Friday, November 13, 2009

Muslims Don't Tolerate Muslim Fanaticism

Most Muslim countries wouldn't have tolerated the likes of Maj. Hasan in their military.
In places like Algeria, Egypt and Libya, Muslim officers watch over their Muslim conscripts with relentless scrutiny lest any unscripted forms of freelance worship sneak into the picture. Their prisons are full of Muslim Brotherhood conspirators undergoing torture--if they haven't already disappeared into secret graves. In Saddam's military, turbulent believers often went straight to the frontlines during the Iran-Iraq war. Others found that their views rebounded onto the limbs and lives of family members in the most palpable of ways.
Read the whole thing, it's fascinating.

Not that we should follow Saddam's lead. But the least we should do is not be cowed by the sort of political correctness that leads people to turn a blind eye to these fanatics.

14 Comments:

Blogger A Nonymous said...

So, since Muslim fanaticals were not tolerated by Saddam Hussein, Iraq was not a Muslim terrorism threat to us.

Thanks for finally understanding why there wasn't any need to go into Iraq as a response to 9/11.

November 13, 2009 at 10:56 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Except for this:

"In less-forgiving countries like Syria, such offenders tend to disappear without a trace or GET FUNNELED CLANDESTINELY INTO TERROR CELLS FOR MISSIONS ABROAD."

Iraq being like Syria and Saddam Hussein having taken out a contract on George Bush Sr.'s life... well, no threat there to America. No threat at all.

November 13, 2009 at 11:43 AM 
Blogger A Nonymous said...

Iraq is nothing like Syria. So, what is your point?

Besides, it's not like Bush hadn't targeted Hussein for assassination during the Gulf War.

Taking out a contract on former president Bush Sr is hardly a threat to America as a whole that requires over $1 trillion and thousands of lost American lives.

There are some questions about how much Saddam was actually involved in the "plot":
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm

Clinton's response (a missile strike on the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad) dealt with this issue a DECADE earlier than the 2003 invasion. Your argument that somehow, 10 years after a botched attempt on Bush Sr., that Iraq was a justifiable and imminent threat to America is simply laughable.

Every time I get worried that the conservatives might rise again in power, the intellectual weakness of your arguments gives be relief that you can't get it together.

November 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Gil - I didn't know you were a conspiracy buff. So, you're saying that Saddam was weeding out potential terrorists and funneling them into clandesine terrorist cells aimed at killing Bush Sr.? That's your rationalization for the Iraq war? Wow. It's all making sense now. The extroadinary renditions that the U.S. sent to Syria to be tortured while Bush was president were actually being retrained to be used in sleeper cells to kill Bush Sr. Gil, do you really believe Saddam was taking muslim fanatics and shipping them off to the U.S. for sleeper cells? Do you have ANY proof? Would you make a claim like this in one of your columns? Are you "going Beck" on us?

November 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM 
Blogger A Nonymous said...

Bob-
Gil's a member of the new cliche: "Once you've gone Beck you never go back."

Muslims may not tolerate Muslim Fanaticism, but here in the U.S. we tolerate Gil/Glenn style American Fanaticism (aka xenophobia).

Bob, I guess that's what makes us the real patriots.

November 13, 2009 at 12:59 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob,

There is no convincing anyone who refers to Iraq as a "sovereign nation" under Saddam Hussein of anything, let alone such a nation under that sort of "leadership" could be a threat to the U.S., it's neighbors or the world.

Israelis, Kuwaitis and even Persians have a different experience.

In the world of Anon-iano it is xenophobic to notice there are Islamic jihadists in our midst. Maybe if we ignore them they'll just go away. But that didn't work so well with Maj. Hasan, now did it?

November 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Gil - I understand the point that some are trying to make. That political correctness may have prevented some people from stepping forward. This is very possible. I won't argue that. But for you to insinuate that Saddams treatment of Muslim fanatics was a legetimate reason for us to invade Iraq is insane. This is something you dreamed up. Kaylan doesn't suggest it in his story, and I don't recall ever reading or hearing anything about Saddam placing sleeper cells in the U.S. If you have proof otherwise, show it. From everything I've read, Saddam was just as afraid of muslim fanatics as us.

And you say Iraq wasn't a sovereign nation under Saddam. Where did that come from? Did you forget the business deals with Saddam during the Reagan administration? Wasn't it considered a sovereign nation back then? Does Spencerblog get to decide which nations are sovereign and which ones aren't?

November 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM 
Blogger A Nonymous said...

Bob-
"Islamic jihadists in our midst"
Quick, hide under the bed!

Iraq not a "sovereign nation" is another example of Gil/Glenn's break with reality. Iraq "lost" it's sovereignty during our invasion, but was certainly sovereign prior to it.

Iraq was a toothless tiger without WMD's (chemical, biological or nuclear) or an air force. Their biggest threat was from Iran, and they had noting to gain from doing more that saber rattling at the US.

Saddam's treatment of Muslim fanatics is just more one reason to show the invasion of Iraq was unjustified on the basis of Iraq being a terrorism threat to the US.

November 14, 2009 at 2:12 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob,

Leave it to you and Anoniano to run wildly off point.

It was Anoniano who went first with his ridiculous non-sequitur and you follow him down this path like collie.

Read the original post and then try to figure how you got from there to here.

Anoniano always avoids and changes the subject like a 12 year-old-caught in a lie. I expect more from you.

November 14, 2009 at 8:47 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Gil - um. Excuse me, but I believe YOU responded to ANons post long before I did. You wrote - "Except for this:

"In less-forgiving countries like Syria, such offenders tend to disappear without a trace or GET FUNNELED CLANDESTINELY INTO TERROR CELLS FOR MISSIONS ABROAD."

Iraq being like Syria and Saddam Hussein having taken out a contract on George Bush Sr.'s life... well, no threat there to America. No threat at all.

Gil, maybe YOU should reread your post and Anons reply and figure out how we got here. I replied to both the political correct issue, AND your wild allegations about sleeper cells and Iraq's non sovereign status. I think you owe us some explanations Gil. Tell us how you determined that Iraq was not a sovereign nation. They had a government, a legal system, currency, a seat at the U.N., and international recognition as a sovereign nation. How did you determine that they were not sovereign? Please explain.

You also said "Not that we should follow Saddam's lead. But the least we should do is not be cowed by the sort of political correctness that leads people to turn a blind eye to these fanatics.", but you offer no suggestions. Whats the plan Gil?

You are trying to avoid ownership of your own statements by attempting to redirect the direction of the conversation.
I would expect more from you.

November 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM 
Blogger A Nonymous said...

Let's see.. what was the "point" of your original post...
That Hasan's case is some kind of proof against any kind of tolerance or political correctness. That's it's so bad that the US military policy is coddling people that wouldn't be tolerated "in places like Algeria, Egypt and Libya".

Underlying this is the implication that it's Obama's fault somehow. The fact that Hasan's behavioral changes started and were ignored over a year ago (who was president then?) hardly seems to matter.

Hasan snapped. There will be a trial and we'll find out more about why. In general, the problem is more that the military is poor at identifying overstressed soldiers. That's why the suicide rate in the military has climbed.

November 14, 2009 at 4:26 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob,
Maybe your father can explain it to you. I give up.

November 14, 2009 at 6:51 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Gil - I guess that's one way to avoid responsibility for your own words. What you should give up on is your serach for an excuse for the invasion of Iraq. You're starting to remind me of a grizzled old prospector who keeps panning fools gold but doesn't have the common sense to move on. Gil, there are no golden nuggets of redemption in that stream.

November 14, 2009 at 10:36 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob,
I'm giving you the last word.

November 15, 2009 at 7:38 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home