2003 April 09 Wednesday
More Muslim US Soldiers May Attack Americans

Bill Gertz reports on fears that additional Muslim soldiers in the US military will carry out attacks on US soldiers and civilians.

"There is concern that this may not be an isolated incident," said one intelligence official familiar with the investigation of Sgt. Asan Akbar, a member of the 101st Airborne Division who is charged with killing two U.S. soldiers in a grenade attack.

The US military will have to look at Muslim soldiers with greater scrutiny for signs of disloyalty. But at the same time in order to maintain the fiction that Muslims are no more likely than non-Muslims to attack fellow soliders the military will pretend that it is not really looking harder at Muslim soldiers.

The Cold War was easier to fight intellectually because during the Cold War the hawks could publically state that we were fighting communism in general. By contrast in today's battle against a religious ideology the fight is much harder because it is not considered acceptable to suggest that the problems we have with Islam are not a result of a small minority extremist interpretation of the meaning of the Islamic religion.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2003 April 09 01:28 AM  Civilizations Clash Of


Comments
David said at April 9, 2003 4:28 AM:

It is not a misinterpetation of Islam. Ben Laden and his cohorts are interpreting Islam to the letter. Jihad is a valid method and intention to subjugate the "infidel". There is even a proscribed method after the jihad. It is termed "dhimmitude", how to rule the "infidel".

It is the United States and Europe who are making the excuses and apologizing for Islam, not the Muslims.

And why? Well in America people feel uncomfortable criticizing religion and given that the President is an admitted mystic, it is not going to change.

Dale said at April 9, 2003 8:22 AM:

I find the use of "mystic" to describe the president as amusing. In general protestants reject the mystic elements of Catholicism and Orthodoxy in favor of a rational and systematic approach to theology. Remember that the crusades were a reaction to muslim incursions and not some kind of holy war to wipe out Islam. There is no biblical mandate to use force to wipe out other religions, so to lump all religions together as somehow inherently violent and dangerous is simplistic.
I agree that Islam itself is the danger, but not all religion is dangerous. BTW, I don't see that the Left has hesitated at all to criticize Christians, who, I hope, are able to critically assess their own failings.

Invisible Scientist said at April 9, 2003 12:48 PM:

As a Jew who lives in Israel, I can give you my
complete assurance that the invasion of Jerusalem
by the Crusaders, was NOT a defensive operation.
When the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, the slaughtered
all the civilian Muslims even though they had promised
that they were not going to do this if these people
surrendered. And on this occasion, the Crusaders also
locked the Jews of Jerusalem into a synagogue, and
burned the building with the Jews inside. And to put
the icing on the cake, when the Crusaders ran out of
food, they even ate some of the dead Muslims on one
occasion... I personally feel that I was never
bullied when I visited a Buddhist monastery in China
in Shanghai, during September 11, 2001. I feel that
some religions are less bigoted than others. I also
studied in a Catholic high school, but that's another
story.

David said at April 9, 2003 7:25 PM:

>>In general protestants reject the mystic elements of Catholicism and Orthodoxy in favor of a rational and systematic approach to theology.>>

They believe in a divinity. That is irrational. They believe in revelations and miracles and such, that is mystical.
The philosophy of not stealing and so on is sound. Religion was an early form of philosophy attributing that which they could not understand to "divine intervention".


Bob said at April 9, 2003 9:46 PM:

David,

With all due respect, while belief in a divinity may not be rational, it is not necessarily irrational, and in fact, it may be perfectly rational for some people.

If a person believes in a divinity to achieve goals, and if as a result of that belief the person achieves those goals, the belief in a divinity is perfectly rational.

If a person believes in a divinity for no particular reason, the belief is nonrational but not irrational.

Only when a person believes in a divinity to achieve goals and when the belief prevents the person from achieving those goals is the belief in a divinity irrational.

In this sense, my own atheism is almost certainly irrational when I could just as easily espouse agnosticism.

While I have no opinion on the relative rationality of Catholicism and Protestantism, the dogmatism exhibited in the first part of your argument makes me suspect the validity of the remainder.

I hope you did not post the dogmatic argument with the goal of convincing readers to your point of view because the choice of a dogmatic argument would then be...

Cheers,
Bob

Dale said at April 10, 2003 3:43 PM:

Invisible Scientist,
I did not mean to imply that no atrocities were committed during the Crusades. I think everyone would agree that atrocities were committed on both sides. I stand by my comment that the crusades were launched in response to a muslim action. But this is not even my main point, which is that while traditionally Christian nations have, with time, rejected forced conversion as a policy tool and rejected "holy war" in general as invalid, Muslim nations have not and they are therefore dangerous.
David,As for my other comment regarding mysticism, there clearly is a difference between protestant theology and others. I don't believe that mysticism implies any belief in a deity (or I have misinterpreted the definition) but is a specific kind of response to "God" if you will. Christian mysticism isn't a "theology" at all, but dismisses any systematic approach as "impossible." Of course if you regard belief in a deity per se as irrational then no religion will seem rational. On that point we will have to agree to disagree. But I digress, this posting was originally a comment on Iraqi soldiers in the military and the problems that might cause...

Invisible Scientist said at April 11, 2003 4:53 AM:

Dale,
Although it is true that Muslim Nations favored forced
conversion a lot more than the Christian Nations, it's
important to recall that on the downside, the European
Nations, including the Nazis, often viewed other
nations as un-worthy of assimilation, and fit for
annihilation. Even those Jews who converted to Chritianity
during the Inquisition in Spain, were systematically
discriminated against. For the Jews, this was more
deleterious than living under the rule
of Islam(big grin).

JYA said at June 4, 2005 6:21 PM:

This is infact to all of u guys, juss wanted to mention something. I find it hilarious and at the same time distressing when people like u guys try and discuss jihad and its matters as tho u knw what u are talking about. Jihad and the concept of Jihad is one of the biggest misconceptions about Islam that is present today. Please watch lectures from great scholars of Islam such as Dr. Zakir Naik...to understand the topic in more detail. Infact...the actual word 'Jihad' simply means 'struggle' or 'to struggle', it does NOT mean Holy War. Its juss funny wen u guys and huge masses try and even speak about this topic of Islam that is extremely deep as tho u knw everything about it from watching CNN. Its juss a joke these days. Neway, juss felt like pointing this out...also one last thing regarding the crusades...it is not apart of Islam to force people to embrace it...this is made quite clear in a verse of the Quran stating that 'There is no compulsion in religion', if u see a Muslim drinking alcohol would u say Islam permits the drinking of alcohol? mayb but the likely chance is No!...so why do people not hesitate to judge the teachings of Islam through the actions of a small group of Muslims on other matters that will give them a negative impression of Islam. Lastly Islam is not dangerous at all to humankind...not at all..whats dangerous is the misconceptions about Islam that are unfortunately so common in todays society.

M.Robinson said at July 25, 2005 7:29 AM:

there have been excesses by followers of all religions.The lie most peddled by anti-muslims is that conversions were forced, if so then why the large non-muslim populations in muslim countries. In actual it was christians who forced their beliefs on to others i.e the inquisitions, the conquistadors in south america and the finally you have no local religion surviving in south America. The Druid religion of Europe was wiped out by the Convert christians.
The jewish people fleeing from christian persecution (perdominently spanish), found a haven in the muslim Ottoman empire, which accepted the jews.

Unfortunately what tends to happen is the followers of any religion, over a period of time think of themselves as espousing true belief, and becoming dangerous to the wider world, this has been true of all the followers, whether christian, muslim, jew, hindu, or buddhist.

Tiger said at September 1, 2005 9:51 PM:

Hi All

After reading through the same I have following opinion

1.Most of the muslims are irrational/Islam is the religion of satan

2.They create problem everywhere and get beaten

3.Kindly dont take muslims in US ARMY, they will cheat

4.Muslim wome live like animals all over the world

5.Muslims are against our way of life and modernity

6.If they can kill us, we can wipe them out in large numbers

KILL MUSLIMS, THE ONLY WAY TO WORLD PEACE

Regards

TIGER


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright