Fort Hood's 9/11

[Sofiyya 1,687]

How many Muslims are there in the US? How many qualified to serve in the military?

[Peikko 1,575]

Muslims should not enjoy same rights as other US citizens, obviously.

[alienlovechild 75]

How many Muslims are there in the US? How many qualified to serve in the military?

"Out of the 1.4 million service men and women serving actively in the American military, an estimated 3,700 are Muslim, according to the Department of Defense." (2006)

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/muslims-in-the-military/31393/

That's .26% of the military are Muslims. According the stat estimates below, .66%-2.3% of Americans are Muslim.

"The size of the Muslim-American population has proved difficult to measure because the U.S. Census does not track religious affiliation. Estimates vary widely from 2 million to 7 million. What is clear, however, is that the Muslim-American population has been growing rapidly as a result of immigration, a high birth rate, and conversions."

http://www.america.gov/st/diversity-englis...f0.4547083.html

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In other words, we don't know how many Muslims there are in America, nor how many would be qualified to serve. So, your assertion that Muslims have chosen to sit out the military is merely supposition.

[alienlovechild 75]

In other words, we don't know how many Muslims there are in America, nor how many would be qualified to serve. So, your assertion that Muslims have chosen to sit out the military is merely supposition.

By any measure I provided, Muslims in military are underepresented in the U.S. military and you having nothing disproving what I wrote. Sofiyya, it's not a value judgement, it's just a fact. I could also claim that perhaps Jews don't serve in proportion to their total population but I'm not a Muslim so you're better equipped to explain why so few Muslims are in the military but just dismissing the stats doesn't answer anything.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Good to get the facts before making judgments.

Sadly, to some his being a Muslim is all the facts they need to make their judgment.

and sadly there are far to many people who think those numbers are huge. Most people know that most muslims are not terrorists but god forbid we call what happened at fort hood a terrorist act because of all the people out there thinking they are being noble by trying to protect Muslims and some sort of backlash Its silly and most people know the difference so lets just please call a spade a spade and quit playing these games.

[nowhereman 1]

Good to get the facts before making judgments.

Sadly, to some his being a Muslim is all the facts they need to make their judgment.

and sadly there are far to many people who think those numbers are huge. Most people know that most muslims are not terrorists but god forbid we call what happened at fort hood a terrorist act because of all the people out there thinking they are being noble by trying to protect Muslims and some sort of backlash Its silly and most people know the difference so lets just please call a spade a spade and quit playing these games.

You can't call a spade a spade when you don't even know what card you are holding. What I mean by that is no assumptions should be made until the facts are in. As for "silly games" there are numerous posts in this thread & related threads trying to paint Muslims as a whole as terrorists so to suggest that the backlash doesn't exist is ridiculous and I am sure offensive to law-abiding Muslims. Apparently less people know the difference than you thought. B)

[Peikko 1,575]

Is any random shooting spree an act of terrorism these days? It seems as though there is a concerted effort by some opinionists to completely alter the meaning of all the words we previously took for granted and it is very obvious to me that the people who blur the lines and alter the meanings have some very offensive agendas themselves.

Acts of terrorism are very specific and are associated with a political cause. Other violent acts are just that, violent acts.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[alienlovechild 75]

Is any random shooting spree an act of terrorism these days? It seems as though there is a concerted effort by some opinionists to completely alter the meaning of all the words we previously took for granted and it is very obvious to me that the people who blur the lines and alter the meanings have some very offensive agendas themselves.

Acts of terrorism are very specific and are associated with a political cause. Other violent acts are just that, violent acts.

Is it was a coincidence Hasan's rounds struck 43 soldiers. He was duck hunting with former VP Cheney and the sun was in his eyes.

Not specific and no political cause? What? Was he supposed to wearing a sign saying "Jihadist"?

Talk about an offensive agenda before the bodies have even been buried some are already to bury the whole incident as a common workplace shooting.

Edited November 10, 2009 by alienlovechild

[peejay 327]

Is any random shooting spree an act of terrorism these days? It seems as though there is a concerted effort by some opinionists to completely alter the meaning of all the words we previously took for granted and it is very obvious to me that the people who blur the lines and alter the meanings have some very offensive agendas themselves.

Acts of terrorism are very specific and are associated with a political cause. Other violent acts are just that, violent acts.

Is it was a coincidence Hasan's rounds struck 43 soldiers. He was duck hunting with former VP Cheney and the sun was in his eyes.

Not specific and no political cause? What? Was he supposed to wearing a sign saying "Jihadist"?

Talk about an offensive agenda before the bodies have even been buried some are already to bury the whole incident as a common workplace shooting.

How true. Denial just ain't a river that runs through Egypt. Of course it is domestic terrorism. P.C. be damned.

[Ggreen 12]

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

Weren't you just yesterday trying to convince us that you know the difference between Islam and radicalism?

The other side of him slips once in while without notice..there is ignorance and stupidity, if you put them together in one brain you get a complete Idiot.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In other words, we don't know how many Muslims there are in America, nor how many would be qualified to serve. So, your assertion that Muslims have chosen to sit out the military is merely supposition.

By any measure I provided, Muslims in military are underepresented in the U.S. military and you having nothing disproving what I wrote. Sofiyya, it's not a value judgement, it's just a fact. I could also claim that perhaps Jews don't serve in proportion to their total population but I'm not a Muslim so you're better equipped to explain why so few Muslims are in the military but just dismissing the stats doesn't answer anything.

Just a reminder, here is my question:

(Sofiyya @ Nov 9 2009, 04:39 PM)

How many Muslims are there in the US? How many qualified to serve in the military?

Here is the information you politely provided:

"Out of the 1.4 million service men and women serving actively in the American military, an estimated 3,700 are Muslim, according to the Department of Defense." (2006)

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/muslims-in-the-military/31393/

That's .26% of the military are Muslims. According the stat estimates below, .66%-2.3% of Americans are Muslim.

"The size of the Muslim-American population has proved difficult to measure because the U.S. Census does not track religious affiliation. Estimates vary widely from 2 million to 7 million. What is clear, however, is that the Muslim-American population has been growing rapidly as a result of immigration, a high birth rate, and conversions."

http://www.america.gov/st/diversity-englis...f0.4547083.html

Population estimates with no demographic breakdowns are hardly facts or proof of the number of qualified Muslims who are or who could be military members. Presenting this information as substantive enough to make a claim that Muslims in the military are underrepresented as a measure of an estimate that doesn't offer any workable number of a desirable demographic that could enter the military if they chose to is not a reasonable assumption, and certainly not a fact. Also, merely being Muslim is not sufficient for me or any other Muslim to speculate on why there are not more Muslims in the military. While there are issues that have been adequately studied, this is not one of them, primarily based on the fact that we cannot obtain the kind of information needed to do more than speculate.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Is any random shooting spree an act of terrorism these days? It seems as though there is a concerted effort by some opinionists to completely alter the meaning of all the words we previously took for granted and it is very obvious to me that the people who blur the lines and alter the meanings have some very offensive agendas themselves.

Acts of terrorism are very specific and are associated with a political cause. Other violent acts are just that, violent acts.

Is it was a coincidence Hasan's rounds struck 43 soldiers. He was duck hunting with former VP Cheney and the sun was in his eyes.

Not specific and no political cause? What? Was he supposed to wearing a sign saying "Jihadist"?

Talk about an offensive agenda before the bodies have even been buried some are already to bury the whole incident as a common workplace shooting.

How true. Denial just ain't a river that runs through Egypt. Of course it is domestic terrorism. P.C. be damned.

In order to truly damn pc, we would have to be honest enough to call all premeditated domestic acts of mass murder terrorism, no matter the ethnicity of the perp. If we then broke down these crimes by religion, our fear would probably be redirected away from Muslims by sheer numbers and frequency.

[Peikko 1,575]

Is any random shooting spree an act of terrorism these days? It seems as though there is a concerted effort by some opinionists to completely alter the meaning of all the words we previously took for granted and it is very obvious to me that the people who blur the lines and alter the meanings have some very offensive agendas themselves.

Acts of terrorism are very specific and are associated with a political cause. Other violent acts are just that, violent acts.

Is it was a coincidence Hasan's rounds struck 43 soldiers. He was duck hunting with former VP Cheney and the sun was in his eyes.

Not specific and no political cause? What? Was he supposed to wearing a sign saying "Jihadist"?

Talk about an offensive agenda before the bodies have even been buried some are already to bury the whole incident as a common workplace shooting.

How true. Denial just ain't a river that runs through Egypt. Of course it is domestic terrorism. P.C. be damned.

In order to truly damn pc, we would have to be honest enough to call all premeditated domestic acts of mass murder terrorism, no matter the ethnicity of the perp. If we then broke down these crimes by religion, our fear would probably be redirected away from Muslims by sheer numbers and frequency.

Which would be truly stupid, because, as I said, terrorism has a very specific meaning, the use of terror to further a political agenda. To use it more generally totally defeats the point of having a word for violence associated with a political agenda. How idiotic.

Thus proving once again that acts of terrorism are not simply violent acts perpetrated by muslims.

For all I know it might well be a workplace shooting, I have no evidence to the contrary other than the perpetrator had a muslim name.

That can't really be used as evidence, now can it? Not unless one is simply using the equation muslim = terrorist.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Is any random shooting spree an act of terrorism these days? It seems as though there is a concerted effort by some opinionists to completely alter the meaning of all the words we previously took for granted and it is very obvious to me that the people who blur the lines and alter the meanings have some very offensive agendas themselves.

Acts of terrorism are very specific and are associated with a political cause. Other violent acts are just that, violent acts.

Is it was a coincidence Hasan's rounds struck 43 soldiers. He was duck hunting with former VP Cheney and the sun was in his eyes.

Not specific and no political cause? What? Was he supposed to wearing a sign saying "Jihadist"?

Talk about an offensive agenda before the bodies have even been buried some are already to bury the whole incident as a common workplace shooting.

How true. Denial just ain't a river that runs through Egypt. Of course it is domestic terrorism. P.C. be damned.

In order to truly damn pc, we would have to be honest enough to call all premeditated domestic acts of mass murder terrorism, no matter the ethnicity of the perp. If we then broke down these crimes by religion, our fear would probably be redirected away from Muslims by sheer numbers and frequency.

Which would be truly stupid, because, as I said, terrorism has a very specific meaning, the use of terror to further a political agenda. To use it more generally totally defeats the point of having a word for violence associated with a political agenda. How idiotic.

Thus proving once again that acts of terrorism are not simply violent acts perpetrated by muslims.

For all I know it might well be a workplace shooting, I have no evidence to the contrary other than the perpetrator had a muslim name.

That can't really be used as evidence, now can it? Not unless one is simply using the equation muslim = terrorist.

Certainly any group or individual is capable of employing terrorist tactics to further any specific goal, not just limited to political goals. Religious motives are fair game, but when the religion is unfairly misrepresented as condoning violence as an inherent part of the faith, that's when hysteria and revenge overwhelm reason and knowledge on both sides.