on for quite a while.
I guess you also missed Napolitano's terror alert over the summer, anyone who believed in the second amendment or was a returning vet should be considered a possible terrorist threat. This was pretty well publicised. If you missed it fine, but it definitly was out there.\
>Certainly when Tim McVeigh blew up the OKC Federal Bldg and we learned about the problem of the militia movement infiltrating the US military?
Actually we did. We learned that the left was very quick to blame both the militia movement ( the Michigan Militia had thrown McVeigh out after a few meetings and notified the FBI that he was dangerous, those notifications were ignored. It was kind of funny though, they had copies of the letters they had sent and everything. Personally I was loving it. ) and also blame second amendment supporters. Did you seriously miss Wayne LaPierre testifying before congress about this? That's quite astonishing because the left used to have a cow about branding people because of group affiliation, see Joe McCarthy.
And, and yeah, right, forgot one other little fact. The NRA had also notified the FBI when McVeigh tried to contact them with his nuttiness. Yep, they had the letters too.
>What about Christian extremists..?
What about them?
Tell you what, as soon as I start seeing a bunch of Methodists hijacking a plane, or a bunch of Quakers blowing up a building Ill worry, until then Ill stay on Def Con Beige on the Christian extremist thing.
Oh, yeah, and before you launch on the abortion thing. Asked and answered. We had a witch hunt about that one under Jan Reno. Even she found no conspiracy to blow up abortion clinics.
>Are they left alone--even though they're extremists?
Not really.
Tell you what, I have just cited case and point of various groups, the NRA, the Michigan Militia, and Pro Life groups being investigated for exactly what you say doesnt happen.
Thats three examples.
Now, can you name me a single congressional hearing in which Muslim groups were called to the hill to prove their disassociation from extremists?
I mean just one hearing. Not a hearing about terrorism. I want you to name me one single hearing where there was guilt by association, of the nature of the three examples I just mentioned, of Muslims in America.
Name
One
Lars hadn't yet discovered the hate-radio gold mine in 1995. He actually was a reasonably competent news person back then.
At some point he discovered that he could make a lot more money with a combination of parroting right-wing propaganda and making stuff up.
The fact is extremist exist everywhere but the threat from Islamic extremists has manifested itself around the world on a regular basis and with tragic consequences. In order to protect ourselves we need to recognize that certain groups invite closer scrutiny by tolerating extremism within their ranks. Islam tolerates such extremism because it is not perceived as all that extreme or dangerous. The holy texts of Islam make it very plain violence is acceptable and commendable in the pursuit of spreading the religion. In my mind that makes it incompatible with modern western civilization. We should reject such doctrine no less than we reject Nazism or racism.
If Islam will not clean it's own house then it should expect closer examination from those it threatens.
You have read the holy texts of Islam? If yes, what passages are you referring to?
All religions have lots of blood on their hands. All justify the killing of innocents as well as the guilty when it suits them. If we want to fall into bin Laden's trap and make this a war against 1.5 billion people then we are as stupid or arrogant as he seems to think we are. God help us all.
Bottom line, a Muslim-American soldier, for reasons we have yet to fully know, decided to legally purchase some semi-automatic weapons,a bunch of ammunition clips, and murder his fellow soldiers and some civilians. Does this have to do with the fact he is a Muslim? Undoubtedly. Does it tell us anything about the 2 million other American Muslims living amongst us, including thousands serving in the military? Not really. Any one of them could decide to become a murderer using religious or other reasons, just like any Christian among us could do the same.
Had the military decided at some point that this guy was too risky and kicked him out, would that have prevented him from becoming a murderer? Maybe and maybe not. He could have bought the same guns and walked into a suburban mall and killed as many or more people.
Peter 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
Matthew 7.1 Judge not, that you be not judged.
Corinthians 6:1-4 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?
Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
You're three dopes who don't get the point.
Your uncertainty of this guy's Islamic extremist terrorist reality is like remaining uncertain McVey was white long after it was obvious. You're that dumb.
We could go on and on with you dolts but it would be useless while you adjust every point made into some stupid point you want to respond to.
Just like Carla did in her usual progressive way,
"So...we're NOT supposed to take the Army Chief of Staff and the other number of military professionals"
NO, "So" Carla. Lars didn't suggest any such thing. He never denied the guy's mental issues or said we should set aside the military's experts.
Lars never said take this approach "instead of" the Army Chief of Staff and the other number of military professionals".
But you managed to put words in Lars' commentary and fabricated the choice he never made or suggested.
You and most other progressives do this all the time.
You can't just readm comprehend and respond to the real point made.
Nooooo. You have to go off into la la land with "so, you are saying" and make up your own version of what the other person said.
Sorry but that isn't bright. It's a disorder.
I don't think I have ever seen a liberal on here state unequivocally that they were simply wrong about a point. I've done so plenty of times here. I do think it is possible for a person to be wrong, myself included. Liberals? Nope, they never can just say it. They will always twist the point around into something no one ever said and then go off on some zany tangent and hope that papers over the essential fact that their central point was incorrect.
The proof of my contention is the long history of violence originating from the religion.
Rupert is absolutely correct about the liberal trolls who come here not to debate but to use misdirection. They contort the words and ideas of others into something different before applying any logic. It's the only way they can make sense.
Sorry Steve, that is not sufficient for your judgement that the Koran condones violence. Its like if a Muslim were to read a Muslim's interpretation of the old testament that concludes that Christians and Jews must be pretty violent people to go in for a God who destroys entire cities and killed or drowned all men women and children simply because some of them failed to worship Him properly.
I've never read the Koran, but I imagine that like every other Holy book, particularly the Bible, it contains passages that justify violence and others that promote peace. Holy books are inherently contradictory because they were all written by flawed humans trying to interpret complicated and ultimately uknowable mysteries. Ultimately the problem is with those who cherry pick certain passages or messages and decide they themselves are the hand of God and can act with impunity.
"Rupert is absolutely correct about the liberal trolls who come here not to debate but to use misdirection."
SNo, he is not correct, absolutely or otherwise. Sometimes what you call misdirection is an attempt at redirection which is an important tool for enlightenment. Simply following a single idea or notion down a linear path often leads to illogical conclusions. We who bother with this futile task challenge your political conclusions by redirecting because we see the world and events differently. Calling us "trolls" is just a way, along with other name calling, to not have to confront and debate opposing ideas. That is your limitation, not mine.
Rupert you ignorant slut
OK, now that I've gotten your attention with an insult you are free to brush aside. The thing you are most wrong about, day in and day out, is over generalizing about "liberals." What we think, what we eat, what we drive, what we say, what we do or don't admit to. You make accusations that can only be disproved if you happen to remember some post in the past that disproves your own faulty assumptions. If you don't (remember,) then you can continue with the same tired accusations over and again to no end.
You have trouble debating ideas with we liberals, so you insult the whole lot of us with your generalizations as your way of dismissing whatever we say. Then of course you congratulate yourself on winning your non debate.
Now back to Lars post. What is he really advocating? People have fredom of religion in this country, including the freedom to have extreme views about their religion. THey don't have the freedom or right to act out on those beliefs to commit crimes, including mass killiing. We can't go around arresting people for their thoughts, or where their beliefs might lead them. We can arrest them if and when they cross the line to violence, or if they advocate that others commit violence.
And we certainly can't go around singling out Muslims, extreme or otherwise. Its un-American and unconstitutional to do so. Anyway, why did bin Laden choose to recruit 19 or 20 maniacs who took advantage of our flight schools, and then flew our own planes into our own buildings? It was to drive a wedge between America and Muslims, because by doing so he feels he can rally 1.5 bilion people against us and drive us out of what he sees as his part of the world so that he can impose his Medieval view of how society should operate. And to the extent we go along with him in this by viewing all Muslims with suspicion, we play into his hands. We need to wise up. We are not at war with Muslims, not even with those who hold "extreme" views of their religion. We are at war with those who act out violently against us.
Lars never said take this approach "instead of" the Army Chief of Staff and the other number of military professionals".
Then this post by Lars is pointless.
Either we're looking at the killer's mental capacity and ongoing military performance issues as it relates to his service or we're doing a wide net screening for Muslim extremism in the US military--singling out those who practice Islam over those who practice other types of extremism.