Perspectives: 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' - A reason to carry firearms for self-defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
How inherent is Muslim militancy to Islam as a whole?

Many people don't know this, but the really militant forms of Islam only date back to the 19th century. That's when Wahabbism was founded, and other radical sects like the Deobandis (basically Luddites) and the Taliban followed in its wake.

The Ottoman Empire and other Islamic political entities that existed before that time were primarily interested in expanding their power, and the Muslim faith was just a convenient tool for that purpose, as with the Roman Empire under Christianity.

The growth of fundamentalist Islam is due in large part to US and European foreign policy; one of the original instigators for Wahabbi jihadism was British colonialism in Arabia. In their anti-communist paranoia, the US and Europe fought to stamp out liberal movements in Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and other places, promoting Muslim fundies as a bulwark against the Soviets.

Religious fundamentalism was a great weapon against the USSR, producing highly motivated militants who would happily die to destroy their enemies, but once the Russians were gone those militants took aim at the other intrusive foreign presence in their homelands--us.
 
The growth of fundamentalist Islam is due in large part to US and European foreign policy;

Sorry. The blaming the victim "root causes" shibboleth doesn't fly for me.

I subscribe to Karen Armstrong's view, who studied the issue of religious religious fundamentalism in detail. Long story short, religious fundamentalism, be it christian, jewish or muslim or other arises when a culture fails to make peace and find its own way with what she terms "the modern spirit".

If you want to look for root causes of fundamentalism in the case of Islam, the "gates of ijtihad" were closed for political reasons towards the end of the 11th century, which culled the various schools of Islamic thought down to about 4. It's kinda hard to blame the US, which was suffering a massive existence failure at the time on that one, or Europe, which was having a spot of the Dark Ages.


But in terms of getting the thread back on track, there is a very valid point raised: That the religious elements of this are really just stage dressing tools for what are actually political goals.
 
Last edited:
It has probably been mentioned in the previous five pages I won't go through right now, but the fact that the Bosnian refugee who opened fire in Salt Lake City last month last month was muslim, (Or at least his family was at one time,) had nothing to do with his violence. It wasn't even reported in the local news that they are/were muslim. It just came out a few days ago that he had an online girlfriend, and did it to make her mad. It wasn't about jihad, it was about a girlfriend.

I will admit that I have developed a predisposition against muslims in general, (which has been proven wrong several times lately.) Even the ones who truly do teach peace and tolerance still believe America is the oppressor and violence against Israel is understandable, if not justified. Having said that, It isn't a good idea to start blaming Islam for all violence connected to any muslim just because it's convenient.
 
Here is just a quick sample of Muslims speaking out against terror and terrorism.

Funny how all it took was 3 seconds for me to find it. I noticed that some of you found websites and books about how Islam is destroying the world and other things like that yet noone bothered to look on the flip side of that coin.

Could it be said that you were only looking for something to justify your beliefs? Or to hear what you wanted to hear?
 
There are some undeniable facts you have to look at: First, there have been a large number of terrorist acts that have been perpetrated by Muslims recently, for (allegedly) religious reasons. Second, there have been a large number of terrorist acts that have been perpetrated by non-Muslims recently, for (allegedly) religious reasons.

When the balloon goes up, you're not going to care whether the guy that's shooting up the mall around you is doing so because God told him to, because Allah said so, or because he's hacked off at his girlfriend and wants to end it all. All you're going to see is that damn big hole all them bullets are coming flying out of.

All this talk of Sudden I Need Something Else To Blame My Behavior On Syndrome does is deflect the discussion away from the fact that we are all adrift on the same sea. We are all our own captains. We are responsible for what we do, or what we let people talk us into doing. And when the rubber meets the road, I want to be able to hold my head up and say that I did the right thing because it was the right thing to do. I'm not gonna blame it on Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha. I'm not gonna say "It's all God's fault". We choose how to behave towards each other, and if we choose to let the difference between us drive us apart, then we are responsible for the lack of understanding and any misunderstandings that acrue from it.
 
I noticed that some of you found websites and books about how Islam is destroying the world and other things like that yet noone bothered to look on the flip side of that coin.

I could find links to articles on dog shaving on Google, doesn't mean there is any substance to it.
 
I skimmed this thread because the religious stuff doesn't interest me, but you guys need to remember that anti-gun types are against firearms carry because they think people could "suddenly go berzerk." We know that's ridiculous, so be careful with your consistency.

As far as Larry Pratt goes: GOA and other gun groups always make me laugh with their shocking letters where they need our help on an important issue. Stuff like this is just designed to get a little attention from the average Joes. I will still gladly support GOA. Please contact them and voice your annoyance, but withholding support over an issue like this seems even dumber to me than withholding it from the NRA, where at least there's a somewhat plausible reason.
 
I have compiled (quite easily, I might add) a list of murders and attempted murders carried out by Muslims acting on the basis of what the founder of Islam taught them.
I agree with Derek. This was intentionally inflammatory toward all Muslims, NOT just the militant branches of Islam. Pratt was way out of line on this one.
 
This was intentionally inflammatory toward all Muslims, NOT just the militant branches of Islam. Pratt was way out of line on this one.

If I might respectfully offer an alternative viewpoint. Instead of being intentionally inflammatory Prat could just be stupid, and as such a person who belives that "The plural of anecdote is evidence".

Many people belive that by pointing out a few examples of something that they have proven their point. They are wrong.

NukemJim
PS Doesn't change how you treat the leader of an organization, stupid or intentionally inflammatory, get them out of power or ignore them. NJ
 
I think all of you have been looking in the wrong direction. Al Quada, Taliban, Nazis, Communists, Socialists, et al are all indeed enemies, however we have never been beaten by them. Why? Not because of any superiority in anything except in our WILL to not be beaten.

That 'WILL' to not be beaten and our free enterprise and personal liberty has been what's driven us to develop our technologies to help win conflicts. Our true enemy, the one that can crush each and every one of us, is us. We are our greatest enemy. Think about it, we have done and now do constantly and consistently, tie our hands behind our backs because of politics.

Yes this is a Constitutional Republic, yes we elect our leaders that will best represent our will, however, I am afraid we have lost our direction and have become more concerned with the feelings of others and of keeping up relations, that we tolerate wrong-doing just to keep the peace, to not be the 'Bad-Guy' that we are supposedly perceived as by the rest of the world.

Racial profiling? Why not? If it looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and has terrorist intent, we shouldn't pull them out of the crowd because we just may be wrong and we don't want to embarrass them if they turn out to not be a terrorist. Incredulous.

Now we have Muslims suing airliners for removing them from a flight because they were profiled, even though they were blatantly being obnoxious about sympathizing with al Quada and Osama in the presence of a plane-load of passengers?

I think we need to turn our focus on ourselves because we are the real threat. Quit electing these spineless liberal anti-American sympathizers and lets start putting real Pro-Americans back at the helm of our will.
 
I think all of you have been looking in the wrong direction. Al Quada, Taliban, Nazis, Communists, Socialists, et al are all indeed enemies, however we have never been beaten by them. Why? Not because of any superiority in anything except in our WILL to not be beaten.

That 'WILL' to not be beaten and our free enterprise and personal liberty has been what's driven us to develop our technologies to help win conflicts. Our true enemy, the one that can crush each and every one of us, is us. We are our greatest enemy. Think about it, we have done and now do constantly and consistently, tie our hands behind our backs because of politics.

Agree with above. Disagree with below. Cannot grasp how your statement above leads you to conclude below.

Yes this is a Constitutional Republic, yes we elect our leaders that will best represent our will, however, I am afraid we have lost our direction and have become more concerned with the feelings of others and of keeping up relations, that we tolerate wrong-doing just to keep the peace, to not be the 'Bad-Guy' that we are supposedly perceived as by the rest of the world.

Racial profiling? Why not? If it looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and has terrorist intent, we shouldn't pull them out of the crowd because we just may be wrong and we don't want to embarrass them if they turn out to not be a terrorist. Incredulous.

Now we have Muslims suing airliners for removing them from a flight because they were profiled, even though they were blatantly being obnoxious about sympathizing with al Quada and Osama in the presence of a plane-load of passengers?

I think we need to turn our focus on ourselves because we are the real threat. Quit electing these spineless liberal anti-American sympathizers and lets start putting real Pro-Americans back at the helm of our will.

There's a big difference between racial profiling, and "looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and has terrorist intent".

Racial profiling = profiling by race, using various factors, such as name, skin color, clothing, language, etc, to identify the race.

Just because someone is named Ahmed, has brown skin, and wears a turban, does not mean he looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and has terrorist intent.

How you can equate the two is quite amazing.

To look like a terrorist, he probably needs an AK or a suicide belt; to act like one, he probably needs to blow up a few buildings; to talk like one, he probably needs to shout "Allahu Akbar, death to infidels" a few times; and to have terrorist intent, some emails with him discussing blowing up a few buildings is good. Of course, these are only examples relating to islamic terrorists. You can also look at Christian terrorists in Northern Ireland, Indonesia, or even the good Ol' USA for other terrorist profiles.

I've read of cases where people complained (maybe sued) because they were kicked off the plane for "acting suspicious", basically they spoke in Arabic (or some other foreign language), or went to the toilet repeatedly before take-off. How that equates to "blatantly being obnoxious about sympathizing with al Quada and Osama in the presence of a plane-load of passengers" is also another amazing grasp of logic.

Do you really mean "tie our hands behind our backs because of politics" or because of political correctness? Sounds like you meant the latter.

What makes a person not a "spineless liberal anti-American sympathizer" and a "real Pro-American"? Is Bush considered one? Can a muslim be "Pro-American"? Can a liberal be "Pro-American"? Can a conservative be "anti-American"?

If you want to throw around terms, at least let us know your definition, otherwise how will we know what you mean?
 
Guys, it really boils down to common sense, in two areas...

1) Some people from the fringe area of a religious group seem to have a fascination with violence... Er... make that religious _groups_. They want to blow up, or otherwise kill, _someone_.

2) Other people, while not motivated by religion, pseudoreligion, or anything which you or I would really be comfortable understanding, are out to get _someone_.

It is our job to avoid being that _someone_. I can easily see the next 9/11 type of event as being a school, a sports event, a theater, or a shopping mall. Any place where lots of people are gathered.

I don't give a damn if you pray five times a day while facing roughly east, or whatever. If you're trying to hurt me or mine, the rule book gets thrown out the window.

What the nice folks in the middle east don't realize is that the same people who are screaming that we need peace at any cost are going to react to another stateside 9/11-type incident by demanding that we pave a few countries. Remember all those folks who were suddenly wearing their little flag lapel pins? They're still in their drawers.

What we have seen as a war is essentially only a skirmish. They're going to keep at this - because it works for them. A low-tech guerilla war, with a large enough and dispersed enough population base will beat a high-tech army just about any day. If the high-tech army plays nice. What we NEEDED to have done was completely control all media within the region. And completely control it here. Because that is what has lost our second war for us.

And Pratt needs to have a chat with Zumbo - that kinda rant makes us look bad.
 
Skipping several pages of rhetoric...

The lead post disproves its own conclusion, and in doing so belies the author's bigotry. While there is indeed a viable threat from those extremists pursuing a "convert or die" philosophy, it is not described therein.

Averaging less than ONE attack per year, with a handful of victims each, the lead post utterly fails to indicate any viable concern. More people will die today driving home from work than the whole list shown, covering a decade.

If even a single percent of that population is motivated to go kill a few infidels for Allah, the country would be facing 70,000 murderers on the loose.
That leap of bigotry, launched from events well below the statistical noise threshold, is exactly the same BS as we face as gunowners with such nonsense as "well you might get mad and shoot someone" and "you're 44 times more likely to kill someone you know".

I'm posting to register my dismay at the rank abuse of statistics for political gain and advancement of bigotry - even if that gain is in my favor and the bigotry encircles (by far too wide a margin) my enemies.

If anything, the enumerated attacks statistically prove that "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome" is NOT a problem. Buying into the "thread" requires an unjustified statistical leap of four orders of magnitude in a population that shows no actual inkling to do so; the only way that leap seems likely at this point is in communal defense against the results of the author's bigotry.

BTW: this board's operator is Muslim. I'd rather stand at his side than by the author of that bigoted trash.
 
What we NEEDED to have done was completely control all media within the region. And completely control it here. Because that is what has lost our second war for us.

Holdup a sec, you lost me here: are you seriously saying that the solution to our problems is to censor all the news in the U.S. and Middle East?

Wouldn't that be the largest single un-Constitutional act in years (for the U.S. portion), and also completely validate the anti-US position ("America wants to control the Middle East")?

Just double-checking here, I'm simply not comprehending how established THR folks can advocate massive and comprehensive censorship.

-MV
 
Pretty much yes...

In Iraqistan, no problem - Stop the spewing of messages of hatred, and concentrate on messages of solidarity and peace. No publicity for atrocities.

In the United States, I'd forward a precedent: World War II. If something endangered morale or physical safety of troops, it didn't get printed or see the screen. Period. Today, you could tell a "reporter" that what he's about to print could cost a thousand troops their lives, and he'd start working on the human interest story about a thousand casualties...

Very few people under retirement age in the US understand war. The rule book goes out the window.
 
I agree

with Derek, and many others on the absurdity present in the article. However, anytime one listens to something that appeals to their emotional character, encourages illegal behavior, and has a mass of people around who feel similar ways, they are more likely to engage in said behavior. We shouldn't underestimate these forces in any religious, racist, or political group. There are powerful forces which DO lend themselves to the provocation of violence on the behalf of Islam. When you combine this with a tendency of the media to downplay or ignore the roots of the listed violent acts, as did occur, its enough to frustrate others into hyperinflating the threat. The fact is, SJS is just one reason, small on the list, of many reasons to have a firearm. You could go for crack cocaine, or perhaps rage induced car on car violence, whatever. So.....I guess what I am saying is that there is middle ground here. There are propoganda and peer pressures to hate and inflict violence on any American interest. There are also others and Larry Pratt seems to be playing on emotions and predisposition as well.

ST
 
What we NEEDED to have done was completely control all media within the region. And completely control it here.

1. It wouldn't work. China has a problem censoring information, USA would have a bigger problem. US citizens are a little less sheep-like.

2. What you have suggested (complete government control of media in the US), would be the biggest infringement of the bill of rights ever. For someone who visits this forum, I would think you fervently support the 2nd amendment. To even consider this a legal solution shocks me. So if the government says to win the war on crime they have to ban and confiscate ALL firearms, I suppose you would think that's a good solution too.

The stuff I hear in this thread gets more and more interesting...
 
So are you saying that censorship did not exist in World War II?

It did, and while it was largely voluntary, it was STRICTLY adhered to.

As it is, it appears that the media is hoping for another 9/11 so as to boost ratings...
 
No, we absolutely do NOT want to have government control of the media.

That being said, the majority of the media certainly does seem to be acting in unified concert against our national interests.

For such a diverse nation I deem it infinitely suspicious that the media should be as unanimous as it is in its editorial voice.
 
what religion was eric rudolf? tim mcveigh?

there was a piece of work... didn't rudolph do the olympic bombing?and the one outside the abortion clinic?with the second bomb timed to fubar the first responders?
how aboutwe lump em all into religous whack job syndrome?
 
So are you saying that censorship did not exist in World War II?

It did, and while it was largely voluntary, it was STRICTLY adhered to.

As it is, it appears that the media is hoping for another 9/11 so as to boost ratings...

I'm interested to know more info about censorship in WW2. I'm pretty sure the prevaling view of the public then was that casualties were acceptable in the face of Japanese and German aggression, and that would imply no need for censorship of body count and other negative news. The public now does not view the need to win the war at any costs, especially not for the survival of the US (unlike WW2). It's not like the war is going to spill over on US soil. It's a local war not a global war.

There's a big difference between voluntary self-censorship and government enforced censorship of the media.

Why would the media hope for another 9/11 to boost ratings? Does it make sense? Did the previous 9/11 creating a ratings boost? If so, how long did it last? Or are you just speculating.

Considering Anna Nicole Smith's death caused Iraq news to be pushed aside so easily, you would think the media desires a celebrity's death more than anything else. Maybe she was assassinated by Bill O'Reilly.

The media isn't this huge conspiracy where the CEOs of Time Warner, News Corporation, and other media conglomerates sit around and discuss plans to boost ratings. It's not a James Bond's film. Would be good if it was, then some James Bond type hero would jump in and save the day.

Just like we shouldn't lump all muslims together, we shouldn't lump all media together.
 
It's not like the war is going to spill over on US soil. It's a local war not a global war.

Haven't you heard? We're already under siege from a Mexican-Jihadi Popular Front. Any day now they're going to roll across the border, savage our women and force us all to bow toward Mecca.

Any day now.
 
We need another Ernie Pyle.

=====================
AT THE FRONT LINES IN ITALY, January 10, 1944 - In this war I have known a lot of officers who were loved and respected by the soldiers under them. But never have I crossed the trail of any man as beloved as Capt. Henry T. Waskow of Belton, Texas.

Capt. Waskow was a company commander in the 36th Division. He had led his company since long before it left the States. He was very young, only in his middle twenties, but he carried in him a sincerity and gentleness that made people want to be guided by him.

"After my own father, he came next," a sergeant told me.

"He always looked after us," a soldier said. "He'd go to bat for us every time."

"I've never knowed him to do anything unfair," another one said.

I was at the foot of the mule trail the night they brought Capt. Waskow's body down. The moon was nearly full at the time, and you could see far up the trail, and even part way across the valley below. Soldiers made shadows in the moonlight as they walked.

Dead men had been coming down the mountain all evening, lashed onto the backs of mules. They came lying belly-down across the wooden pack-saddles, their heads hanging down on the left side of the mule, their stiffened legs sticking out awkwardly from the other side, bobbing up and down as the mule walked.

The Italian mule-skinners were afraid to walk beside dead men, so Americans had to lead the mules down that night. Even the Americans were reluctant to unlash and lift off the bodies at the bottom, so an officer had to do it himself, and ask others to help.

The first one came early in the morning. They slid him down from the mule and stood him on his feet for a moment, while they got a new grip. In the half light he might have been merely a sick man standing there, leaning on the others. Then they laid him on the ground in the shadow of the low stone wall alongside the road.

I don't know who that first one was. You feel small in the presence of dead men, and ashamed at being alive, and you don't ask silly questions.

We left him there beside the road, that first one, and we all went back into the cowshed and sat on water cans or lay on the straw, waiting for the next batch of mules.

Somebody said the dead soldier had been dead for four days, and then nobody said anything more about it. We talked soldier talk for an hour or more. The dead man lay all alone outside in the shadow of the low stone wall.

Then a soldier came into the cowshed and said there were some more bodies outside. We went out into the road. Four mules stood there, in the moonlight, in the road where the trail came down off the mountain. The soldiers who led them stood there waiting. "This one is Captain Waskow," one of them said quietly.

Two men unlashed his body from the mule and lifted it off and laid it in the shadow beside the low stone wall. Other men took the other bodies off. Finally there were five lying end to end in a long row, alongside the road. You don't cover up dead men in the combat zone. They just lie there in the shadows until somebody else comes after them.

The unburdened mules moved off to their olive orchard. The men in the road seemed reluctant to leave. They stood around, and gradually one by one I could sense them moving close to Capt. Waskow's body. Not so much to look, I think, as to say something in finality to him, and to themselves. I stood close by and I could hear.

One soldier came and looked down, and he said out loud, "God damn it." That's all he said, and then he walked away. Another one came. He said, "God damn it to hell anyway." He looked down for a few last moments, and then he turned and left.

Another man came; I think he was an officer. It was hard to tell officers from men in the half light, for all were bearded and grimy dirty. The man looked down into the dead captain's face, and then he spoke directly to him, as though he were alive. He said: "I'm sorry, old man."

Then a soldier came and stood beside the officer, and bent over, and he too spoke to his dead captain, not in a whisper but awfully tenderly, and he said:

"I sure am sorry, sir."

Then the first man squatted down, and he reached down and took the dead hand, and he sat there for a full five minutes, holding the dead hand in his own and looking intently into the dead face, and he never uttered a sound all the time he sat there.

And finally he put the hand down, and then reached up and gently straightened the points of the captain's shirt collar, and then he sort of rearranged the tattered edges of his uniform around the wound. And then he got up and walked away down the road in the moonlight, all alone.

After that the rest of us went back into the cowshed, leaving the five dead men lying in a line, end to end, in the shadow of the low stone wall. We lay down on the straw in the cowshed, and pretty soon we were all asleep.
 
Haven't you heard? We're already under siege from a Mexican-Jihadi Popular Front. Any day now they're going to roll across the border, savage our women and force us all to bow toward Mecca.

Any day now.

Aren't they also going to fluoridate our water, make us follow the Pope, and send our money to Israel?

Wait, I'm confusing my conspiracies here...


Suffice to say:
--original article was alarmism, misleading, and reflects poorly on the RKBA community
--censoring war coverage would lead the most pyrrhic of pyrrhic victories. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory)

-MV
 
Excellent reporting can occur with censorship.

As it is, we have a group of "journalists" chanting "There's blood in the water! There's blood in the water!" while at the same time planning their next career move.

This _is_ also a global war. State-sponsored terrorism can go anywhere. And it doesn't need to be even as high-tech as 9/11...

War isn't only for big countries with big armies anymore. With a budget in the low millions, and a well-trained cadre of 100 true believers (of any belief system, I might add...), I could basically shut the USA interstate system down. Or I could take 5,000 points off the Dow. And a large part of the opportunity is because, even while this is a free country, with freedom of movement, there is also next to ZERO situational awareness among the population.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top