Shrinking The Psychiatrist: The Ongoing Case of Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan

The USA takes its religions and freedom of religions very seriously.

Recently, my Brooklyn neighborhood's synogogues were visited by the Westboro Baptist Church protesters. If you are a reader of TNR, you are aware how "far out" this religious group is. Throughout the morning, the cops, the counter-protesters, the students, the Christian ministers, the Jewish rabbi, the Borough President all showed great tolerance and respect for this group's right to assemble, right to protest and right to free speech and alsolute right to be wrong. Westboro Baptist Church members have a very strange theology, "God Hates You." Although homegrown, I think this group's theology is stranger than Islam's. The Brooklynites showed disdain and revulsion of the group's ideas, but respect for their civil and constitutional rights.

Brooklyn also has a large population of people from the Middle East, many of whom believe in Islam. We have had our special problems, to be sure. The Pakistani clustered on Coney Island Avenue are very pro-American and demonstrate patriotism every chance they get. We have many Islamic houses of worship in Brooklyn. On Fulton Street you can hear the call to prayer five times a day. There are Islamic schools attended by young women, covered head-to-toe in traditional, conservative Islamic clothing. Islamic mamas, children in toe, shopping on fashionable 7th Avenue, Park Slope. Islamic shopkeepers and a multitude of restaurants of Middle Eastern origin.

The point is, "There is respect for the other." Brooklynites are careful about freedom of religion. I suspect most Americans are also careful about freedom of religion and want to give Islamic believers "the benefit of the doubt." This ingrained American respect for other religions may have allowed the seriously disturbed Army Major extra space and tolerance.

Was he a terrorist, fueled by uncommonly extreme Islamic beliefs for an American? I believe he was de facto, a terrorist and de jure, a deranged, pathetic, sexually castrated, sociopath, capable of mass murder, hiding behind Islam, as a child hides behing the skirts of his mother.

I am not opposed to the death penalty, in certain crimes (mass murder, for example), though I don't like the lethal injection method which seems to me be appropriate more for mad beasts than for human beings.

As for the question of legal insanity, I'll leave that to expert forensic psychiatrists to decide.

I loved Krauthammer's column, especially his swipe at Joe Klein who deserves worse,

"Time's Joe Klein decried "odious attempts by Jewish extremists . . . to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs." While none could match Klein's peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif,..."

"The delicacy about the religion in question -- condescending, politically correct and deadly -- is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center."

Ah yes, those Jersey men -- so resentful of New York, so prone to violence."

"Myself, I'd rather forego capital punishment than get the country dragged into one of those hysterical side shows."

Hysterical side shows are the best form of filibustering. Do you think we are only having the abortion discussion this late into the health care reform process because those opposed to abortion, uh, forgot about it until now? You may as well weigh in on the death penalty question, because someone else will if you don't. After all, a civilian court trial puts Hassan through the Texas system, right?

"Will any of my friends sympathetic to abortion object if this fetus turns out to have been killed? Well, you get the point."

Well, no I don't actually. What a deeply vulgar man you are Marty.

"After all, a civilian court trial puts Hassan through the Texas system, right?"

I thought, Dylanposer, that he will be tried by a military court, though the Texas system is what he deserves.

Military courts tend to be fairer than many State courts.

"Will any of my friends sympathetic to abortion object if this fetus turns out to have been killed?"

Well, I am sympathetic to women in need of abortions, but would like to see Hasan charged with double homicide if he killed a pregnant woman who wanted to give birth to her baby.

There is a difference between abortion and murder, Marty.

Dylan, I believe as of now Hasan is being charged and will be tried in a military court, not the Texas court system.

To all, I think MP (and Krauthammer) continues to miss the overarching point, which is whether it is appropriate -- and not bigotry -- to attribute Hasan's actions not merely to religious fanaticism (along with some psychopathology), but to Islamic theology itself. Peretz and Krauthammer both attack a straw man in contending that the examination of both the internal and external factors that may have triggered Hasan's actions are an effort to exonerate him. That is simply false. As it turns out, it appears that psychopathology, external experiences and religious fanaticism all probably played a role in his actions. No one is seriously suggesting that Hasan not be tried as a criminal.

Krauthammer suggests that there is something wrong with examining some of the conditions that might have brought Hasan's psychological problems to a boil, arguing that most people would not react to the same external stimuli by committing mass murder. That is absolutely true, and no one is arguing otherwise. But so what? Did Krauthammer object in the cases Columbine, Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, to name a few, to the examination of some of the conditions that might have triggered those mass murders by actors that everyone agrees were deeply psychologically disturbed? Did Krauthammer object even to raising the question of whether they were psychologically disturbed? I highly doubt it. Yet in Hasan's case, he appears to be offended that anyone looked for any reason for his actions other than that he is Muslim or has religiously extremist views.

What Peretz and Krauthammer really object to is that once it came to light that Hasan is Islamic and allegedly yelled "Allah Akbar" during the shooting, the inquiry did not end. For Peretz and Krauthammer, that was enough. No need to examine Hasan's psychological state or experiences. The cause of his actions was Islamic theology. Period.

It's disappointing that no one engaged Hasan to determine what he was doing and why. Either our Military is afraid to engage the Islamic Criticisms or they are not competent to manage their officers in these affairs.

Consider Hasan's main concern, what he was stressed about was going overseas to fight or kill Muslims. On the face of this, you could consider this a legitimate concern. But let's look at the other side of this statement. Hasan has no concerns fighting and killing Christians.

Why wasn't the Army investigating this obvious dichotomy in his beliefs? The American Army is not a religous organization, and they fight battles at the direction of the civilian leadership. Their enemy combatants are people who attacked Amercia.

The President gave a fine speech and recognized those who lost their lives, and attempted to mainstream this murderous act as the actions of a crazy man. But he didn't address the fundamental issue here that Hasan symbolizes.

Muslim Fundamentalist want America to support them and their religious beliefs, but when those beliefs are contrary to American beliefs, they default to their first loyalties.

Hasan killed Americans, and would not have killed them if they were Muslims.

Dhurtado “To all, I think MP (and Krauthammer) continues to miss the overarching point, which is whether it is appropriate -- and not bigotry -- to attribute Hasan's actions not merely to religious fanaticism (along with some psychopathology), but to Islamic theology itself.”

If so then Hasan himself has missed the point since he was intimately concerned about betraying Islamic law. I assume that he and the clerics he was in touch with know more about “Islamic theology” than you do.

Will any of my friends sympathetic to abortion object if this fetus turns out to have been killed? Well, you get the point.

It is a nasty point and I'm not sure what it is doing in your article.

dhurtado gets to the essence of this troubling article.

Marty is annoyed that some people dislike his friend Charles Krauthammer, M.D. because he was (is) a friend of former President G.W. Bush. You would think that the former President was the repository of good governance and deep moral fiber. You know, someone like Lincoln or Adams. Fact remains, former President Bush is a deeply controversial and divisive figure; his Vice President is perceived as an unsavory man addicted to power.

Dr. Krauthammer is not just any "friend of Bush." Dr. Krauthammer ranks in the upper ranks of spin doctors of the former administration. He received the MVP award recently from Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdock. What a guy.

Peretz and Krauthammer are convinced that the "average reader" doesn't "get it." This is the party line, folks. After all, Marty's shrink friend, no Upper West Sider, but a real shrink (non-practicing), told him so.

Surely you can see the fallacy of your own argument Jackson. Just because Hasan and other crazed extremists BELIEVE they are implementing Muslim theology it must be so?

dhurtado
"Surely you can see the fallacy of your own argument Jackson. Just because Hasan and other crazed extremists BELIEVE they are implementing Muslim theology it must be so?"

They are believing Muslims, Hurtado. Are You a Muslim? It's up to other believing Muslims and especially their clerics to say if they are wrong or not.

"They are believing Muslims, Hurtado."

Another non sequitur Jackson. The fact that someone believes they are carrying out the ideology of a widely followed religion does not mean that they are in fact doing so. To the extent Scott Roeder or Teitel believed they were carrying out Christian or Jewish ideology, respectively, do you believe that there were in fact doing so? Of course not.

"Are You a Muslim?"

No. Are you? No? OK, then neither of us is qualified to explicate Muslim ideology. So by what authority do you contend that violent extremism is in fact an tenet of Muslim ideology?

Hurtado, "To the extent Scott Roeder or Teitel believed they were carrying out Christian or Jewish ideology, respectively, do you believe that there were in fact doing so? Of course not."

That's right and they were both condemned by mainstream Christian and Jewish clerics.

"Are You a Muslim?"

No. Are you? No? OK, then neither of us is qualified to explicate Muslim ideology. So by what authority do you contend that violent extremism is in fact an tenet of Muslim ideology"

You are reaching, Hurtado. It's up to Muslims and or Muslim clerics to decide if their ideology conforms to Muslim law. It's not up to infidels like me.

"That's right and [Roeder and Teitel] were both condemned by mainstream Christian and Jewish clerics."

That elides the point, Jackson. The question is whether an individual's belief that murder is required by his or religion makes it so.

"It's up to Muslims and or Muslim clerics to decide if their ideology conforms to Muslim law. It's not up to infidels like me."

So you do NOT contend that violence against non-Muslims is a fundamental tenet of Muslim ideology?

dhurtado

"That elides the point, Jackson. The question is whether an individual's belief that murder is required by his or religion makes it so."

No it doesn't, the point is that you as a non Muslims can't say that the Islamic terrorists are acting against their religion. It's up to Muslims to say so.

"So you do NOT contend that violence against non-Muslims is a fundamental tenet of Muslim ideology?"

I contend nothing, I am saying that if say the Wahabi clerics say that it is then it's not up to you to gainsay them.

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Islam/...

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Islam/...

"So you do NOT contend that violence against non-Muslims is a fundamental tenet of Muslim ideology?"

No one can make such a contention with iron clad certainly but the thus far cumulative statistics incline towards such a connection:

Here is a chronology of Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003 (Baruch Goldstein is included)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

And here is a list of thwarted terrorist attacks since 9/11 (of the 19 cases cited only one is not affiliated with jihad)

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

________

That religious zeal can provoke violence no one disputes. It is up to the communities to restrain such zeal and instill the principle of self-control and reasonable boundaries for what is allowed to be preached and what transgresses the line into open incitement and potential risk for others.

Something is wrong with the comments today. My comment gets cut off after I post the link.

As far as I can tell only the Hebron massacre from this Americans for Peace Now list from a Short History of Israeli Right Wing Terrorism makes the State Department list provided by noga1. Indeed, not even the assassination of Rabin makes theState Department list. The State Departments inability to point out even this example of right-wing Israeli terror shows how craven the United States is in its appeasement of Israeli terror.

http://peacenow.org/entries/short_history_of_israeli_right_wing_terrorism

Each time the issue of Islamic terrorism comes up (a global phnomenon) the antisemitic mackenzie tries to change the subject to the small band of Israeli murderers and terrorists. He gets hysterical at such times and the zionazi analogies come out.

He is well paid by CAIRN and the Arab League to change the subject.

So the murder of Rabin isn't listed. But neither is the murder of Senator Robert Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan.

14383 this is the number of dead due to Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 worldwide listed on a website that keeps track of such attacks:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm

More on the list:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Check out also this article on Islamic terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

Violence against non-Muslims IS a fundamental tenet of Muslim ideology. Read the Koran. Study Islam. There are enough reliable translations and treatises around. War against non-Muslims and their subjugation and humiliation is prescribed in the section below.

Sura 009.029 of the Koran:
YUSUFALI translation: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Jackson says:

"I contend nothing, I am saying that if say the Wahabi clerics say that it is then it's not up to you to gainsay them."

Those are weasel words Jackson. You "contend nothing," but instead you embrace Wahhabi clerics as being representative of some 800 milliion Muslims. The book description that you cite, regarding "From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad," by Delong-Bas, gives no indication that contemporary Wahhabism is representative of Islam at large, or even that it has anything to do with the teachings of the 16th-century teacher al-Wahhab. It describes 20-21st century Wahhabism as an austere, puritannical "type" of Islam associated with bin Laden. It also describes the book as contending that works of al-Wahhab have been distorted into the extremist ideology now propagated by bin Laden and his followers. Indeed, there is no indication that Wahhabi clerics believe it is the duty of Muslims to kill non-Muslims. So, sorry, it will not do to contend that you are merely deferring to Wahhabi clerics.

As to the contention that Muslims have not condemned Hasan's actions, it takes about 10 seconds on the Internet to determine otherwise. Check out "Muslim Community Condemns Ft. Hood Shootings" at www.myfoxfw.com/dpp/news/muslim+community+condemns+ft.+hood+shootings

Noga, there are plenty of non-Miuslim incidents of terrorism on the chronology, including Cuban, Japanese, Marxist, IRA, Mexican, Puerta Rican Nationaist, Columbian, El Salvadoran, and other non-Muslim terrorist acts. But you miss the point. Even if all of the terrorist acts in the world over the past 5 years were perpetrated by Muslims (not true), that would not mean violence against non-Muslims is a tenet of Islam. That is like saying that because all beer is alcoholic, all alcoholic beverages are beer.

Jackson says, "Check out also this article on Islamic terrorism," linking a Wikipedia article. Indeed, check it out:

"Although in Islam Killing of Innocent people, Women and children is Haraam(not permitted). The "Islamic Terrorists" which are considered as "jihadis" in Arabic has some point of controvery. Islam only allows war if Muslims are in danger. The "Islam terrorists" aren't considered as muslims by most of the muslims because "jihad" does not allow what People under cover of Islam do, Such as killing of Innocent people ,Women and Children, Destruction of Bulding or Trees. Therefore, Islam has been given a bad shape by some group and most of the world has started to believe it."

Amidut says, "Violence against non-Muslims IS a fundamental tenet of Muslim ideology." Really? How about this from the same Widipedia article cited by Jackson:

"The Princeton University Middle Eastern scholar Bernard Lewis, states that Islamic jurisprudence does not allow terrorism.[31]. Professor Lewis notes:

"At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition). Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged, not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners, to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities, and to honor agreements."

"Similarly, the laws of Jihad categorically preclude wanton and indiscriminate slaughter. The warriors in the holy war are urged not to harm non-combatants, women and children, "unless they attack you first." A point on which they insist is the need for a clear declaration of war before beginning hostilities, and for proper warning before resuming hostilities after a truce. What the classical jurists of Islam never remotely considered is the kind of unprovoked, unannounced mass slaughter of uninvolved civil populations that we saw in New York two weeks ago. For this there is no precedent and no authority in Islam. Indeed it is difficult to find precedents even in the rich annals of human wickedness." [32]

In 2007, Osama bin Laden, best known for the September 11 attacks, used quotes from the Qur'an—and a militant Taleban cleric's interpretation of those verses—to justify his declaration of war on Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani army[33], such as:

O prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them. Their abode is hell, and an evil destination it is. [Qur'an 9:73]

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust. [Qur'an 5:51]

And fight them until there’s no fitnah (polytheism) and religion is wholly for Allah.[Qur'an 8:39]

However, the interpretation of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban has been condemned by influential group of Pakistani scholars and religious leaders, who declared that suicide attacks and beheadings as un-Islamic in a unanimous resolution. See #View of Muslim Clerics.

Marmaduke Pickthall, a Western convert to Islam and an Islamic scholar notes that “Nowhere does the Qur’an approve a spirit of revenge” [34] and situates verse 2:194 in the context of a defensive war.

Ibn Kathir stated that the Quran clearly commands believers to prefer forgiveness over retaliation wherever possible.[35]

Michael Sells and Jane I. Smith (a Professor of Islamic Studies) write that barring some extremists like Al-Qaeda, most Muslims do not interpret Qura’nic verses as promoting warfare; and that the phenomenon of radical interpretation of scripture by extremist groups is not unique to Islam."[36].[37] According to Sells, "[Most Muslims] no more expect to apply [the verses at issue] to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels."

dhurtado: ", there are plenty of non-Miuslim incidents of terrorism on the chronology,"

My comment referred to this list:

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

"At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition). Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged, not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners, to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities, and to honor agreements."

There is such a counter measure to these instructions provided by Islam. It is called taqyyia, permitted dissimulation:

"Professor Walid Phares gives an explanation of such religious deception, part and parcel of Jihad while Muslims are in a weaker position: “Al-Taqiya, from the verb Ittaqu, means linguistically ‘dodge the threat’. Politically it means simulate whatever status you need in order to win the war against the enemy.” “According to Al-Taqiya, Muslims were granted the Shar’iya (legitimacy) to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy’s cities and forums and plant the seeds of discord and sedition.

“These agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at war, and therefore were not considered as lying or denouncing the tenets of Islam. They were “legitimate” mujahedeen [holy warriors], whose mission was to undermine the enemy’s resistance and level of mobilization. One of their major objectives was to cause a split among the enemy’s camp. In many instances, they convinced their targeted audiences that Jihad is not aimed at them.”

This deception “has a civilizational, global dimension versus the narrow state interest of the regular Western subversive methods.” “The uniqueness of today’s Taqiya is its success within advanced and sophisticated societies. Taqiya is winning massively because of the immense lack of knowledge among Western elites, both Jewish and Christian.”

http://www.globalpolitician.com/22582-islam-foreign

Take this for example:

Mohamed Elmasry, a Canadian engineering professor, imam, and a leader in the Canadian Muslim community declared on TV that any Jew in Israel is fair game for a terrorist attack.

So there is a stipulation against the killing of innocents but then there is also a definition of what an "innocent" is which works as a waver, an exception, to the stipulation.

Just as suicide is not allowed in Islam but suicide attacks are not considered suicide: they are "martyrdom operations" highly venerated by Muslims.

And something I only recently learned: Islam canceled slavery so how do you explain the persistence of slaves among Arab societies and the Arab slave trade in the recent centuries? They have a phrase: Islam forbids slavery for those who know better. Who are those "who know better", do you think? And what about those who do not "know better"? Apparently for the latter the right to a free autonomous life does not apply. Thus Islam gets to decide who is and who is not worthy of being enslaved, who is an innocent, who deserves to be killed and who - to be protected. And somehow these distinctions always work out in the same direction.

You cited both lists Noga. Do you now want to disregard the more expansive chronology because it undermines your thesis?

dhurtado
"Jackson says:

"I contend nothing, I am saying that if say the Wahabi clerics say that it is then it's not up to you to gainsay them."

Those are weasel words Jackson. You "contend nothing," but instead you embrace Wahhabi clerics as being representative of some 800 milliion Muslims."

There comes a point in any discussion about Islamic terrorism with Hurtado where it's useless to continue.

Hurtado is determined to whitewash a whole history of violent Jihad in his faith. He will never look at the evidence provided and admit that there is a problem there.

Wahabism is the religion of Saudi Arabia which has been exporting its teaching for over 50 years now to all parts of the Islamic world.

Rejecting them as non representative is like rejecting Catholicism as non representative of all Christians.

In any case, this is my final post on this issue addressed to Hurtado.

"You cited both lists Noga. Do you now want to disregard the more expansive chronology because it undermines your thesis?"

You are not paying attention, dhurtado. These are two different lists. One details terrorist attacks that TOOK PLACE. THe second lists attacks that were THWARTED since 9/11. surely you can see that nothing in it undermines my thesis whatever you imagine it is.

Noga,

The fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that Islam is monolithic. Even casual observation teaches one that it is not. It is indisputable that there are extremist strains of those who consider themselves Muslim, including the Wahhabis and other extremists you cite above. The question is whether those extremist elements are representative of Muslims at large, or representative of mainstream Muslim belief. I think not.

I have not studied the issue of slavery in among Arab societies, but I take your point to be that because Arab societies have deviated from Muslim theology with regard to slavery, that slavery is nevertheless a part of Muslim theology? So you think that predominantly Christian nations have not strayed far from the teachings of Christ? Do you think that predominantly Christian nations are not thoroughly immoral in many ways? Indeed, slavery existed for centuries in this country among people who considered themselves Christian. Certainly, there is nothing in the teachings of Christ that justifies slavery. Should we nevertheless conclude that slavery was approved by Christian theology?

"So you think that predominantly Christian nations have not strayed far from the teachings of Christ?"

Attention, again, dhurtado. We are speaking of Islam, today, not Christianity - 200 years ago, or Judaism, 3000 years ago. The fact that Jews were burnt at the stake by fanatic and not so fanatic inquisitors 500, 300 years ago cannot serve as a pretext to mitigate for Islam today when its adherents act violently. In the West, they used to burn witches and buy and sell slaves and brand adulterous women. The critical lesson to be learned from these records is that these violent practices can be defeated, can be outlawed and placed behind the fence of what is considered civilized society. Frankly, I don't see why we should be told that we need to wait for an Islamic reformation. It is not our problem except as the inability of Muslims to tame the messages of their prophet touches and impacts the quality and safety of our life in countries thousands of miles removed from the cradle of Islam.

How am I not paying attention Noga? I fully recognize the differences between the lists. You cited them both. I assume you had a purpose in citing them. No? It was in response to my question to Jackson regarding whether he contends that violence against non-Muslims is a fundamental tenet of Muslim ideology. You interjected that "thus far cumulative statistics incline towards such a connection," and then you cited the two lists. A reasonable inference is that you believe the lists support that thesis because they are dominated by Muslims, or at least putative Muslims. If that is not your point, then please clarify it.

I will repeat my comment:

"So you do NOT contend that violence against non-Muslims is a fundamental tenet of Muslim ideology?"

No one can make such a contention with iron clad certainly but the thus far cumulative statistics incline towards such a connection:

Here is a chronology of Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003 (Baruch Goldstein is included)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

And here is a list of thwarted terrorist attacks since 9/11 (of the 19 cases cited only one is not affiliated with jihad)

______________

As you can see, I did not propose a thesis. I made an observation, based on statistics. Both lists, btw, show that the majority of attacks can be attributed to Muslim Jihadists and not so Jihadists. The second list, which is about attacks that did not take place, is a more recent compilation and suggests that as per 9/11 most terrorist schemes to attacks in the US are committed by Muslims. Whether you want to use, or dismiss, this data as a way of rebutting the contention that "violence against non-Muslims is a fundamental tenet of Muslim ideology" is really up to you. I am only thinking that the concentration of these kinds of activities around communities (not imagined, but real verifiable events) whose common thread is Islam means there is a connection between this common factor and these type of occurrences.

I assume you are objecting to me noticing these details. You, I daresay, would attribute my noticing to racism and bigotry and simple hatred of Muslims. You may be right. I am very sensitive to Arab Muslim violence. In the same way that if I see on a page a number of symbols, the symbol that will attract my attention first and foremost would be the swastika.

When we look at this information, and we think of the principle of predictability, then being vigilant and paying attention seem like very rational reactions.

Dhurtado I’m going to confine my comments to the Kraut’s—a pundit I love—comments and suggest you you do him no service when you run his comments together with Peretz’s, the former a more rigorous and less emotive thinker.

I think you misconceive the gist of the Kraut’s short piece in a few ways. One, he does not as I read *this column* attribute Hasan’s actions to Islamic theology itself as opposed to a fanatical variant of it. (If I’m wrong please show me where in his piece he does so.) Two, you misemphasize the essence of the Kraut’s concern. The brunt of his piece is not the concern that to look for reasons other than his religious impulses and views as informing his radical ideological views is to exonerate him—that you are reading into Krauthammer. Rather it is the desire to deny the obvious fact of those religious springs in exonerating him as a simply a nut who snapped. (As I have said before the line of reasoning is: snapping (his incapacity) vitiates criminal guilt and moral blame.)

I do not, in a nutshell, read Krauthammer as crowding out psychopathology as such but rather arguing against the dismissal of the religiously informed sources of Hasan’s actions.

That misconception then, I argue, infects your arguments. And that infection is particularly manifest in your example of the school and university shootings you allude to. The difference in what you allude to is the sheer absence of religious come political sources for so acting. Where, in short, does the Kruat say the inquiry ends with those sources as opposes to saying, what I contend, the original “narrative” wanted entirely to make irrelevant the man’s Islamic beliefs.

Basman,

I am watching college football right now, but I will re-read Krauthammer's piece and get back to you (and Noga). I will say that it is not my point to discredit Krauthammer, Peretz or anybody else. If I have misunderstood Krauthammer then I will be happy to acknowledge it.

...I am watching college football right now...

Now if you can get in both college football this aft and UFC 105 tonight--not on pay per view, but free on Spike--then your wife is more understanding than mine.

I would be more inclined to watch the Pacquaio/Cotto fight, but it IS pay-per-view, and I'm not sure it will be worth the $45.

basman, no offense, but why should I watch UFC 105? Old merchandise, seen it before, who cares? Sorry to sound so harsh, but I think Dana stuck in his thumb and pulled out a raspberry this time. I'll wait for the next ppv.

For those of you not privy to the mma/extreme fighting manner of doing things, opinions like punches must be delivered sharply and deftly, or devastatingly; why bother submit an opponent when you can knock his lights out with one violent torpedo to the face or body.

Forgot to differentiate: a "torpedo" (my term) basically can be any of the following: punch (hand strike), kick, or 'kao yiep' (step-up knee strike). Have I left anything out, bas? ;)

...basman, no offense, but why should I watch UFC 105? Old merchandise, seen it before, who cares? Sorry to sound so harsh, but I think Dana stuck in his thumb and pulled out a raspberry this time. I'll wait for the next ppv...

No offense taken, and it's not a great card admittedly, but I get all a tingle when I can avoid paying for the pay per view or skulking around that payment by needing to go to some crappy sports bar.

I'm watching it tonight tgossard, for sure.

And that's my Omoplata in reply.

jacksondyer raises Sirhan Sirhan's assassination of Robert Kennedy as an example of Islamic terrorism. Wikipedia says he was born to Christian parents, and later converted to the Baptist and Seventh-day Adventist churches. If jacksondyer has evidence that Sirhan Sirhan was a muslim, he should present it here lest others draw the conclusion that he is a casual racist and a lazy researcher.

Jackson says: "Hurtado is determined to whitewash a whole history of violent Jihad in his faith. He will never look at the evidence provided and admit that there is a problem there."

This is another one of Jackson's non sequiturs. It is obvious to anyone who can read or watch television that violent Jihadism is a serious problem. It is absurd to contend that I have argued otherwise. That is not the issue in this thread. The issue is whether it can validly be contended that all or most Muslims are Jihadists or to immediately conclude that any Muslim who commits a violent act against non-Muslims is a Jihadist. A related issues is whether Jihadists represent the majority of Islam. Jackson cannot support those contentions and so he resorts to his usual techniques: changing the subject, attacking straw men, and engaging in ad hominem arguments.

Jackson also says:

"Wahabism is the religion of Saudi Arabia which has been exporting its teaching for over 50 years now to all parts of the Islamic world.

Rejecting them as non representative is like rejecting Catholicism as non representative of all Christians."

I don't know that Wahhabism is "the" religion of Saudi Arabia, but it certainly is not "the" religion of Islam. Nor is there a valid analogy between Wahhabism's relationship to Islam and Catholicism's relationship to Christianity. Catholocism was the first Christian church, and protestentism diverged therefrom. Still, there are millions upon millions of protestants who would not regard Catholocism as representative of all Christians.

Echoing dhurtado above: if catholicism is representative of all Christians, what of the long history of religious violence (thankfully now behind us?) between catholics and protestants?