Tuesday, 10 November 2009


As reported in the New York Times about the events at Ford Hood, General Casey said:
"Our diversity, not only in our Army but in our country, is a strength....And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
This "diversity" doesn't include Gay or lesbian soldiers of course. Far better to have someone with Islamofascist sympathies who might engage in a massacre than have loyal Americans in the US Army - if said loyal Americans are Gay.

From the AP some have a different view about diversity:

"The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation, OK, it's just a fact," (Oklahoma) Rep. Sally Kern said recently to a gathering of fellow Republicans outside the Capitol.

"Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted, you know, more than a few decades. So it's the death knell in this country.

"I honestly think it's the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat," she said.
She's not alone.
(Colorado) Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, went further, quoting Bible verses to argue that the state should not be condoning homosexual relationships. He called such relationships a sin, equal in some sense to murder and adultery, and noted one Bible passage says homosexuality is punishable by death.
And in Utah, Senator Chris Buttars said:
They’re mean! They want to talk about being nice — they’re the meanest buggers I ever seen. It’s just like the Moslems. Moslems are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side. And the gays are totally taken over by the radical side.
And I believe that they’re, internally, they’re probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of.
Now you may believe that Homosexuality is a sin, based upon religious convictions. But to reject Gays from serving their country, while allowing Islamofascists to infiltrate because they're a lesser danger... seems to me to have your priorities askew.


Anonymous said...

While rejecting gays is both disgusting and utterly stupid, contrasting this with islamofascists isn't quite right either. As far as I can tell, what the general is talking about is a fear that incidents like this tend to associate all Muslims with militant terrorists. This is about as right as to confuse Christians in general with the Westboro Baptist Church, or cross-dressers with the serial killer in the Silence of the Lambs.

The US military needs to represent the whole country, not just straight Christians. Opening it to gays is important, but not closing it from other faiths is also necessary.

Laserlight said...

As an exercise in understanding the other person's point of view: one could argue that just because you're willing to allow one radical group doesn't mean that it's smart to allow another other radical group.

(Not that it'll make a difference-- the American republic will collapse within 50 years anyway).

Speaking as a straight Christian, I have no problem with gays (or Moslems, or politicians, or whatever) serving in the military--as long as everyone is held to the same standards. Nobody should be able to claim "I'm special!" and get a free pass.

Anonymous said...

The Fort Hood shooting has the hallmarks of a spree killing rather than the work of an organized fanatic.

Compare with other 'going postal' incidents. The killers usually have serious psychiatric problems, which seems to be the case here.

I think the fact that he's also a Muslim is an unfortunate coincidence.

Zimbel said...

I am neither clear as to what an "Islamofascist" is (the Muslim/Muslimah-majority countries I'm aware of are Democracies, Dictatorships, Oligarchies, or Theocracies), now why you'd assume (or believe) that this particular Muslim (Major Nidal Malik Hasan) is one.

I'll assume, however, that "Islamofascist" is an unusual term for someone of the Islamic faith that prefers fascist governments.

To put it another way, were the Columbine shooters (who had a similar shooting spree) Fascists?

I don't think that alleged mass murderer has anything to do with political ideology.

Back to the original topic, there are signs that "Don't ask, don't tell" may be repealed next year. Apparently the present plan is to fold it into the budgetary process (which makes it easier to pass).

Zoe Brain said...

The best definition of "Islamofascist" is the one given in the Powerpoint presentation months earlier by the attacker, recommending that Muslims be considered conscientious objectors (to killing other Muslims who are only killing unbelievers). The one where he states that a true Muslim's primary duty is to Allah, and not any secular state. And that killing unbelievers who kill Muslims is a religious duty. Muslims who kill Muslims get a pass.

It's here, via the Washington Post.

"Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam."

An Islamofascist is one who fights for such a worldwide state, a Caliphate ruled by a Theocratic Dictator in accordance with Allah's will. And in accordance with some interpretations of the Koran. Just as is OBL.

The only differences in opinions are whether the Caliphate should initially just include the Islamic world, or the whole world. If just the Islamic, then the Islamic Dar al Salam - the world of peace - is at peace. The rest of the world will be the Dar al Harb - the world of war - and fit territory for raiding, looting and conquest in accordance with Allah's will unless it pays tribute.

Islamofascists are of the opinion that they are the only "true" Muslims. Other Muslims, the vast majority, differ.

Having read the Koran and many of the hadiths, but only in translation, the Islamofascists have a very good case. The principle of abrogation is on their side, where later, warlike verses supercede earlier, peaceful ones. Sort of a mirror-image of the Christian Bible, where the New Testament is full of "love thy neigbour", and the Old full of "Smite the Ungodly".

Fortunately for the world, the rough edges have been knocked off Islam for most people, just as few people who profess to be Christian do more than pay lip service to the basic principles. Few Churches could function if they did.

Laserlight said...

"few people who profess to be Christian do more than pay lip service to the basic principles. Few Churches could function if they did."
Is that actually what you meant? My experience is that the more people follow the principles, the more smoothly the church functions. I'm just now getting my first caffeine of the day, though, so I may be missing some nuance.

Anonymous said...

Religion is a tool of social control, and as such it's always interpreted according to the mores of the time and political expediency.

The majority of modern forms of Christianity are heavily informed by the Enlightenment as well as centuries of unbelievably bloody sectarian wars in Europe. In the Middle Ages, the Islamic world was far more tolerant than the Christian.

Arab (no idea about Persian) and Pashtun culture is very macho, it's all about blood and honour. What we're seeing now is an offshoot of that, rather than of Islam per se.

Contrast with the Bedouin, for example, who just want to be left alone.

Zimbel said...

@Zoe Brain-

That's an interesting article, and much better sourced than the other similar ones I've read.

However, I reiterate my opinion that this seems more like a Theocratic point of view than a Fascist one. There's no Corporatism involved, and indeed, according to this particular report (and even your description), the issue is Religion, not Nationalism (another trait of Fascism).

So if I were to invent a word describing this philosophy, I'd think that Islamotheocrat would at least be a lot closer to being descriptive than Islamofascist. I'm not clear that there's any particular useful use for such a word, though.

Laserlight said...

I'd go with "jihadi"--they use it themselves and it conveys the point adequately. "Theocracy" implies, to me, a central hierarchy, eg if a Califf or 12th Imam or such were running things.

Lloyd Flack said...

Islamofacist is used because Fascism is the Western ideology that has the most similarity. They are into a romantic concept of violence and also into self-pity, both Fascist traits. Though secular Arab movements such as B'athism are actually more influenced by Fascism. Islamism is also influenced by Leninism. They have addopted the un-Islamic idea of a revolutionary vanguard from Leninism.

Anonymous said...

I think this is sloppy use of language. Fascism is a very specific ideology that is much more complex than just violence and self-pity, neither of which are exactly scarce commodities in the world. Similarly, Leninism is a lot more than just the establishment of a revolutionary vanguard.

Without a more substantial connection, the argument comes off as an appeal to the emotional loading of the word 'fascist.'

Lloyd Flack said...

I said that the militant Islamists had adopted the idea of a revolutionary vanguard from Leninism, not that it was all there was to Leninism or even that it was the defining concept.

Again romanicized violence and self pity are not all there is to Fascism but they are prominent traits and militant Islamism shares those traits.