What’s Islam Got to Do With It?

[Diuretic]

So this idea that blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion must take responsibility for whatever evil other blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion do is frankly un-American.

I find this statement in the OP to be the most hypocritical of the entire write up.

Why?

State legislatures and congress always passing resolutions to apologize for what the evil white man has done and those pushing for said legislation. Omission of this aspect in the article is indicative, in my humble but accurate opinion, of hypocrisy to the nth degree.
This doesn't even address the carrion call from some in this country that the white man (conservative specifically) is responsible for all repression and evils in the world.

Are you opposed to the concept of collective responsibility?

 

[Annie]

What was done will be the subject of due process. I'm going to pause for a moment and think about that. A bloke allegedly (I'm sorry I'd conditioned) carries out these acts. There is much, understandable pain in your society about this. But the defendant is treated for his wounds sustained in the action. He has been assigned a defence attorney. He will be given due process. I reckon that deserves a couple of elephant stamps (approval).

I have no doubt that there will be detailed inquiries into why this event wasn't prevented. And that's a good thing. What comes from those inquiries will be interesting and, for government, challenging.

I've no doubt he'll get his days in court. The fact is this was one attack, are there more just biding time? Why should any believe the government will act differently? It's obvious they are not working better than they did 9/10/01.

It seems this was on attack perpetrated by an individual. There could well be others biding their time but I have to ask why would they? On the face of it this man, the defendant, has gone nutso. The effect was a number of persons killed. As sad as it is, is that an unusual occurrence in a country of more than 300m people?

Why would any terrorist organisation want individuals to carry on like this? There would be no nett effect. It doesn't make sense to me. I simply can't see this as a terrorist attack (avoiding the painful semantics). I would think terrorists would do it differently.

I disagree with the premise that he wasn't working with a larger organization. There's quite a lot to say differently. Even if not officially, there's much evidence to say he considered himself to be united with a larger group.

 

[Diuretic]

I've no doubt he'll get his days in court. The fact is this was one attack, are there more just biding time? Why should any believe the government will act differently? It's obvious they are not working better than they did 9/10/01.

It seems this was on attack perpetrated by an individual. There could well be others biding their time but I have to ask why would they? On the face of it this man, the defendant, has gone nutso. The effect was a number of persons killed. As sad as it is, is that an unusual occurrence in a country of more than 300m people?

Why would any terrorist organisation want individuals to carry on like this? There would be no nett effect. It doesn't make sense to me. I simply can't see this as a terrorist attack (avoiding the painful semantics). I would think terrorists would do it differently.

I disagree with the premise that he wasn't working with a larger organization. There's quite a lot to say differently. Even if not officially, there's much evidence to say he considered himself to be united with a larger group.

And that is the province of fact and not opinion.

 

[Ringel05]

Why?

State legislatures and congress always passing resolutions to apologize for what the evil white man has done and those pushing for said legislation. Omission of this aspect in the article is indicative, in my humble but accurate opinion, of hypocrisy to the nth degree.
This doesn't even address the carrion call from some in this country that the white man (conservative specifically) is responsible for all repression and evils in the world.

Are you opposed to the concept of collective responsibility?

Yes, I, nor anyone else, are responsible for the actions of others or what our forefathers did.

 

[Diuretic]

State legislatures and congress always passing resolutions to apologize for what the evil white man has done and those pushing for said legislation. Omission of this aspect in the article is indicative, in my humble but accurate opinion, of hypocrisy to the nth degree.
This doesn't even address the carrion call from some in this country that the white man (conservative specifically) is responsible for all repression and evils in the world.

Are you opposed to the concept of collective responsibility?

Yes, I, nor anyone else, are responsible for the actions of others or what our forefathers did.

So this idea that blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion must take responsibility for whatever evil other blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion do is frankly un-American.

Do you agree with that proposition?

 

[Annie]

It seems this was on attack perpetrated by an individual. There could well be others biding their time but I have to ask why would they? On the face of it this man, the defendant, has gone nutso. The effect was a number of persons killed. As sad as it is, is that an unusual occurrence in a country of more than 300m people?

Why would any terrorist organisation want individuals to carry on like this? There would be no nett effect. It doesn't make sense to me. I simply can't see this as a terrorist attack (avoiding the painful semantics). I would think terrorists would do it differently.

I disagree with the premise that he wasn't working with a larger organization. There's quite a lot to say differently. Even if not officially, there's much evidence to say he considered himself to be united with a larger group.

And that is the province of fact and not opinion.

Indeed and the presentation of facts is the purview of the courts. We'll know soon enough. It's unsettling that it's finally the media doing it job, well some notably ABC, that has been shining their lights on what was missed.

 

[mal]

If a jihadist stood right in front of some of you and told you what he was about to do to you, and why, and screaming "allahu akbar", many of you would still be an apologist, oh wait, you would be dead

It's Sad how Insistent some are in Excusing and Apologizing for this...



peace...

 

[mal]

I've no doubt he'll get his days in court. The fact is this was one attack, are there more just biding time? Why should any believe the government will act differently? It's obvious they are not working better than they did 9/10/01.

It seems this was on attack perpetrated by an individual. There could well be others biding their time but I have to ask why would they? On the face of it this man, the defendant, has gone nutso. The effect was a number of persons killed. As sad as it is, is that an unusual occurrence in a country of more than 300m people?

Why would any terrorist organisation want individuals to carry on like this? There would be no nett effect. It doesn't make sense to me. I simply can't see this as a terrorist attack (avoiding the painful semantics). I would think terrorists would do it differently.

I disagree with the premise that he wasn't working with a larger organization. There's quite a lot to say differently. Even if not officially, there's much evidence to say he considered himself to be united with a larger group.

Why some are so Persistent in their Denials of this Reality is what the REAL Concern for our REPUBLIC is...



peace...

 

[Ringel05]

Are you opposed to the concept of collective responsibility?

Yes, I, nor anyone else, are responsible for the actions of others or what our forefathers did.

So this idea that blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion must take responsibility for whatever evil other blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion do is frankly un-American.

Do you agree with that proposition?

Yes, I stated as much in my last post. My issue is the tactic the article author is employing. It specifically omits one group of people, intentioned or not, and by this omission subconsciously perpetuates the stereotype that they, the omitted group, are the only group who perpetuates stereotypes. See my point now?

 

[Diuretic]

I disagree with the premise that he wasn't working with a larger organization. There's quite a lot to say differently. Even if not officially, there's much evidence to say he considered himself to be united with a larger group.

And that is the province of fact and not opinion.

Indeed and the presentation of facts is the purview of the courts. We'll know soon enough. It's unsettling that it's finally the media doing it job, well some notably ABC, that has been shining their lights on what was missed.

Annie, you know as well as I do, the media speculates. It's entertainment. 21st Century panem et circenses.

 

[Diuretic]

State legislatures and congress always passing resolutions to apologize for what the evil white man has done and those pushing for said legislation. Omission of this aspect in the article is indicative, in my humble but accurate opinion, of hypocrisy to the nth degree.
This doesn't even address the carrion call from some in this country that the white man (conservative specifically) is responsible for all repression and evils in the world.

Are you opposed to the concept of collective responsibility?

Yes, I, nor anyone else, are responsible for the actions of others or what our forefathers did.

So the alleged actions of Major Nidal are his and his alone?

 

[Annie]

And that is the province of fact and not opinion.

Indeed and the presentation of facts is the purview of the courts. We'll know soon enough. It's unsettling that it's finally the media doing it job, well some notably ABC, that has been shining their lights on what was missed.

Annie, you know as well as I do, the media speculates. It's entertainment. 21st Century panem et circenses.

And you are ignoring that in this case it's leaks that are fueling the stories. Seems many in Pentagon are not happy with went down for years, all in the name of sensitivity to islam. My guess is if something like this was putting your people in danger, you wouldn't be keen on it either.

I've got to go grade papers, catch you later.

 

[mal]

And that is the province of fact and not opinion.

Indeed and the presentation of facts is the purview of the courts. We'll know soon enough. It's unsettling that it's finally the media doing it job, well some notably ABC, that has been shining their lights on what was missed.

Annie, you know as well as I do, the media speculates. It's entertainment. 21st Century panem et circenses.

They Selectively ACT on SOME Information as they did with the Front Page of the NYT within 24 Hours of this Attack... Information THEY went Digging for.

They Quoted a Cousin about his being Harrassed instead of Headling Hasan's Call to Allah as he Shot at Servicepeople who were Ready to Deploy Against his "Brothers"...

If Entertainment or Hype was the Motivator, they would have Headlined with what Hasan said, not what his Cousin Claimed about Supposed "Harassment" which is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT unless you are Looking to Excuse his Actions...

Which the NYT Cleary was.



peace...

 

[del]

Indeed and the presentation of facts is the purview of the courts. We'll know soon enough. It's unsettling that it's finally the media doing it job, well some notably ABC, that has been shining their lights on what was missed.

Annie, you know as well as I do, the media speculates. It's entertainment. 21st Century panem et circenses.

They Selectively ACT on SOME Information as they did with the Front Page of the NYT within 24 Hours of this Attack... Information THEY went Digging for.

They Quoted a Cousin about his being Harrassed instead of Headling Hasan's Call to Allah as he Shot at Servicepeople who were Ready to Deploy Against his "Brothers"...

If Entertainment or Hype was the Motivator, they would have Headlined with what Hasan said, not what his Cousin Claimed about Supposed "Harassment" which is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT unless you are Looking to Excuse his Actions...

Which the NYT Cleary was.



peace...

 

[Diuretic]

Indeed and the presentation of facts is the purview of the courts. We'll know soon enough. It's unsettling that it's finally the media doing it job, well some notably ABC, that has been shining their lights on what was missed.

Annie, you know as well as I do, the media speculates. It's entertainment. 21st Century panem et circenses.

And you are ignoring that in this case it's leaks that are fueling the stories. Seems many in Pentagon are not happy with went down for years, all in the name of sensitivity to islam. My guess is if something like this was putting your people in danger, you wouldn't be keen on it either.

I've got to go grade papers, catch you later.

Not one of my favourite tasks, people don't understand how difficult it is. No curve though Annie! Get them on competence/mastery!

 

[Ringel05]

Are you opposed to the concept of collective responsibility?

Yes, I, nor anyone else, are responsible for the actions of others or what our forefathers did.

So the alleged actions of Major Nidal are his and his alone?

Yes, his actions are his alone. His motivation may or may not reflect that of a larger group of people, i.e. radical Islamic terrorists. That does not necessitate their "teachings" are the motivating factors for his actions and even if it develops that this is the case, he and he alone is responsible for his specific actions while anyone which may have provided the impetus are responsible for theirs. Also if this is the case then in one aspect they share responsibility but in individually contributing factors. This may sound like I am negating what I sad above but in that instance I was addressing responsibility in general, not specific, legal or social cases.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, I, nor anyone else, are responsible for the actions of others or what our forefathers did.

So this idea that blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion must take responsibility for whatever evil other blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion do is frankly un-American.

Do you agree with that proposition?

Yes, I stated as much in my last post. My issue is the tactic the article author is employing. It specifically omits one group of people, intentioned or not, and by this omission subconsciously perpetuates the stereotype that they, the omitted group, are the only group who perpetuates stereotypes. See my point now?

I do. And it informs me better. So, thank you for that. Back to thinking for me.

 

[mal]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eu3WIXuzmo]YouTube - TINA TURNER What's Love Got To Do With It EXTENDED VERSION [1984][/ame]

^To that Tune...

What's Islam got to do with it.

(Apologies to the Woman Ike used to Beat on)

Oh whats Islam got to do, got to do with it
What's Islam but a 15th Century Religion
What's Islam got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a head
When a head can be...

Yeah, and that's about as far as I got...

Tell ya the Truth, not really that Motivated once I got Started.

But I wanted to take a Shot at Ike and Tina, and this was as good a Vehicle as any.

Carry on.



peace...

 

[Ringel05]

So this idea that blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion must take responsibility for whatever evil other blacks/gays/Latinos/insert religious persuasion do is frankly un-American.

Do you agree with that proposition?

Yes, I stated as much in my last post. My issue is the tactic the article author is employing. It specifically omits one group of people, intentioned or not, and by this omission subconsciously perpetuates the stereotype that they, the omitted group, are the only group who perpetuates stereotypes. See my point now?

I do. And it informs me better. So, thank you for that. Back to thinking for me.

I realized I should have used the adjective 'tact' as opposed to 'tactic' when addressing the authors' omission. The vast majority of people project this unconsciously, not as a deliberate 'tactic'. Since I don't personally know the author I cannot make the accusation that it was deliberate. Oops.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Anyone like to dispute that argument? Or is it just about shouting insults from the sidelines now?

If there was the 'blame all Muslims' from the majority of people or even posters here, the point would be good.

To ignore the Islam factor of a person that has repeatedly spoken out in favor of suicide bombers, then actually attempts suicide by cops while mowing down 13 unarmed people, while in rapture calling out his god to watch him is just nonsensical. It's not 'Muslims' that are the problem, it's the orthodox extremists that are the problem.

If there's no “blame all Muslims” from anyone then that's fair enough.

I am now going to speculate. I'm speculating that the defendant has retreated into his religion in a manner in which the religion doesn't countenance. But let me make this point, I know nothing about Islam beyond what I can Google or Wikipediate (I'm claiming that verb because I haven't seen it anywhere) or my reading of Alfred Guillaume's “Islam” which I read several years ago (it was leisure-time reading, I didn't make notes). However my speculation allows me to think that the defendant began to develop a mental disorder over some time and as part of his attempts to achieve some sort of mental equilibrium he became more devout and possibly developed a more fundamentalist view of his religion and the teachings of its revealed text and the associated exegesis by the Prophet and various scholars. My speculation also allows me to consider that the defendant may have descended further into the depths of his mental illness so far that he, in his attempts to achieve mental equilibrium, became deluded to the point where he convinced himself that he, as a devout Muslim, had no choice but to act as he did.

Very nicely put. Unless and until the person is thoroughly examined legally, to the extent that he will talk, and medically, and information release allows, there is no way to know. In the midst of psychotic breaks, there is no telling what a human might do.

Hard as it is, this is where some adjustment in the uniformity of dealing, in law, with the mentally ill may be needed.

"Nolo" says this:

criminal insanity
A mental defect or disease that, as understood in most states, makes it impossible for a person to know what he or she is doing; or if he or she does know, to know that what they are doing is wrong. Some states define as insane those defendants who acted under an irresistible impulse, even if they knew their actions were wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, because criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make. (See also: irresistible impulse test, M'Naghten Rule)
​

The "M'Naghten Rule"

The "M'Naghten Rule"
In 1843, Daniel M'Naghten, an Englishman who was apparently a paranoid schizophrenic under the delusion that he was being persecuted, shot and killed Edward Drummond, Secretary to British Prime minister Sir Robert Peel. M'Naghten believed that Drummond was Peel. To the surprise of the nation, M'Naghten was found not guilty on the grounds that he was insane at the time of his act. The subsequent public outrage convinced the English House of Lords to establish standards for the defense of insanity, the result subsequently referred to as the M'Naghten Rule.

The M'Naghten Rule provides as follows: "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

The test to determine if a defendant can distinguish right from wrong is based on the idea that the defendant must know the difference in order to be convicted of a crime. Determining a defendant's ability to do so may seem straightforward enough, but dilemmas often arise in cases in which the M'Naghten standard is used. For instance, some issues focus on whether a defendant knew that his or her criminal acts were wrong or whether he or she knew that laws exist that prohibit these acts.

Criticism of the M'Naghten test often focuses on the test's concentration on a defendant's cognitive abilities. Questions also crop up about how to treat defendants who know their acts are against the law but who cannot control their impulses to commit them. Similarly, the courts need to determine how to evaluate and assign responsibility for emotional factors and compulsion. Additionally, because of the rule's inflexible cognitive standard, it tends to be difficult for defendants to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Despite these complications, M'Naghten has survived and is currently the rule in a majority of states with regard to the insanity defense (sometimes combined with the Irresistible Impulse Test).
​

From there we go to "Guilty but insane."

There is no standard definition from state to state, and who knows what the military definition is. The biggest problem I see in all of this is whether or not a person will, even if insane, continue to be a threat to others or self, be controlled by medication, will actually take medication, can be forced to take medication, and so on.

What I don't like is the "lynch" mentality, no matter who the criminal is, and I am also a believer that there are some among us that are so much a threat that locked up forever, medicated forever is ok.

What pisses me off is that some people just cannot stand it to take the time to shut up, wait, let the system work, let it do what it is supposed to do. What is even worse is that the ones screaming loudest (here for example) are the very same ones that when it is their family, or someone close, are the very ones that ignored, enabled, didn't get help for, wouldn't intervene, and then when it becomes a legal issue are screaming for every concession, that their situation is different, that their family or friend is deserving of special consideration like no one else on the planet.

My opinion of that bunch is that they are the same ones that are absolutely livid, nearly incoherently unhinged over what happened on 09-11-01, but just cannot make the transition from that to understanding how an Iraqi, a Kurd, an Afghani or a Palestinian feel at having their life, their family, their world destroyed for oil politics, for pissing contests, and having to put up with what is nothing less than arrogance over the social constructs of race and ethnicity.

Then there gets the part about "Islam" and what it is and what it isn't.

The same ones that will tell us that history, whether last week, last year, a decade or a century ago does not matter, "that was then," "it was a different time," "that isn't relevant now," have no problem dropping those arguments when condemning Islam, but immediately revert to them when dealing with Judeo-Christian history and writings.

And yup, some places there are Muslims whose lifestyle is nothing but archaic, but then again, if we look around at the other two western religions, some of them have very similar sorts, too. Seems to me, most of them are not the ones "?flying planes?," handling video threats, managing weapons systems, and so on. Archaic really isn't the problem, and until we root out the FLDS and other nuts here, taking on others externally on certain things is hypocrisy.

Back to Hassan: Crazy, maybe, needs to be locked up, dealt with, absolutely, but on an individual basis, about what he did, one person, and we have him in custody, so there is nothing but time, and we need to take the time to do it absolutely right.




Now, I haven’t known a lot of them, but the people I have known that are either Palestinian or Palestinian descent tend to be very stressed, intense, and often hurt people. Considering both circumstantial and cultural factors, one could wonder why more of this group haven’t gone off the deep end.