Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Joe Lieberman and Islamic Extremism

(American Conservative Blog) -- Senator Joe Lieberman, head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, is calling for hearings on whether the army should have picked up on signs that Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan had become dangerously unhinged before he went on his rampage. For once I agree with Lieberman, but the good senator goes on to describe the incident as terrorism because Hasan had become an “Islamist extremist.” The Lieberman attempt to slap a political label on what was clearly an irrational act carried out by a man who undoubtedly had serious mental problems will be popular in certain circles, but it will make many Muslims, including 6 million American citizens and the 10,000 or so who serve with US forces, uneasy. As near as I can tell from the press coverage, Hasan believed that the “global war on terror” was little more than a war against Muslims and he was opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also said that he was a Muslim first and an American second. Many contributors to this site, including myself, would agree to all of the above if you were to replaced Muslim with Christian and limit that final qualification to moral issues. I personally know a number of serving army officers who would also agree...--Philip Giraldi...Cont'd...LINK
----------
Libertarian Today editor's note:
What were the motives of those who lied us into the Iraq war, thus terrorizing millions and killing tens of thousands? Mental illness? Christian Zionism? Jewish Zionism? War profiteering? Oil imperialism?

Can we extrapolate generalizations about their ideologies (neoconservatism/neoliberalism) religions and races based on their behavior?

I think we can look for patterns, but with the qualifier that their behavior is not the definitive last word on, for example, Judaism. But rather an indicator to take into consideration.

Was Hasan an “Islamist extremist,” or was he an unassimilated tribalist demonstrating a violent loyalty to his Islamic tribe?

And since we’re at it, what, exactly, is Joe Lieberman’s status? -- Chris Moore

No comments: