This about Islam or Islamophobia?

For-Runner,

Please go back under the rock that you slithered out from under, in the search for attention. If there is sick out there, and surely there is some, you are representative of some of it. Please find help, that you may find happiness and peace, for clearly those virtues do not exist in you in the moment, if one were to actually try to read the confusion that seeps from you.

Peace to you. Do find a constructive way to participate with others. You, and they, will be happier for it.

Ms. Taylor makes a lot of excuses but they are all weak. She is just another muslim trying to spin the blame for this attack back on to the victims, non-muslim Americans. Also, where is the evidence that hasan was harassed for being a muslim? I am a retired soldier and know that the Army treats harassment of any kind very seriously. hasan is a murderous muslim terrorist, no matter what Taylor and other muslims tell us.

Someone commented:

"We should not jump to conclusions because he is a Muslim.”

Not because he is a mere Muslim, but because most of the information we know about him so far, including his mode of dress the morning of the massacre. The Taliban costume he was wearing was a statement as eloquent as could be found anywhere.

Allah is our goal, the prophet our model, the Koran our constitution, the Jihad our path and death for the sake of Allah the loftiest of our wishes."

In a leading article entitled "Industry of Death," which was to become famous, Hassan al-Banna explained to a wider public his concept of jihad-a concept in which the term Industry of Death denotes not something horrible but an ideal. He wrote: "to a nation that perfects the industry of death and which knows how to die nobly, God gives proud life in this world and eternal grace in the life to come."
The Koran enjoins believers to love death more than life. Unfortunately, he argues, Muslims are in thrall to a "love of life." "The illusion which had humiliated us is no more than the love of worldly life and the hatred of death." As long as the Muslims do not replace their love of life with the love of death as required by
the Quran, their future is hopeless.
Only those who become proficient in the "art of death" can prevail. "So, prepare yourself to do a great deed. Be keen on dying and life will be granted to you, so work towards a noble death and you will win complete happiness.

Pamela,
"We must not jump to conclusions"

Excellent point.
Let us just read the Koran.
Koran chaper 9 verse 5:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and kill the nonbelievers wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem."

Fight and Kill.
Allah's words.
Hmmmmmmm.
Religion o' peace?

Read and follow the Koran or stop being an apologist for Islamic violence

As Fort Hood Tragedy Unfolds, Obama Is Politician in Chief

Friday, November 6, 2009 9:19 AM

By: Frank Gaffney Jr.

Perhaps the president publicly handled this attack as he did because he was unsettled by the fact that the alleged shooter is a devout Muslim, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who evidently adheres to the theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls “Shariah.”
Actually, Shariah not only justifies such violence but also demands it.

To cite but one example of the requirement for individual Muslims to wage jihad, Shariah expert Andrew Bostom observes that the influential Ottoman cleric, Sheikh Shawish, wrote in 1915:

“To whoever kills even one single infidel of those who rule over Islamic lands, either secretly or openly, there is a reward like a reward from all the living ones of the Islamic world. And let every individual of the Muslims in whatever place they may be, take upon him an oath to kill at least three of four of the ruling infidels, enemies of Allah, and enemies of the religion. He must take upon him this oath before Allah Most High, expecting his reward from Allah alone, and let the Muslim be confident, if there be to him no other good deed than this, nevertheless he will prosper in the day of judgment and we ask the Most High to extend the People of the Faith by the favor of their Lord.”

In short, the Fort Hood “outburst of violence” (to use the president’s formulation), looks like the first successful incident of jihadist mass murder in America since 9/11. This could not be a message happily conveyed by a chief executive committed to “outreach to the Muslim world” and so deprecating of his predecessor, who had managed for seven years to prevent such incidents here in America.

justtillthenow:

Your interpretation of the meaning of "submission" is interesting, although it is far removed from the concept of "submission to the will of Allah", which is how it is generally understood by Muslims. Your depiction of submission as letting go and relaxing and not being in resistance against force would entail not actively opposing that which we find evil and oppressive. Submission to the will of Allah entails submitting to the rules and worldview of the Quran. In fact, I think that submission to that which we oppose is a moral failure and a form of cowardice. We don't refuse to submit to that which we hate but rather with that which we disagree with. For example, perhaps it would have been more peaceful if the population of England had simply submitted to German rule. But, is that what we really would want? Is that even a peace we could live with? Does this not remove the concept of justice? Do we not have a duty to actively oppose that which we find abhorrent? What about those of us who don't believe in any type of god? Should we be forced to submit to rules of a god we don't believe in? Being at peace with some god is not what is actually relevant here either. Being at peace with fellow peoples is what matters. As you rightly state, what some god desires is open to debate. Of course, this is precisely why noone should submit to the alleged will of any particular god. This is why submission is not related to peace but, rather, oppression.

What you understand as "submission" would more appropriately be understood as "detachment", as what is practiced among the Buddhists. If you would say we must detach from certain desires and prejudices, I could certainly agree to that and would wish that Muslims would do the same. However, this is not submission in any way. Submission implies a certain acceptance of the authority of something which is not akin to putting your arms down and exhaling but rather taking a definite position and agreeing to adhere to an authority. For example, I submit to the laws of the United States which means I have to pay taxes, I have to abide by the law, etc. This is a restriction of my freedom to act outside the rules of the authority to which I submit. By which I mean submission is not always a bad thing, but submission can lead to oppression. Acting against oppression is in fact refusing to submit. In saying this, I do not imply that the West is always right or something of that sort but I do say, unreservedly, that making submission a prerequisite for peace, is a very threatening posture and is a path to despotism, whether in form of fascism, communism, or Islamism. So, I refuse to submit to the rule of Islam. So does that mean I can't have peace?

Muslims do this all over the world, several times a day.

Actually, the "Allahu Akhbar" has NOT been confirmed by the police. At least one witness thought it was "I'm not going!", in reference to his deployment to Iraq.

While I am not condoning what Maj. Nidal did in any way, I just don't think that we should jump to conclusions because he is a Muslim. At least, not until he regains consciousness and is interrogated by the police. It could very well be a case of secondary PSTD from hearing soldiers' horror stories about Iraq that set him off. Whatever.

The latest person to go postal, today in Orlando, has the last name of Rodriquez. Does this mean that we should condemn all Hispanics because one snaps and goes postal? I guess nobody named Tim, Eric, or Dylan would kill anybody either.

After learning about the Fort Hood shootings last night, I wondered myself if there's something in Islam that festers until its believers just turn into homicidal maniacs. It's an ugly, maybe diabolical, supposition, the same sort of thinking that may have started Maj. Nidal on his way to his murders So I reject it, knowing that other faiths, too, and anti-faiths, like communism and fascism, have had homicidal maniacs of their own, and that these maniacs and their crimes do not reflect the articles of the faiths that they profess to embrace, knowing that their crimes are repudiations of their faiths. But we do seem to have a rash these days of Islamic killers, and to put it mildly, it isn't doing Islam or anybody else any good. And that, puny as it is, is about as far as I've gotten with this one. Evil, such as Maj. Nidal displayed, always leaves me stumped, always boggles my mind.

justillthennow: Do you know what "inspired" some of the radicalization of Islam in current day events?

1) You and many Americans need to know history and understand that there is no "radicalization" of Islam. The Koran, Hadith and teachings have not changed. The aspiration for Islamic dominance has always been so.
2) Here's the history of Muslim-dominated southern Thailand. A couple of centuries ago, the Buddhist Siamese conquered a Malay state and have ruled it since then. So the people have more in common with neighboring Malays in Malaysia (who are Muslim by mandate though not the constitution). In recent years (presumably instigated with encouragement and financing from certain quarters) the violence began to fight for a separate Islamic state. They may reach agreement for autonomy soon.
3) Here's another example of in-fighting in Muslim majority countries. Rebels in Aceh, Indonesia had been fighting for "independence" so finally the Indonesian government granted them "autonomy". What's the first thing that the provincial government does? Impose shariah law. Indonesia is a secular republic so even though 98% or so of the population is Muslim, Indonesia is not an Islamic state. The Acehnese provincial government passed a law to implement stoning, cutting of hands and all the punishments stipulated by shariah. Right now the Governor (ex-rebel leader) has refused to sign the bill into law but who knows how long he can prevail.
4) The only reason American Muslims like Pamela Taylor can fantasize about "woman imams" is because there is no religious police in the US. Islam is the only religion that has a religious police so they can knock down your doors in the middle of the night to check if there's khalwat, detain you and test your urine to check if you've consumed alcohol, execute you for adultery, etc. It's about time that Americans like Pamela Taylor admit that Islam cannot co-exist with freedom when there is a religious police. If Islam is not a police state, why would it need a police force?

After learning about the Fort Hood shootings last night, I wondered myself if there's something in Islam that festers until its believers just turn into homicidal maniacs. It's an ugly supposition, and I reject it, knowing that other faiths, too, and anti-faiths, like communism and fascism, have had homicidal maniacs of their own, and that these maniacs and their crimes do not reflect the articles of the faiths that they profess to embrace, knowing that their crimes are repudiations of their faiths. But we do seem to have a rash these days of Islamic killers, and to put it mildly, it isn't doing Islam or anybody else any good. And that, puny as it is, is about as far as I've gotten with this one. Evil, such as Maj. Nidal displayed, always leaves me stumped, always is incomprehensible, always boggles the mind.

I find this apologetic, genuflecting attitude amongst many bloggers as hilarious.

Just look at history: whereever Islam has spread, I mean in non-Muslim lands, it has had "bloody borders", to quote Huntington. The great scholar (Huntington) also pointed out that Muslim domination in the 21st century shall come through mass reporduction. Islam allows 4 wives, and hence polygamist Muslim men shall keep producing and their offsprings shall migrate to non-Muslim lands for "greener pastures" and multiply there. Once numerically significant (but probably not majority) Muslims in non-Muslim countries shall call for separate enforcement of Shariah law - as it was on the ballot for state elections in Ontario, Canada - for themselves to observe puritannical Islamic practices, and hence eventually cultural landscape shall change in the West. Britain and France has been suffering from such home-grown thorns but no practical solution is in sight other than to accomodate the growing demands of Islam. If the demands are not met, violence shall erupt as in the case of Major Nidal Hasan.

I cannot fathom, why in the name of political correctness, USA is still promoting the fact that "Islam is a peaceful religion" ? Of course in the Age of Obama willing suspension of common sense is a virtue.

I have a friend who, when referring to how nuts people can seem to be these days will often say "We live in a Jerry Springer world". Reading the comments posted here one could hardly disagree.

RENTIANXIANG and ZIPPYSPEED

Excellent posts and right on the money.

I encourage all Christians to read the Koran and all Muslims to read the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel in the New Testament of the Christian Bible.

I expect any Christians willing to read the Koran will be horrified and most Muslims who take up the challenge will be puzzled.

Muslims will be puzzled because some Christians venerate Mary, the Mother of Jesus even more highly than they do.
Christians believe not only is Mary the highest woman in heaven but she is also
"God-Bearer. She bore the Son of God. Christians believe that there is only one God, but three Divine persons. Not multiple Gods as the Koran teaches.

Christians will be horrified to learn that only Muslims worship "the One true God".

Of course they will be horrifed by many muslims practices like the taking of marriage of 8, 9, 10, and 11 year olds by men in their 20's. The last scandal was the sad death in childbirth of a 12 year old who was in labor three days. This was in the news three weeks ago. Of course Miss Taylor doesn't bother to share that issue with us.

A religion that permits the rape of children is never a nice topic to discuss.

The Koran teaches that all other religions besides Islam are polytheistic and that Muslims should have no real fraternity with such people.

The Koran teaches aggression towards non-muslims and tends to condone aggression as a way to settle differences. Muslims have a right to dominate if they can and parts of Europe have already seen plenty of Muslim aggression: Britan, France, and the Netherlands.

Muslims don't even get along with themselves too well: Shiites and Sunnis are always ready to take each other on. So its a wonderful religion.

The battles between Christians and Muslims goes back over a 1000 years: the Turks conquering the Byzantine Empire and practicing prima noctura.

Prima Noctura meant that a Turkish lord would rape the christian bride of a christian man before her husband would sleep with her. The Turks didn't start that cruel practice but they continued it until WWI.

The Spanish Inquisition was mainly about expelling all the Muslims from Spain. 500 to 700 years of Muslim cruelty was enough for the Spanish.

The rape and pillaging of the cities of the Mediterrean by Muslim pirates in the 16th century led to the famous battle of Lepanto where a small band of Christians boats overwhelmed the largest fleet in the world by appealing to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

That finally ended Turkish aggression toward the rest of Europe that wasn't already under Muslim domination.

Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is routinely taught at university level foreign policy, political theory and international relations classes as being a completely unjustified, Orientalist approach to international relations and quoting it only demonstrates the lack of understanding, on both sides, of each other's values, merits and beliefs. It is a gross over-generalization of several cultures. If you read the entire book he does not even acknowledge Africa as having any type of culture or civilization. In fact, he completely ignores the continent as being irrelevant to modern international politics. He also groups together all Asian countries as a Confucio-Asian block, and I am sure Koreans, Chinese and Japanese to name a few would resent it if they were grouped together into one major group the way Huntington so carelessly does in that book. He also endorses the use of nuclear weapons to check the growth and prosperity of all "Non-Western" cultures/civilizations, another indication of how ridiculous his whole hypothesis is. Huntington also wrote a series of essays railing against Latin Americans, stating that Florida would secede from the United States if the US government did not stop Hispanic people from immigrating to the state. His xenophobia is despicable, particularly considering his level of education, so quoting one of his Orientalist diatribes should not be considered a valid argument or used to criticize the above article.

Furthermore, not to point fingers because that does not resolve anything, but I find it humorous how quickly the "West" or the "Occident" forgets its own atrocious crimes against humanity. The Catholic Church worked hand in hand with two Fascist regimes, Franco and Mussolini, from the 1930's to the end of the 70s, where oppression, state sponsored violence against its own populations and several other violations of "Western" ideals occurred. Westerners are also so quick to forget the decades of violence in the name of Christianity in Ireland, which until recently was as bloody as any non-governmental conflict that has occurred outside Christendom. This is not to mention the Holocaust, Colonialism, Imperialism, Pogroms, the Inquisition and several other despicable acts perpetrated by the "benevolent West". So please, before ranting and raving against Islam, take a look in the mirror and realize that Christianity has had its extremists and has had its own dark past. He who has a glass house should not throw stones.

Hello rentianxiang,

"And, Islam does not mean "peace." It means "submission.""

"To me this indicates that peace is related to submission."

Peace is related to submission, rintianxiang. Think of it. We must relax, allow, afford, give in to, exhale, give up, put down arms, against that which we resist and hate and judge and despise, in order to personally find peace. As long as we are in resistance against any force or thing, we will not be at peace with it.

This definition will obviously mean that the violence seeking islamist would not be "islamic". But submission to God is required to be at peace with God. Definitions of what God wants, well, that is debated world wide. And some, on both sides or all sides, continue to debate with a gun. This "christian nation" included.

Hello zippyspeed,

Fact is there are plenty of comparisons between militant islam and militant and violent christians. Though one may argue that the muslim religion has not evolved out of a broader alignment with violence when compared to christian counterparts, it is, as you say, a part of that faith that embrace violent tactics, not the majority of it.

Thailand is your example of an intrusion of violent islam into a 'peaceful' nation. I do not know the specifics of the history of that conflict, but I am sure that it is perpetrated, on the muslim side, by a radicalized faction, not by the whole of the regional population of muslims.

Clearly there is change that needs to take place in cultures, societies and nations where islam is the dominant force, in order to bring a more cooperative and peaceful process to them and to their interaction in the global community.

But then there are plenty of changes that need to take place in America, country that fundamentalists here call a "Christian country". There is dysfunction and sickness all around.

We were the ones that not only invaded Afghanistan post 9/11, (what assumption is it that presumes full invasion was an essential response, exactly?), but carried our nation destroying and building campaign into Iraq as well, with eyes at forcing to our governmental format the nations of the area.

Hell, who is the perpetrator? Do you know what "inspired" some of the radicalization of Islam in current day events?

"What kind of stresses are Muslim soldiers placed under when they are deployed to areas where they are killing fellow Muslims, and perhaps people of similar ethnic background?"

Even as you try, you cannot hide the ideology of Islam which makes it so dangerous: the world is divided into Muslims and non-Muslims. What difference should the religion of one's adversary make? Should the soldiers of WWII of a Christian background refused to fight against nations who were majority Christian? Or should they have said, well, maybe the people share my religion but their behavior is such that it endangers my country so I must fight them? This appeal won't work with Islam since a Muslim's loyalty is first and foremost to fellow Muslims, regardless of their behavior. It is for this reason that the first thing Muslims will do after a Muslim commits a grievous act is to either defend the wrongdoer and claim that we should wait until all the facts are in or claim that it doesn't reflect Islam in order to protect the Muslim community. But even Ms. Taylor, who consistently whitewashes the violent past and present of Islam and denies the violent and intolerant sections of the Quran that give rise to such behavior, can't hide the worldview that Islam propagates: us and them. Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam.

And, Islam does not mean "peace." It means "submission." The fact that the Arabic base for the two words is the same should not bring comfort to non-believers but rather should give one pause. To me this indicates that peace is related to submission. That is not a good thing, whether it is submission to some god or anything else. For me it means, that for Muslims there is no peace until we all submit to Islam. The Major's behavior is just one more of practically daily examples of Muslims attacking non-Muslims. As long as people like Ms. Taylor spend their time defending Islam, no matter what a Muslim may have done, instead of taking hard looks at the problems within Islam, there will be more of the same.

Also, Ms. Taylor, if it does turn out , when all of the facts are in, that this attack was at least partially motivated by his religious beliefs, what will you say then?

The so-called Islamophobes aren't committing this violence: Muslims are. Islamophobia is just a concoction of Muslim apologists to try and scare people away from criticizing Islam for fear of being labeled as such. In fact, phobia generally infers to an irrational fear. I have read the Quran, some of the Hadith, biographies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and have read much of the history of the Muslim world and I will tell you that I have a deep, serious, and completely rational fear of Islam, since I am an infidel and proud of it.

Hello AngloAm,

"Well, now we know that he did this simply because he's Muslim. Hmmm. Where does that leave your piece?"

We do not know that. Show evidence instead of toss inference and assumption.

"Of course they will. But as you say, they're prejudiced by a pre-existing 'more favorable view.'"

And you are not prejudiced with a pre-existing hateful view of Islam?

"Objective people will realize and come to a very different conclusion."

Objective people do not include you based on your first comment alone, though one make take into account the rest of your post and draw the same conclusion.

The vast majority of Muslims were not celebrating the attack of 9/11. Some did, and that is what media focused on, not least the fear fanning right leaning hate spreading organizations such as Fox News, one of your favs I am sure.

Most Islamic nations and people were in opposition to that attack, and most knew that it would only hurt them all. There was worldwide agreement in condemnation of 9/11 outside of the minority radicalized islam fundamentalists.

Bush and his neo-con club delighted, (your word), in exporting war and destruction, as well as the evangelized Cross of Jesus, directly into the middle east. No stopping at the Afghanistan border for them! Spread fundamentalist democratic capitalism, AngloAmerican, for Jesus sake, (Not!).

White Power, AngloAm! Nothing better! Nothing Righter!

Any female who supports islam is a fool. Take a look at the muslim countries- with or without sharia law- and see the state of the women. That's all anyone needs to know.

Every country in the world with more than a de minimus Muslim population keeps having these "Muslim problems". Let's put aside the (ridiculous) comparisions to people committing violence who coincidentally happen to be Christian. Another example shows how excuses for Islamic militancy and -- frankly -- abject cowardice constantly mutate to fit the situation, while the one enduring constant is the religion itself.

One of the most pleasant countries on earth is Thailand. Enjoying balmy weather, great food, and a predominant Buddhist culture, the country is actually known as the "Land of Smiles." And yet -- wait for it -- Thailand has endured a gruesome, long-running Islamic terrorist campaign in its two southern provinces near Indonesia. How could that be? Thailand did not invade Iraq or Afghanistan. Thailand did not wage Crusades in the Holy Land. Thailand did not liberate Spain, or station troops in Saudi Arabia. Thailand is not a staunch supporter of Israel. Thailand in fact is simply a peaceful country where 99% of the people follow a pacifistic Buddhist religion. And yet the Muslims still found a reason to pick a fight with them! The example of Thailand proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Muslims will suicide bomb and commit atrocities against any unbelievers, and then make up smokescreen excuses later. With us, it's some BS about the Crusades or Israel, with Thailand it's something else. The end result, however, is always the same.

The simple fact of the matter is that while most Muslims are "peaceful" in the sense that they are happy to sit back and refuse to prevent or condemn the violence of their fellows, there was, is, and always will be a sizable percentage of Muslims that randomly wig out and kill others because they think it will get them into paradise. No less a person than the glorious Winston Churchill, who knew tyranny when he saw it, said of Islam that "no stronger retrograde force exists in the world." He said that in 1899, and it is just as true today as it was then. There is no mystery here, nothing to wonder about. Read the Koran. It tells these people to do these things, so they do it.

"Until we know more about Maj. Nidal's motives we should not jump to conclusions, and certainly we should not declare that he had religious/political motivations simply because he was Muslim."

Well, now we know that he did this simply because he's Muslim. Hmmm. Where does that leave your piece?

"Those who have more a favorable view of Islam and Muslims will realize that the shootings do not reflect Islamic teachings..."

Of course they will. But as you say, they're prejudiced by a pre-existing 'more favorable view.' Objective people will realize and come to a very different conclusion.

"...and that the vast majority of American Muslims are appalled at such violence."

Ah, so you're NOT speaking for the vast majority of Muslims world-wide - who for all we know were passing out candies and celebrations like they did on 9/12. (Before Arafat's gang of thugs silenced them in the name of PR, that is.)

GIVE ME A BREAK! The sons of Allah have had hundreds of years of this 'religion of peace and tolerance' and they are STILL exporting and delighting in wars, in conquest, in terror, in butchery, in primitivism of the very worst kind. Don't put the blame for this on the victims - that's obscene (but craven as so many apologists for the sons of Allah have to be).

If this particular American Muslim doesn't want to be in the Army, hey, he could have declined the offer of free medical training, right?

..."All I can say as a registered VOter/Vet USAF, is "THANK GOD A DEMOCRAT IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, because we know one man does not represent ISALM and we know as American's what Republicans would do, go after innocent folks like they did in eight years of ruining my country/fact!

..."God Bless America, and God Bless the fallen heros and the families who know what I know, death can strike us at anytime and anyplace, and we must be ever grateful that we have what time we have here, to make a difference in this world that all of us are merely passing through.

..."May the Living God Bless America and Isalm, and all who seek PEACE."

How many Christians have gone nuts and shot places up because of their religion? Let's see...

1. The guy who shot up a Unitarian Church because he wanted to "kill all of the liberals".

2. Scott Roeder, who murdered abortion provider Dr. George Tiller because of his religion.

3. The guy who went into New Life Church and started shooting because they'd kicked him out.

And that's just off the top of my head. Moral: before you condemn an entire religion for the acts of others, clean up your own house!

It is too early to tell if this guy was nuts, a coward, or a zealot (or all).

But interesting about the original post is the attempt to justify the violence. Ms Taylor is implying Hasan was doing this because he was persecuted. Sorry, that is not justification. What ever his reasons, he is a menace to our society. We condemn his actions and seek to know his ideology. (Note, we can not condemn his soul, only his actions and his ideology - that is more open minded than the koran and bible that do condemn our souls).

Further, one wonders what evidence would it take for the muslims of the modern world to say enough is enough, stop this ideology based on a medieval book. They certainly have the courage to say that about idolators and jews. When will they have the courage to say that about Islam. - condemn the ideology, not the person.

hariaum

As Christians we have our own history of violence. (The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition...)

Yes, there are denominations within Islam that support violence against unbelievers, and there are other denominations that reject it. Even as a Methodist I know that much.

We all know his motives.

To kill as many non muzlums as possible.

That's the way they are and will always be.

Slam the door on muzlums. Keep them out.

Right, let's not jump to any conclusions:

"'He was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans,' Col Lee told Fox News. 'He said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place.' He said that Maj Hasan said he was 'happy'when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June.'"

Ms. Taylor, rather than attempting to obfuscate the truth - that there is a prominent stream of Islamic thought that violence is acceptable when directed against purported "enemies of Islam", and that this stream of thought has not been explicitly disavowed my mainstream Muslims(instead, Muslim organizations vaguely condemn "all violence against civilians" which is deliberately ambiguous, as civilians may be defined any way one chooses) - by talking about post-traumatic stress and psychological problems within the military, why don't you and your coreligionists own up to the havoc Muslims are wreaking in every corner of the globe?

Your flippant claim that the shootings do not reflect Islamic teachings is demonstrably untrue. Present-day Islam is saturated with speeches from within mosques all over the world regarding the necessity for subjugating, conquering, and killing non-Muslims.

Either own up to it or shut your lying mouth.

Major Nidal reportedly shouted, "Allu Akbar!" before his shooting rampage but let's not jump to any conclusions here.

"Islam has bloody borders" -- Samuel P Huntington, Class of Civilizations

And those borders have moved to Texas, Buffalo, LAX airport, the Washington beltway, and several targets in the New York area.

Please list the places your "religion of peace" has brought it to.