Home › Blogs › JHT's blog ›

More Insanity

Submitted by JHT on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 23:08
in

We are not having a good week with regards to violence:

A Muslim convert who said he was opposed to the U.S. military shot two soldiers outside an Arkansas recruiting station, killing one, police said Monday.

“This individual appears to have been upset with the military, the Army in particular, and that’s why he did what he did,” Little Rock Police Lt. Terry Hastings said in a phone interview.

“He has converted to (Islam) here in the past few years,” Hastings said. “We’re not completely clear on what he was upset about. He had never been in the military.

“He saw them standing there and drove up and shot them. That’s what he said.”

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Left wing terror?

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 00:02.

Sounds like a nut job to me. My heart goes out th the families of these young victims.

JHT must be frustrated that this can't be pointed to as a "right wing terrorist" act.

Although after getting his ass handed to him for most of the day for his petty attempts to link "the right" to Dr. Tiller's murder he may be leveling out.

So if Bill O'Reilly drove Dr. Tiller's murderer to act then it follows that:

This converted Muslim was listening to Code Pink or Bill Maher or Michael Moore. It all makes sense! Yes, I see it now: Michael Moore drove this man to murder! Link from Moore's website.

But the issue isn’t only counter recruitment. It is about militarism. Military attitudes and values like obedience, conformity and the use of force to solve problems have seeped into every area of our society. It is crucial that counter-recruitment and social justice activists, youth and all who want to do something about it gather for this weekend of skill sharing, strategizing and solidarity.http://www.nnomy.org/joomla/index.php

So Michael Moore encouraged people to take action against military recruiting. I wonder if he can be prosecuted for this murder?

curious, curious

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 00:11.

Is it curious, isn't it?

Tiller murdered by far-right-wing nutjob: JHT declares "we need to be more concerned with right wing terrorism in this country," Bill O'Reilly becomes responsible for "inciting domestic terrorism", and JHT wonders aloud "whether the broader conservative movement should consider themselves part of the terrorism problem".

American soldier murdered by Muslim jihadist nutjob: JHT laments "We are not having a good week".  Note the collective pronoun.  Where's the finger-pointing at the jihadists?  The anti-military inciters of hate and violence?  The far-left-wing peace activist nutjobs?  Where's the demand that we should be more focused on Muslim jihadist terrorism?  Where's the introspection whether the "broader liberal movement" - or ANY movement, for that matter - "should consider themselves part of the terrorism problem"?

No double standard, eh?

chemjeff, are you suggesting that

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 00:31.

JHT is being disingenuous?

Because if you are, I agree totally. Some much for any credibility he thought he had.

American soldier murdered by Muslim jihadist nutjob: JHT laments "We are not having a good week".  Note the collective pronoun.  Where's the finger-pointing at the jihadists?  The anti-military inciters of hate and violence?  The far-left-wing peace activist nutjobs?  Where's the demand that we should be more focused on Muslim jihadist terrorism?  Where's the introspection whether the "broader liberal movement" - or ANY movement, for that matter - "should consider themselves part of the terrorism problem"?

Huh. I doubt that he'll see it. This line of thinking would not be Kos approved. Leftists don't have mirrors.

disingenuosity

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 01:11.

JHT is being disingenuous?

Actually, not really, if by 'disingenous' you mean 'masking one's true beliefs'.  Instead I think he truly believes that right-wing terrorism poses a greater threat to the Republic than Muslim jihadist terrorism, despite the fact that the body count of the latter is far greater than that of the former, and he's made that fairly clear at least judged by his comments so far.  Hence his quickness to adjudge Bill O'Reilly guilty of inciting terrorism and his demand that we conservatives reflect on how much mainstream conservatism contributes to right-wing terrorism.  So I don't think he's making a great effort to mask his views, even if he doesn't state them explicitly.

But, by all means, if JHT tomorrow comes out saying "we need to focus more on Muslim jihadist terrorism" and "mainstream Muslims should reflect on how much they consider themselves part of the radical Muslim jihadist terrorism problem", as he has said about us w.r.t. right-wing terrorism, then I'll be happy to change my point of view.

... "mainstream Muslims

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 01:26.

... "mainstream Muslims should reflect on how much they consider themselves part of the radical Muslim jihadist terrorism problem",...

Of course, that's a popular opinion among liberals; liberal christians, New Age and the Atheist community.

Although, you can be assured that Christian religious fundies among the conservatives won't be happy with the very apt dynamics of that analogy. 

both murderers are religious nuts,

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 01:18.

They are conservatives, not liberals if we see these muders in the light of (misguided)religious beliefs, not in political ideologies. Granted most antiwar activists belong to left wing but someone who may just be anti-American-war-on-Islam need not be a liberal (even though he may be an anti-GOP, democratic party supporter) especially if he is an anti-christian fundie muslim and more so if he is also a converted muslim.  

I applaud JHT ...

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 01:09.

 

for not tying up this with religion or religious fundies on the Right.

 

 

Is there any violence we

Submitted by Mike Poole on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 07:37.

Is there any violence we should feel good about? It doesn’t take my Christian values upbringing a tenth of a second to answer: “No!”  But it only takes a few moments of introspection to be honest with myself. I’m not proud of it, but I felt good about the Somali pirates being taken out by snipers.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we ought to all be pacifists, violence was definitely justified in that situation.  But had the pirates all surrendered, would I have been as happy with the outcome? I don’t think so.   I enjoy watching Jennifer Lopez in “Enough” kicking the tar out of her abuser.    I don’t know, my train of thought is probably leaving the tracks on this one, but we all talk about violence as in and of itself, being a bad thing.  Then virtually all of us find a list of reasons when it is regrettably necessary.  And from there, a lot of us can admit, it is more than just an unwanted necessity, we actually either enjoy it or are happy about its use when it is against people that we lable as “bad people”.

Obviously there are cases of

Submitted by JHT on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 09:20.

Obviously there are cases of violence, such as in self defense, which are justified. The problem is when extremists are able to rationalize that it is justifiable to use violence in other cases, such as against doctors who perform abortion or army recruiters, along with thinking they are justified in taking such action (beyond immediate acts of self defense) on their own outside of the law.

Obviously there are cases of

Submitted by JHT on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 09:22.

Obviously there are cases of violence, such as in self defense, which are justified. The problem is when extremists are able to rationalize that it is justifiable to use violence in other cases, such as against doctors who perform abortion or army recruiters, along with thinking they are justified in taking such action (beyond immediate acts of self defense) on their own outside of the law.

Interesting: Arkansas  is a

Submitted by Chris S on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 12:05.

Interesting: Arkansas  is a right to carry state, and these were highly trained men. How did they get shot so easily?  It’s possible that they were NOT allowed to carry. The other possibility is that Arkansas  is not a right to OPEN carry, i.e., handguns must be concealed.

Four Southern states — Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas — are considering legislation that would allow people to carry handguns openly in a holster.

I found this in a petition to Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe about the value of  open carry: 5. It is well known that the requirement to conceal a normal sized handgun can be difficult, especially in Arkansas with our extreme heat and humidity, since a person will usually have to wear a jacket to properly conceal a handgun and to avoid “printing.”

6. Under some circumstances, the requirement to conceal a handgun can make it difficult to draw the weapon should the life of the carrier or the life of someone else be in danger.

7. Open carry has and will deter crime, as well as providing a valuable option even for citizens who prefer to normally carry concealed.

In any event, one can be sure this incident will further fuel the debate on right to carry and open carry gun laws.

Fail to agree

Submitted by Repack Rider on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 19:36.

Under some circumstances, the requirement to conceal a handgun can make it difficult to draw the weapon should the life of the carrier or the life of someone else be in danger.

That is such a problem for me every time I have to draw my concealed weapon.

Wait.  I don't carry one, and as a US Army vet I have already shot my lifetime quota of ammo.  I have no desire to ever pull a trigger again, and I will take my chances with armed criminals just as I take my chances with drunks every time I get in a car.  I don't have time to wet my pants over every perceived threat that is beyond my control.  If someone wants to kill me, carrying concealed won't stop them.

Open carry has and will deter crime, as well as providing a valuable option even for citizens who prefer to normally carry concealed.

Tell that to the NYC police officer, shot to death last week while his weapon was drawn, by other officers as he pursued a junkie who had broken into his car.  How do police tell which gun-waving citizen is law-abiding and which is a criminal?  Especially, in this case, when the Good Guy is the Black man?  This isn't even the first time white NYC police have shot a Black officer who had the nerve to draw his weapon while not in uniform.

Picture drawing your concealed weapon on a criminal just as the police arrive.  How do the police decide which of you to shoot?  Because they are going to make that decision in about 1.2 seconds, and I would rather take my chances with a criminal who is not likely to be a good shot over police who spend a lot of time at the range.

Go ahead with your wet dream over the possibility that you will get to draw down on a Bad Guy and that there will be no repercussions if you do.  Yep, in the face of a threat you'll pull it out cleanly and cooly draw a bead on the third shirt button, deep breath, squeeze slowly, ten ring.  No innocent bystanders hit, no return fire, he doesn't have a friend coming up behind you and you'll never have to think about the dead guy again.  Just so you know, they don't drop like in the movies.  They flop around and make a lot of horrible noises and spew fluids and sometimes they can do that for, you know, HOURS.

I would rather give up my wallet than to kill even a despicable criminal, and I do not care to be mistaken by police for a criminal if I were to draw a weapon in public.  If you like firearms and want to carry them openly, do what I did.

Enlist.