We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day By any reasonable definition, Maj Nidal Hasan’s 2009 rampage at Fort Hood, Texas was a terrorist attack. He proudly admits that he killed in the service of the Taliban, and witnesses say that he shouted “Allahu Ackbar!” as he fired. The Obama government, though, continues to insist that Hasan’s attack constitutes “workplace violence.”
– Bryan Preston.
Well, as far as The Community Organizer is concerned, his way of dealing with Islamist terrorism is to deny its existence. Deny it enough, and it will go away. (In case anyone starts accusing me of fear-mongering, I would immediately point out that accepting that there is a problem is not the same at all as knowing what specifically to do about it.)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Well, obviously, Nadal was acting “Islamically”. I love Preston’s use of the term “workplace violence” which sounds like minor fisticuffs over a shift change and not a mass shooting.
More generally. To deny the reason for something is to misunderstand it and that means you don’t get it so you can’t fight it.
Why would anyone accuse you of “fear-mongering”? It’s a simple statement of fact.
I think the evidence for Barry O being a closet Sunni is becoming overwhelming:
By birth he is definitely Muslim, the penalty for apostasy being death
In Indonesia he attended Friday Koran classes and his half sister maintains the whole family was Muslim
He has worn a ring conventionally where one would normally wear a wedding ring, since student days inscribed in Arabic with the first words of the Shahada or declaration of faith which if repeated and witnessed is taken as an irrevocable commitment to Islam. Given his background he cannot be unaware of its significance. Any Muslims seeing it would understand it to mean he was a fellow believer.
His statements on the call to prayer ( the sweetest sound), his obeisance to the Saudi king and his praise for Islam are on record.
He appointed John Brennan as head of the CIA who has been to Mecca during the haj, which suggests his conversion while posted to Saudi Arabia in the 90s. Non-Muslims are forbidden to enter on pain of death.
He failed to support the secular Green Revolution in Iran and has consistently failed to voice any disquiet at ongoing persecution of Christians in Egypt, Pakistan or Syria by Islamists.
Taqiya, or dissimulation and deception of non-believers is an approved political strategy in the Koran.
Fortunately, the characterisation of the crime didn’t affect the verdict or the sentence.
What Laird said!
Although personally I still think It has two ideologies: First, self-aggrandizement to be realizded in all ways possible, especially rock-star-ness, and second, the Destruction of the U.S. and U.K.–the Anglosphere–the West. (Including Israel, of course.)
Practical supports for the agendas required by these overarching ideologies include neo-Marxism/Progressivism/Fascism/Alinskyism; support of IslamoNazis, especially the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Wun will win a third term in office which is good because no one will be able to solve the problems he created and there needs to be a good clean out of the political class, remember FDR.
My own “reasonable definition” of terrorism would exclude military targets (i.e. USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Beirut barracks, etc.), but that doesn’t mean that the Ft Hood shooting spree wasn’t hostile fire in the line of duty, as opposed to “workplace violence”.
Julie near Chicago says
Are we talking Nidal or Obama here?
The latter, Ellen. The Anointed One. Our Dear and Glorious Leader. “Springsteen Mugabe” by name. Although I do not consider It human, but rather a creation of Cthulhu trained by the Sith and inducted as one of them.
Presumably 9/11 was an air accident.
If Obama & Co. were calling the attack terror instead of whatever newspeak term was used, it could have jeopardized the trial or given grounds for an appeal. By waiting until after the appeals process has been decided before issuing Purple Hearts and using the T word, that issue is neatly sidestepped.
Hasan’s been a special case since the shooting and handled with kid gloves to prevent a successful appeal on whatever grounds his legal team thinks up. I hate defending anything the Lightbringer ever says and/or does, but I can see the logic in how this wole affair has been handled.
Not true, Steven R. This was not a civilian criminal trial but a military one. The rules are different, and calling Nidal’s actions “terrorism” wouldn’t have jeopardized either the trial or its inevitable appeals in any way. There was no deep legal strategy involved (as if Obama were capable of such anyway), merely the reflexive desire of this administration to avoid saying anything against Muslims, even evil terrorist ones. I’m all for giving the devil his due, but only where warranted. That’s just not the case here.
This is one of several cases of terrorism in the United States (for example the bombing of military recruitment centres) – which the Administration (and the msm) downplay.
One can talk about modern politics – and there is a lot to be gained from doing that. However, the roots of this (this misunderstanding and downplaying of the Islamic threat) go back a lot further (and deeper).
I was recently re reading Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and was struck by the falsely positive account Gibbon gives of Mohammed.
This is not isolated to Gibbon – but is a general feature of a certain sort of Enlightenment thinker (not all Enlightenment thinkers – but a certain type, mostly French but some British and German).
They are not really closet Muslims – they have an agenda.
Their agenda (the agenda of Gibbon and so on) is to sneer at the Christian West. The praise for Mohammed, Islam and so on is just a backhanded was of doing this.
But what is sneering by certain 18th century thinkers, is deadly if taken as the literal truth by 21st century politicians (Blair, Bush and so on – including those in the Marxist tradition such as Barack Obama).
Mohammed was not a civilised and decent man – he was an evil man.
Islam is a religion of “peace” – accept peace by SUBMISSION.
And so on.
By the way…..
It is not that people like Gibbon were not answered, it is that the answers have been forgotten.
In modern culture the critics (the foes) of the basic philosophical assumptions of Western Civilisation are remembered and honoured – Hobbes, Hume and so on.
But the defenders of the West are forgotten.
Modern culture (since the very late 19th century) treats the critics of the mainstream (the mainstream philosophical assumptions of Western Civilisation) – as if they were the mainstream.
This is likely to lead to disaster.
In relation to Islam – and in relation to other matters.
Fair amount of tin foil hattery in this comment thread.
I wish we could stop using the word ‘terrorism’ and call it for what it is: mass murder.
PeterT, of course it was “mass murder”; that’s what all terrorism is. But to simply call it that is to ignore the extremely important issue of motivation. Terminology matters.
Laird- Yes, terminology does matters. Can you define “terrorism” in such a way to include attacks on our military targets by irregular forces (including illegal, non-uniformed combatants and fifth-columnists like Hasan), but exclude attacks by our irregular forces (including non-uniformed combatants such as CIA operations division) on military targets? Are the latter legitimized because they are state sanctioned and the former “terrorism” because they are by non-state actors? Or is it just an us vs. them thing i.e. they’re wrong because we’re the good guys?
Use of the t-word to describe irregular attacks on military targets cheapens it to the point of uselessness.
You have a point, Scooby. There is rightfully less of a fuss over the plane that hit the Pentagon than the ones that hit the World Trade Center. The Pentagon was/is a military target filled with military people, as were the Beirut barracks. The World Trade Center was a domestic target filled with civilians, and the “little Eichmanns” rhetoric simply doesn’t change that.
Calling Hasan a murdering Islamist fanatic is probably more accurate than terrorist. But calling what happened workplace violence is, while somewhat accurate, a contemptable try at minimizing the whole thing.
Scooby, for what it’s worth I don’t consider an attack on a military or government target to be “terrorism”, whether it’s conducted by “proper” military or irregular forces. A terrorist attack is one directed against civilian noncombatants for political objectives. Had Nadal directed his fire into a barracks or other military space it would not have been terrorist (although it certainly would have been treasonous, as he was an Army officer), but it was conducted in a McDonalds and involved civilians. Still, perhaps Ellen’s characterization of the event is more accurate. I agree with her comment.
The Fort Hood shooting was not at a McDonald’s, and with two exceptions, the victims were all military personnel. The location was the Soldier Readiness Processing Center located on a closed (i.e. not open to general civilian public) military base. There was one civilian death- a medical contractor, and one civilian injury- a civilian base police officer. These were two civilians that received DoD paychecks, not members of the general public.
I always wondered why there didn’t seem to be any CCTV of the ‘plane hitting the Pentagon or reports from eyewitnesses who saw it coming down, perhaps it is on a file-sharing site somewhere.
In reference to terminology, the BBC seems to use the term ‘radicals’ for ‘terrorists’ or ‘murderers’ as if they were ionised atoms in a chemical reactin thaty just happens.
And Laird isn’t ‘Nadal’ is a tennis player from Majorca? ‘Nidal’ a psychiatrist/mass murderer?
Scooby and Mr. Ed: I stand corrected on both counts.
There’s a lot of background on this story covered by Steyn in this article. It’s not just the Community Organizer in Chief.
http://www.steynonline.com/5763/still-nothing-to-see-here
This whole sorry mess really exposes how political correctness has infected every level of the U.S. government, its military and the national media. As Steyn infers, it really is a form of brain damage, making the infected person willfully blind and cowardly.
Yes – for example the answer to the question “why did the soldiers not fire back?” is that American soldiers (even on military bases) are forbidden to carry firearms (unless carrying out a specific duty that requires them) – by an Executive Order that goes back to President Clinton.
Those people (such as the lying Economist magazine – which also pretends that there is no Islamic threat to the West, just a few “radicals”) who claim that the government just wants “moderate” or “sensible” gun control should think about this – American soldiers not allowed to carry firearms (even on their own bases).
As Perry is fond of saying “the government is not your friend” – even if you are one of its soldiers the government (and the academics and other such that the government really represents) still hates you.
It would rather see you (one of its own soldiers) be murdered – than violate its sacred P.C. doctrines.
Clinton’s EO (which survived a stroke of Bush’s pen for 8 years) reminds me of the arrangements under which larger Soviet Army bases had their ammo stocks on base but under the control of MVD (Interior Ministry) troops, who were regarded as more reliable, also being the GULAG guards etc. Perhaps it is a backhanded compliment?
Having said that, the PC mindset grew unchecked under Bush the Icebreaker for the US Leviathan.
Yes Mr Ed.
Bush may have put on a strong Texas accent whilst at Yale and Harvard (stronger than his brother who was actually born in Texas – George Walker was not only born in New England he was also sent back to school in New England) and spent a lot of his time drunk – but he did NOT challenge the doctrines of these places (or of his Prep School).
The “compassionate Conservatism” of Bush was just (moderate) leftism by a different name.
“Then why did the left hate Bush?”
They also hated Richard Nixon – another, moderate, leftist.
The left most likely hate Mr Cameron as well.