Mastermind

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It may be helpful to define "strong jihadist tendencies."

Strong: emphatic, extreme, having force of conviction or feeling.

Jihadist: (in this context) a Muslim who favors or supports the Jihad.

Tendency: a demonstrated inclination to think, act, or behave in a certain way.

Muslims often have a strong religious unity that can appear (often falsely) to transcend nationalistic lines. I don't think it's abnormal at all for a devout Muslim to contemplate the impact to their actions if they were sanctioning the killing of other Muslims against the perceived unified threat (as seen from, we'll call it Islamic conventional wisdom).

I don't understand the above paragraph.

Certainly, there's the appearance among much of Islam globally that the West is engaged in a war to destroy (or at least hurt) Islam...as a faith.

Yes, I agree that appearance exists and believe that it has willfully been implanted by Islamist extremists many of whom want Jihad against the West.

This is why Saddam was looked at with reverence (he stood up to the West) and why Bin Laden gets a pass from otherwise moderates who believe that while his tactics are ugly he is standing up for the rights of Muslims less fortunate.

Did those Muslims that suffered Saddam's torture, humiliation, and his murder of their kith and kin look at him with reverence? Or did Muslims that favored Jihad against the West propogandize and convert others to this reverence?

Granted, not all Muslims would agree with this, and many Islamic nations and people don't have a great track record respecting the rights of their fellow Muslims.

And most Islamic nations have an even less than not great track record of respecting the rights of non-Muslims. And are encouraged by Jihadists to act on that less than not great respect for non-Muslims.

And also, a very large number of Muslims appear to either "get it" or simply don't think any of this nonsense justifies violence. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the World's Muslims are totally non-violent.

For the time being--but the Jihadists are working on that. And also, the vast majority of the World's Muslims are not in the U.S. military.

So where do you draw the line? Certainly acting out with violence to "protect the faith" is well past it, but what about peaceful opposition, protest or condemning language?

That's kind of my question.


Would the same standards be applied to a Catholic who's pastor flirted with violence against abortion clinics in their sermons?

Have we had any Catholic Jihadists in the recent past? Is there some cause for fear of the radical Catholics?

Would these be offending "jihadist tendencies" for a US citizen?
-spence

Perhap's, if he were a Muslim.

So, what is the answer to my question: In what way can a similar event (the Hasan incident) be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs (other than strong Jihadist tendencies) that he will turn on his comrades? I gather by your equating Islam to other religions, that the perpetrators and professors of radical Islamist's contemporary and actual "terrorist" activities are to be perceived as no more of a present danger than the possible, equivalent actions of the extremists within other religions. That free speech (even seditious, treasonous speech) is to be protected in the military. I gather, then, by your lengthy answer, that there is nothing that can be done. Just wait for the next incident and prosecute it as a mass murder. Of course, that is not prevention.