Okay, I'm going to be the bad man in the room but someone's gotta say it.

Connecting a specific incident to a broad-based generalization about an entire group of people is always a dangerous proposition. Why? Because context matters.

Let's take a look at Jim Adkisson. He walked into a unitarian church and started shooting people specifically because of a hatred of gays, liberals and democrats. He was a dyed in the wool conservative who followed the writings and media of O'reilly, Hannity and Savage religiously. In a sworn affidavit, he stated;

"During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years."

Now, Adkisson killed 2 people and wounded 7 others. Thankfully he was tackled and disarmed by quick thinking church members before he could do more damage.

Does this incident mean that the "conservative identity is becoming increasingly problematic in the USA"?

Not at all. But using the same logic for the Hasan shootings, it does.

Look at Timothy Mcveigh. His actions killed a whole lot more people than either Adkisson or Hasan. Using the same logic that is being applied to Hasan, this would mean that any caucasian U.S military veteran should be barred from owning or bearing any kind of arms and be monitored by the State the same as registered sex offenders, for our general security of course.

Now, I'm not meaning to make folks angry here but stating that what Hasan did is indicative of Islam in general is using a pretty damn big brushstroke. Afterall, there are 1.4 billion muslims on the planet, almost 5 times more people than the entire population of the U.S.

To further complicate matters, one issue that hasn't had a lot of light shined on it is the dependency of the U.S military has had on Muslims in it's operations overseas AND the effect that dependency has had on the nation's it is trying to help.

Please allow me to explain.

Most U.S servicemembers are not functional in Arabic. Yes, anyone can learn how to say hello, goodbye and such but from an operational standpoint if you can't communicate with the general populace -ESPECIALLY- in a counter-insurgency environment then you've already lost and might as well go home.

To fill this gap, the U.S military has depended heavily on translators. Yes, some officers and NCO's have learned how to speak functional Arabic (we're talking Iraq, Afghanistan is another matter and group of languages entirely) but by an large there has been a massive shortage of translators since day 1 and there still is. So, the U.S military had a couple of choices;

1) Recruit from within the  U.S, taking muslim recruits and sending them overseas largely as translators. While this helped to bridge the gap it wasn't nearly enough so we come to the next option;

2) Recruit locally overseas. Getting a hold of someone who can speak both english and arabic in Iraq means that statistically speaking, that person is going to be generally well-educated. Also, translator jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan pay VERY well in comparison to just about any other vocation. So, folks who otherwise would be doctors, lawyers and engineers... the professional class that any country needs to run it's power and water treatment plants as well as educate the populace and treat their diseases... have instead largely been co-opted to become translators. This has had the effect of delaying or retarding the national rebuilding effort as folks who -could- be employed to help rebuild have instead been employed to travel around with foreign troops as a liason.

The local recruits also face a major problem- they actually live in-country with their families, which means they are a huge target for the enemy. Anyone who's signed up to be a translator in Iraq and Afghanistan knowingly puts not just themselves but also their family in harm's way, so you could say they're taking a major risk and doing a very gutsy thing to help out the Americans.

The point I'm trying to make is that overall, there are many Muslims, both U.S citizens and foreigners, who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to help the U.S as translators and such. In short, you could definitely say that there are many true hero's who are Muslim and also wear the U.S uniform or are employed by them. Without them the U.S adventures overseas would have most assuredly have failed or resulted in far greater death and destruction than has already occurred.

What Major Hasan did is deplorable and has no excuse, just as what Jim Adkisson and Tim Mcveigh did has no excuse either.

But I do not believe it is indicative of a problem with 1.4 billion people, anymore so than the killer of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin would be indicative of a problem with any Israeli citizen who considers themselves to be right wing politically.

It may be fun to make sweeping generalizations, but when you step back and look at the whole picture, Islam is indeed a peaceful religion. It has been co-opted for political and military purposes many times in the past, but so too has Christianity.

I seem to remember this CRAZY thing in Spain called the inquisition (church has just a teensy part to play in that) and the decimation of millions of aboriginals in the America's (north and south) in which we were just doing our Christian duty of spreading the faith to a supposedly backward people.

Exactly true.

No not for an arrest, but certainly enough for dismissal from the Army. Spew this type of rhetoric and you'd be fired. I once work at a government contracted job where saying "Merry Christmas" would get you fired. Also many rights afforded to US citizens are not afforded to service men and women. On of those is making political statement for or against any issue while in an official capacity. This is why you don't see military in uniform at political rallies. So no, constitutional rights where not a factor in preventing this tragedy.

Well here's the problem little problem with your logic. Our beloved Director of Homeland Security has already placed conservatives, veterans, and tea party goers on the terrorist watch list. It would be to mean and cost some liberal votes if Muslims were to be placed on the list. All this despite the rise of home-grown Muslim related terrorist plots of which the latest being successful.

I'm not suggesting a round up all Muslims, but if you smell rotting fish, check out the fish market, not the meat market.

This incident was 100% preventable. The PC mentality that doesn't want to offend allowed this to occur. If I were a Muslim, I'd have no problem with someone questioning me if they expect something, because it makes it safer for all. In fact, I thank the security screener's that ask to inspect my bag at the airport or the cashier that asks for ID when I use a credit card. Some would be offended or annoyed, but I know these are the people doing their job to protect me and everyone else. People with something to hide are usually the first to hide behind their rights yet unlikely to care about anyone else's if it inconveniences them.

Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.  I'm not nor do I think any one else here is using an ALL statement. Now if people were using an all statement then that would be wrong.

Noticeably, when Islam is in a location there is usually tension.  I've lived in Thailand. There is a saying in Thailand to be Thai is to be Buddhist.  When I was in the Southern part of Thailand there were Muslims there.  The muslims were antagonizing the buddhist. If you see violence in Thailand its most likely from the Southern part.

Again, I'm not saying ALL muslims go around killing people BUT if you do read the qur'an and the hadith you'll gain a better understanding of what they believe.  PARTICUALLY the hadith.  If there is any question to what the qur'an was saying you can just read about how muhammad demonstrated how it was to be. 

To be honest with you, it seems like you've probably never ever read either.  Well maybe you've glanced at the covers. 

You make it seem like most Iraqis don't want the U.S there.  WAY TO BUY what the biased media wants you to buy.  I have some purple koolaid that I am dying for someone to sample.  NEWS FLASH!  Most of the terrorists that have come and taken people hostage, guess what!  Most Iraqis will tell you 'hey! that guys not from around here!' You know how they can tell, by the accents.  You know what the biased daft media said?  They just make a general claim that he's an Iraqi! Wait wait wait, just because he's speaking arabic automatically makes him an Iraqi, what!!!!!!!!!!!! Wrong!

While we're on this subject, how do you feel about Iran?  I'm sure you feel that everyone in Iran hates the U.S and that Mahoud Ahmadinejad is a favorite politican.  Especially, considering the media plays Iranians chatting "Marg bar Amreeka" WAIT WAIT! If you listen to most of the videos they're not saying that because that's in Farsi, they're saying "Al mout li Amreeka" which is in arabic. Hmmm strange how most Iranians speak Farsi.

What's the lesson here: past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior

You're not the 'bad guy in the room,' Arty.  Just one of the wrong guys.

Agreed.  But the comments & concerns here have been specifically about Hasan, in a specific context.

He was a domestic terrorist.  In fact, he fit Napolitano's definition better than Hasan does.  But please provide documentation that any of the people he actually killed were gays, liberals or democrats, and that Adkisson had specific knowledge of who was what beforehand.

Please provide one, just one, quote from any of O'Reilly's, Hannity's or Savage's writings which advocates the killing of anyone, much less gays, liberals and democrats.

Agreed.  Otherwise, Michael Chertoff would have been immediately issued a warning about a potential anti-conservative backlash.

No, it doesn't.  The two situations were entirely different - as you said, context matters.

What 'logic' are you saying is being applied to Hasan here?  McVeigh was a domestic terrorist, no question, but what logic is being applied that, if applied to McVeigh, would dictate that all veterans be treated in the way you suggest?

No one is generalizing Hasan's actions to all Muslims.  To radical, jihadist Muslims, yes.  To Muslims who, while not advocates of or active participants in terrorist acts, nonetheless praise them, yes.  The charge that all Muslims are being painted with the same broad brush is a straw man.

And to whom is it that they place themselves at risk?  Only the radical, jihadist Muslims, not to the overwhelming majority of Muslims, if indeed they are as peace-loving as you (and they) claim, something I believe to be true.

Since context is the thing, what do these historical events have to do with Hasan?

Hasan appears to have had very specific beliefs incompatible with service in the US Military and, according to many first-hand accounts, spoke of them openly.  He identified himself as a 'Son of Allah' on his business card, no less.  He did not just 'snap' in the heat of battle or some other acute stress, notice laser-guided semi-automatic weapons in his pocket and begin firing them at whoever happened to be nearby.  He prayed, then went to a location where he knew large numbers of unarmed soldiers would be in a confined space, may have declared 'Allahu Akbar!' (reports vary) then began methodically murdering as many innocents as he could, including a woman and her unborn child.  If he was not an Al Qaeda sleeper, he was most certainly a wannabe.  If you truly believe that Hasan is no different than Adkisson or McVeigh, which apparently is going to be the official position of the US Government, then you and all of America are condemned to suffer more, perhaps many more, Hasans.  If we as a nation cannot scrutinize or question those who might do us harm, for fear of offending the sensitivities of Muslims who claim to be peaceloving and should be supporting us in such efforts, we will eventually be overrun by an enemy with no such PC queasiness.

It's even stranger considering that those in Iran who do speak Arabic are the oppressed Sunni minority at the Persian Gulf who have better things to do then shout "death to America". Their extremists hate the Iranian regime, not the Americans (or even the Israelis).

Those are foreign Arabs imported to protest for the regime which is popular among certain Arab circles but not among Iranians.

When the revolt was going on violently a few months ago students from Tehran reported that their dorms were under attack by Arabic-speaking "security" people. Apparently Iran found a use for imported Hizbullah trainees. (Hizbullah is trained and equipped by Iran.)

It is apparent that the Iranian regime simply doesn't have enough actual Iranians who are willing to shout "death to America" these days.

Iranian (actual such) protesters are also busy shouting "death to the dictator" and "death to Russia" and burning Hizbullah flags at the moment. Very popular is also the shout "Not Gaza! Not Lebanon! Iran!". Iranians feel that the Iranian regime sends lots of money to those Arab groups while actual Iranians cannot buy petrol. (Note that fighting Israel has no value to most Iranians.)

The western media might just be trying to hide these things from viewers so as not to destroy the image of the America-hating evil Iranian.

The only America-hating evil Iranian is the one Obama wants to be friends with.

Daiwa

I was responding to the OP's statement:

 He has specifically said that the "islamic identity clashes head long with that of a secular state"

I was simply arguing that that is not the case. I was using the case of Adkisson and Mcveigh to demonstrate that the actions of one or two batshit crazy people should not be used to justify discrimination of an entire cultural or ethnic group. And the proof is in the pudding. Let's look at the numbers.

Since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars started (going on 8 years now) how many incidents have occurred in which Muslim members of the U.S forces have turned on their comrades???

Two. 2 incidents over 8 years of warfare. The first was around the beginning of the Iraq war when an army sargeant killed two officers and wounded 14 others. The other was the incident that we are talking about most recently.

Now, let me be clear that in no way am I justifying or condoning their actions. Quite the contrary. But, if you were to look at the number of "fraggings" that occurred in Vietnam... an interesting sidenote is that the combined U.S combat mission to Afghanistan and Iraq has now gone on longer than your involvement in Vietnam... that the amount of intentional fratricide carried out during that shorter period was much, much higher. Does this mean that the uniformed members who killed their comrades in Vietnam were "domestic terrorists" and indicative of a problem with "identity based politics"?

No, it doesn't. And yes, I'm fully aware that I'm comparing apples to oranges in the differences between Vietnam and Iraq (what with the whole unhappy conscript thing)

But let's look at Major Hasan's case. He was born, raised and educated in the U.S. He was in the army for years...you don't become a major overnight... and if this cafeteria shooting rampage was a planned act of terrorism that was part of a bigger plan, then the planner is a complete and utter retard who wasted a once in a lifetime opportunity. -IF- Major Hasan was actually a terrorist, he would have gladly deployed overseas as he could have done far, far more damage as a high ranking officer deployed in a combat zone. Nothing could kill more servicemembers than a traitor in their midst either passing sensitive info to the enemy or actively working with them.

Or, if he didn't deploy and was meant to be used as a domestic terrorist, again, what he did was the most idiotic thing imaginable. Groups like AQ would have killed (literally) for the opportunity of having an officer with a relatively high rank situated within their enemy's military. Rank has it's privileges and the higher you go the less questions tend to get asked as to what you're doing!

Are you trying to say that his religion had nothing to do this?  Let me get this right for it seems you feel that him going to war and unfairness of that is the reason he snapped?

Do you even understand what any Islamic extremist groups main goal is?  Most Islamic extremist don't view Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, or Israel/PA conflict as different seperate wars but as one war on many different fronts.  What you might feel is a lost may not be a lost.  

The media is playing right into their hand. To keep pushing that Islamic extremist (in reality they're the fundalmentalist) are not the problem.  That this is just a 'few' individiuals who have hijacked a 'peaceful' religion.  When I read the hadith I see nothing 'peaceful' about this religion.  The only 'peaceful' thing I see about it is if they get what they want (which they won't). 

Islamic extremist are getting what they want in Europe.  In 2007, in the Netherlands about 20% percent of the population are foreign Muslims (these are radical).  You probably don't know this because most people in the states don't, in France there have been several big riots (2005,2007,2009) all done by Muslims.  In parts of France, they already have Sharia law in place.  In Michiagan, there are several cities pushing for it and already exact it.  I could continue down the list, but oh wait this is just some random individuals.

While you can go and say that this was just some random flake.  When are you going to STOP BEING SO DAFT and open your eyes to reality instead of listen to make-believe?

"Islam is seen as the biggest challenge to the country's secular model in the past 100 years." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4375910.stm

Yeah, this is just a random blip on the radar.

Sounds like we (sort of) agree, Arty.

Whether AQ was formally involved is not the issue, though I hardly think it is beyond possibility - asymmetric, isolated acts of terror such as this massacre would seem to fit their publicly espoused desire to instill fear through random, unpredictable violence in places of presumed safety.  I'd also have no difficulty accepting that AQ operatives could fool the living shit out of our so-called security experts.

He held a jihadist point of view, whether or not he had any formal ties with AQ (how 'formal' would you expect such ties to be, BTW?), and appears to have acted upon those views & beliefs.  That qualifies him as a terrorist.  I agree that doesn't implicate all Muslims as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.  It does implicate that subset of Muslims with a similar set of beliefs, however - the paint brush indeed reaches that far.

Footnote: As for the 'snapped' theory, it appears he never counseled troops 'returning' from the theater, only troops about to be deployed.  So PTSD-by-proxy, a contagious disease of dubious legitimacy if there ever was one, is out.  If he had any stress, it had to do with him personally, with his own fears or desire to avoid deployment.  Someone who is stresed about someone else being stressed doesn't murder them to save them from that stress.  That's twisting logic way past the breaking point.

Another point as to his rank and the notion that promotion means he must have had something going for him - with physicians, promotion is a formality (not competitive) up to a certain rank (usually 3 bars) and pretty much automatic, coinciding with certain milestones such as graduation from medical school and completion of a residency (unless things have drastically changed since I was in).  You'd have to screw up pretty badly to miss essentially 'scheduled' promotions up to 3 bars.

Well, in the case of AQ, yes I do. Bin Laden gave a rare live interview in the 90's in which he laid out his position quite nicely. He stated that he was going to carry out terror attacks on the U.S, and that he was hoping this would provoke a reaction from the Americans who would respond by invading at least one (or, in his mind, hopefully more) Muslim countries. This would give his and other fringe groups wonderful recruiting opportunities as well as targets, as well has turn public sentiment in many arab countries against the Americans.

And look how it's turned out. In Afghanistan, AQ fled (you never got the actual guy responsible for 9/11) and now the U.S is engaged in a long term battle against the Taliban that is unwinnable. In Iraq you've claimed "victory" after buying off the felows who were shooting at you but the Iraqi government has passed a law stating that U.S combat personnel have to leave the country in just under 3 years time, meanwhile the government is majority shiite that is heavily influenced by Iran. And never mind the total 3 trillion dollar cost of the whole thing (all on VISA with compound interest) or the 35,000 and counting U.S casualties.

So far, the U.S has quite literally played right into the hands of those who attacked it on 9/11, as worldwide sentiment is no longer on it's side. The U.S armed forces have been stretched in so many areas (both personnel and materiel) thanks to the longest continuous combat deployment in the history of your nation, with some servicemen having conducted 3 or 4 tours overseas. If you include returning servicemen with PTSD as casualties, then the number swells to well over a hundred thousand or more young men and women who will no longer live normal lives and, unfortunately stand a good chance of ending up in prison or on the streets.

20% of the Netherlands population are radical Muslims?!?! My Gods, it must be a veritable hell-hole over there!

Wait, hold on one second..... isn't Amsterdam part of the Netherlands? And, can't folks in Amsterdam purchase and smoke weed in cafe's and take a stroll through a comely little place called the red light district where one can make the aquaintance of a nice gal (or guy) for a reasonable price????

Methinks Sharia would not look too kindly on that.

Oh, wait, I just remembered. One of my childhood friends is also from the Netherlands. He goes back there every few years to visit family and do the vacation thing. I'll go ask him what an utter hell-hole the Netherlands is.

Well, I'd like to know what your reality is. Tell me "the people's party"...... how many radical muslim terrorists do you know on a first name basis? This has to be someone that lives in your town and that you talk to every day, not a picture you saw on the web... and not someone you "think" is a terrorist but someone who actually is.

Let me tell you my story.

I work with several Muslims. In my department at work, we have one fellow from Yemen, three from Pakistan, two from India and one from Bangladesh and also one from Sri Lanka. Also working for the same company are at least 2 Palestinians and 3 Lebanese, all of the above are Muslim. We also have Phillipinos (spelling?)  Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Polish, Chinese and so on and so forth. We're a veritable united nations!

The most tension or problems in the group has been between the folks from India and Pakistan when it comes to Cricket matches. I don't follow the sport so can't say what the hubbub is about.

About the most dangerous thing I've seen any of my Muslim co-workers do is when they had me over to smoke Shisha and have some of their home dishes. FYI, Lebanese food is good but make sure you take small portions because you'll be expected to have several courses.

Oh, and when we have a pizza day we make sure to get a couple of pies that have no pork on them, which is the same consideration we would have if there was a Jewish person in the group.

Outside of work, I know even more Muslims. My local coffee shop is owned and operated by Muslisms and there's a very nice couple who own and run a mean falafel house just down the street. These are all people I consider to be my friends and would not in any way consider to be "radical".

So, I can honestly say that I don't know any terrorists on a first name basis, but yet all of the Muslim folks I've met seem to be pretty decent human beings. 

I lived in Gaza Strip.  I'm not some neonate. Need I say more but this is just a pissing contest. You try to push it off with the Amsterdam comment as if I don't know that? So just because a culture is open to everything MAKES IT PERFECT for Muslim Extremist.  Hitler got power by using democracy to his advantage.  The more open a society it is the easier it will be to get to what you want.

You know the 9-11 hijackors some of them were in Florida in place near Panama City.  Since, I'm guessing you're not from the States, Panama City is where spring breakers go.  Essentially, the five-o (aka the police) are just there to make sure no riot breaks out.  At night, everything else is essentially alright (you know except for the obvious murder). 

I will respond more later I have to get up early tomorrow.  Yes, to your question about Terriorist and yes to your question that I know/have friends that are Muslim.

Maybe you should just pick up and read the hadith (which I'm sure you googled it when I first mentioned it). NOTICE HOW I DIDN'T SAY THE QUR'AN.

On a final note, you try to use a few personal connections to defend your point? As if that's logical.  Again, maybe you should read the hadith.

You are aware that the Iraqi government is fighting Iran-supported militias?

Having been born in Germany I cannot share your enthusiasm for letting dictators live because pf the high cost of removing them from power.

You think Al-Qaeda wanted to hide in caves while the Shiites become a world power?

Was it ever?