The in-artful headline from AP (via the Houston Chronicle), here, says it all, “Investigators:  Military to charge Ft. Hood suspect.”  Whether they are speaking for the convening authority (whom hasn’t been identified yet) or just for themselves remains to be seen.

31 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: Maj. Hasan Enters MilJus System (?)”

  1. Dwight Sullivan says:

    ABC is similarly reporting that “military sources late today confirmed to ABC News that Hasan will be charged and tried in military court.”

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/retired-colonel-john-galligan-defend-accused-fort-hood/story?id=9037335

  2. Cossio says:

    “Galligan said he was aware that Hasan, who was shot several times, was conscious and talking with hospital staff. He said he intends to make sure that Hasan’s rights are protected, and to that end has asked federal authorities to stay away from his client. He declined to discuss his client’s motives or what his line of defense would be.”

    Insanity brought upon “harassment” and a vicarious type of PTSD. Sure, that’ll fly. Let’s see if he can actually find one soldier who made anti-islamic remarks to Hasan or if they will be talking out of their who-know-what.

    “I don’t think we really know all of the facts, we don’t know what the charges are, we’re not even necessarily sure of exactly what the specific jurisdictions” Galligan told ABC News.

    You don’t know what the charges are going to be? Your not sure what Jurisdiction? Let me help you out Galligan. Multiple counts of Premeditated Murder, multiple counts of assult/attempted murder, and probably throw in a reckless discharging of a fire arm and conduct unbecoming an officer along with conspiracy to commit murder.

    Someone send a letter to Mr. Galligan and notify him the “Jurisdiction” is federal.

    Alright, maybe I’m too hard on him and the AP misquoted him. I will say this, the AP is the worst when comming up with Headlines. I’m not sure if its PC or the glue they sniffed while in “journalism” school.

    But check this out:

    Alleged Fort Hood Shooter Frequented Local Strip Club

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573052,00.html

    Report: CIA aware Ft. Hood shooter tried to contact terrorists
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/report_cia_aware_ft_hood_shooter_LjsDA0q4t3i0Yfyi4svk9M#ixzz0WSjLcIVf

  3. Cossio says:

    For those wondering what the strip club story’s significance will be imagine Mr. Galligan painting a picture of a Devot Muslim who’s religious beliefs conflicted with his Military Obligations.

    Now imagine a TC asking if going to a strip club right before the Murders conflicted with his religious beliefs.

    Are their any JAGs who are Muslim that can counter Hasan’s arguements? Their are passages in the Koran that will blow Hasan’s arguments out of the water:

    Nor take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully. we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).17:33

    On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life. it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs. yet. even after that. many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. 5:32

    ————————————-

    Bottom line the Army can do well to invest in an expert on Middle Eastern religion, someone who is Moderate.

    I doubt the Defense would counter with an extremist from the Muslim religion. Thus they would resort to some psycho-babbling Shrink who can be easily marginalized.

  4. Socrates says:

    According to what we know so far, I think we are about to see the unveiling of a new psychological condition: PRE – Traumatic Stress Disorder. Evidently, Hasan’s anxiety about being deployed was a critical factor triggering his rampage.

  5. Phil Cave says:

    That and the issue of vicarious exposure.
    http://bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com/2009/11/compassion-fatigue-secondary-ptsd-or.html

  6. Late Bloomer says:

    Caveat: Major Hasan is not representative of Muslims any more than Tim McVeigh is representative of Christians.

    With that being said, however, I do think that there were some glaring warning signs with Major Hasan. When several of hisclassmates complain to senior leadership that they believe he had crossed the line and was dabbling in Islamic extremism, action was warranted.

    I don’t know what went wrong. I am not fond of jumping to the “America is too PC” conclusion. The fact remains that this guy was heading down a path towards destruction and there were warnings.

  7. Comrade Cossio says:

    Yeah, another BS disorder for the quacks to put in the DSM – IV.

    I have one for them:

    Concoctus Fictitious Incompositus

    Loosley translated as “Concocting Fictitious Disorders” its when any pshyco-analist tries to make a name for himself by inventing non-existent disorders instead of realizing the person is just plain crazy.

  8. Anonymous says:

    “I am not fond of jumping to the “America is too PC” conclusion. The fact remains that this guy was heading down a path towards destruction and there were warnings.”

    I think the whole we were afraid to do anything because he was a Muslim is a crutch. We see this all the time in much less serious cases. Guy comes back with PTSD and no one does a whole lot to help him out, and then he gets into criminal trouble and everyone talks about warning signs but how they just didn’t have enough to get rid of him.

    Obviously, I am not comparing the relative merits of someone who has PTSD with this guy since although I firmly suspect he has several mental illnesses the fact of the matter is he could have zero.

    But, I think folks simply weren’t doing their jobs, because they were lazy, or because they didn’t want to be a bad guy, or because the natural tendency is not to get involved in other folks business.

    In this case, there were warning signs, but from my limited TDS experience there are often warning signs with mental health issues.

  9. Socrates says:

    I lean toward the politically incorrect conclusion that Muslims do exhibit a disproportionally higher risk of committing acts of politically motivated violence. But the same is true, for example, of gun owners. Automobiles and alcohol account for tens-of-thousands more deaths than politics or religion, and I do not want to see these products banned. So I would not seek to curtail fundamental constitutional rights based on what may be, if such calculations were possible, a few percentage points (or perhaps decimal points) of risk.

  10. Angry Cossio says:

    Late Bloomer: Caveat: Major Hasan is not representative of Muslims any more than Tim McVeigh is representative of Christians.

    No dice. McViegh’s motivation had nothing to do with his religious beliefs for one, for two how do you know if he was a Christian? Did you puul that out of any news article or did you assume that because he is a white American he believes in Christ?

    “Motivated by the federal government’s handling of the Waco Siege (1993) and the Ruby Ridge incident (1992), McVeigh’s attack was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the Waco Siege.”

    Political Terrorism Late Bloomer. Hasan’s was religious and political. Your anology that Hasan is to Ft. Hood as Tim McViegh is to Oklahoma City is foul.

    Your analogy, though flawed, is interesting onto itself. As I stated before it represents a pervasive belief amoung “progressives” to equate everything.

    People who think like you unfortunately run the Government, which is why America is in the danger that it is in now.

    They say we shouldn’t discriminate and be “diverse”. So we allow everyone in from “all walks of life (Gen. Casey)”

    That’s why we have terrorist in this country. That’s why we have an AIDs epidemic (BTW, BO just lifted the ban on AIDs infected travel to the US, Merry Christmass), That’s why we have Mexican Swine Flu, all in the name of “diversity” and more votes.

    Those who say, “well its like any other criminal bombing/murder” needs to have their heads examined, try telling that to the Victims families.

  11. Socrates says:

    Diversity is why we have Albert Einstein, the atomic bomb, and victory over Japan in World War II.

  12. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Socrates–

    I’m curious, what is your source for your assertion that gun owners “exhibit a disproportionally higher risk of committing acts of politically motivated violence.”

  13. Socrates says:

    Cloudesley,

    Good question. To start with the aggregate and obvious, gun ownership is more likely to result in gun use. Gun use tends to cause death. The United States leads the world’s richest nations in gun deaths — murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns – according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology. (Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In the United States, an average of 81 people die each day by guns– suicides, homicides, accidents/police action, according to Bill Marsh, (2007, 21 April), “An Accounting of Daily Gun Deaths,” in the New York Times. So, in the U.S., if you have a political grievance, gun ownership will result in a disproportionally higher risk of violence.

    As to political and ideological motives and gun use, I will provide two case studies. One is political assassinations, which tend to be shootings; and deaths in a war zone, which also tend to be shootings.

    First, assassinations. In the United States, firearms are the weapon of choice for assassins. This may seem obvious, but its NOT knives, grenades, hit-and-run, poison, etc. Abraham Lincoln, shot, 1865; William Seward, shot, 1865; James Garfield, shot, 1881; William McKinley, shot, 1901; Theodore Roosevelt, shot, 1912; Huey Long, shot, 1935; Harry Truman, escaped shooting, 1950; John F. Kennedy, shot, 1963; Malcolm X, shot, 1965; Martin Luther King Jr., shot, 1968; Robert F. Kennedy, shot, 1968; George Wallace, shot, 1972; Gerald R. Ford, escaped shooting, twice, 1975; Harvey Milk, shot, 1978; Vernon Jordan, shot, 1980; Ronald Reagan, shot, 1981.

    Second, war deaths. Here, the linkage between politics and war is obvious – the Clausewitzian link. Gun owners – military, criminal or terrorist – are shooting in the context of politically motivated violence. (Please don’t go off on this assertion, I mean it rather matter-of-factly and do not mean anything sinister by it) Most death in war occurs by firearms. For example, the Lancet Study figured 654,965 excess deaths in Iraq through the end of June 2006 based on household survey data. The estimate includes all excess violent and nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were estimated to be due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown.

    The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%).

    By the way: I am a solid advocate of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and believe in the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. But again, the theme of my post is that rights sometimes bear costs. I am willing to pay that price.

  14. Cossio says:

    Socrates,

    I think you should be made to drink Hemlock for your wild assertions.

    Its silly for you to compare Einstein with the type of immigrant today. I could go on about your claim about his anything to do with the Atomic Bomb over Japan (which is false), but then I suppose you would Google and find out it was another German – Oppenheimer and make the same ridiculous argument.

    Instead I will point out that you continue to make the same stupid comparisons. The “progressive” wants you to believe 1) That Einstein (let’s say immigration policy in the 1940’s) is equal to immigration policy today 2) Gun ownership has anything to do with this tragedy (another “progressive” lie) and 3) Muslim Extremism is equal to Christian Extremism.

    According to the FBI 10% of Mosque in the US preach Violent Jihad and Hatred for non-Muslims. 25% of Muslims in the US according to the pew research center are sympathetic to Suicide Bombers.

    Now the Libs are blaming guns.

    Socrates,

    Let’s skip the fact that you are making an oxymoronic statement. And that without guns we wouldn’t have a country. That Guns have saved more lives than they have taken away, and that states with stict gun laws usually rank the highest in crime, and conversely States with more liberal gun laws have low Gun Violence.

    As I stated earlier the real problem is people who think like you run this country. Take this disgrace. Here is the most corrupt POS Mayor since Boss Tweed, right in my back yard:

    ————————————

    On Monday, Chicago Mayor Daley blamed the Ft. Hood Jihad Massacre on America’s love of guns!

    “Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group.”

    http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-hood-on-americas-love-of-guns/

    Some common sense arguments on Gun Control:

    BigMike252 71p • 6 hours ago
    Mayor Daley and Idiot can be used in the same sentence.

    Brian_Hines 53p • 6 hours ago
    I’m confused, he just blamed a group of people, America, and their fascination with guns for Fort Hood but then he said you don’t blame a group. Wait, is this one of those “you can only blame white, Christian, gun rights extremists” without being criticized for it?

    Randyl2 60p • 6 hours ago
    ” Daley blamed the Ft. Hood Jihad Massacre on America’s love of guns! ”

    Does he blame 9/11 on the love of planes?

  15. Anonymous says:

    To piggy-back:

    Socrates–

    I’m curious, what is your source for your assertion that Muslims “exhibit a disproportionally higher risk of committing acts of politically motivated violence.”

    What time period are you talking about? Are you talking just in the US or worldwide? Because I’d suspect under either standard, Muslims aren’t going to necessarily be higher than any other group.

    You’ve got just in the last 20 years political violence by purported Christians in Serbia that killed a lot of people, you’ve got all of the political killing in Africa only a chunk of which is Muslim-based, go back a little further and you have the IRA, you have the militant right here in the states, the KKK if you go back a little further, the Koresh’s.

    I think the longer term you go, the less it is true.

  16. Anonymous says:

    “I could go on about your claim about his anything to do with the Atomic Bomb over Japan (which is false)”

    No it’s not false, the Einstein–Szilárd letter sent to Roosevelt in 1939 was a prime motivator for beginning practical research into building a nuclear weapon.

    “(let’s say immigration policy in the 1940’s) is equal to immigration policy today”

    No you are right, they are not equivalent, until 1952 there were racial quotas on immigration, Indians were stripped of their citizenship in 1923, until 1946 only 100 Indians and Phillipinos a year were allowed into the country, and Chinese were barred (thanks for building our trans-continental railroad guys, now get out), I could go on. I mean if that’s the kind of policy you want…

    “Muslim Extremism is equal to Christian Extremism.”

    I’m pretty sure that’s not what he said. I’m pretty sure what he said is that a Muslim who violates his religion’s peaceful edicts is no different than a Christian who does the same.

    “states with stict gun laws usually rank the highest in crime, and conversely States with more liberal gun laws have low Gun Violence.”

    Such a simplistic analysis. Let’s take D.C. Strict gun laws for 20 years, started in the 70s, that must mean the homicide rate kept climbing during that time right?

    Nope it rose, like most crime in the country, in the late 80s, peaked in the early 90s, and then dropped back down to early-mid 80s level by early this decade. Had nothing to do with gun laws (which according to the FBI have no effect on homicides because those who want guns simply go and get them from a neighboring jurisdiction or off the black market.) Getting a gun ain’t that hard.

    Guns are an American obsession. Not uniquely American, there are other cultures who value the gun nearly as much, but it is interesting what would happen if we magically took them all away and it was reserved for the police and the military. I think crime and particularly homicides would go down a bit, a lot harder to kill someone when you cant do it from ten feet away.

    Stick to the I want my 9mm gun so I can one day fight back against governmental tyranny and their automatic weapons and tanks argument. The guns help crime argument is fairly specious.

  17. Cossio says:

    Anonymous: Guns are an American obsession. Not uniquely American, there are other cultures who value the gun nearly as much, but it is interesting what would happen if we magically took them all away and it was reserved for the police and the military. I think crime and particularly homicides would go down a bit, a lot harder to kill someone when you cant do it from ten feet away.

    Oh you silly little man.

    We know exactley what would happen. You see good little Socialist like yourself love to take guns away. You did it Cuba, the USSR, and Germany.

    What FBI research are you qouting, I’m interested because cities and whole states with lax crime laws have lower rates of gun crime. I’m in Chicago now with the Gun Grabbing McDaley in the middle of a Homicide epidemic. Philidelphia, Washington (which you brought up) are in the same boat. All have strict Gun Control laws.

    There are cities with virtually no gun control, one in Carolina, where there hasn’t been a single reported incident in 20 years.

    The problem is you need to stop reading the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post take statistical data and manipulates it to look like States like Alaska, Alabams, West Virginia, etc. Have these great increases in crime dispite lax laws. Their sampling is flawed, and they should be sued for Journalistic Malpractice.

    Anonymous: I’m pretty sure that’s not what he said. I’m pretty sure what he said is that a Muslim who violates his religion’s peaceful edicts is no different than a Christian who does the same.

    The problem is you do not know anything about Islam, and what “edicts” and commandments are in there for dealing with non-muslims. As I stated before 25% of Muslims in the US are sypethetic to suicide bombers.

    Anonymous: No you are right, they are not equivalent, until 1952 there were racial quotas on immigration, Indians were stripped of their citizenship in 1923, until 1946 only 100 Indians and Phillipinos a year were allowed into the country, and Chinese were barred (thanks for building our trans-continental railroad guys, now get out), I could go on. I mean if that’s the kind of policy you want…

    ??? What. First the Indians, who we have exempted from taxes and given Casinos to, have been well compensated.

    Second. We do not owe workers from another country anything. Just like we don’t owe the Mestizos that pick our lettuce Healthcare, education, and welfare. But dummies like you disagree.

    Anonymous: No it’s not false, the Einstein–Szilárd letter sent to Roosevelt in 1939 was a prime motivator for beginning practical research into building a nuclear weapon.

    No. The primary motivation was that Germany was working on one, and so where the Soviets. The primary motivation was to put an end to the war.

    A simple Litmus test:

    If what you are saying is true, then by implication: absent a letter from Einstein, Roosevelt would most likely not push for the A-Bomb.

    Malarky, such a statement fails the litmus test.

    Anonymous: You’ve got just in the last 20 years political violence by purported Christians in Serbia that killed a lot of people, you’ve got all of the political killing in Africa only a chunk of which is Muslim-based, go back a little further and you have the IRA, you have the militant right here in the states, the KKK if you go back a little further, the Koresh’s.

    Hey Anon. Earth to Anon, come in Christianphobe.

    Even is you could draw a comparision between Christian Extremist Violence with Muslim Terrorism, the fact is it has been a while since we had to fear Christian Extremism.

    Nobody fears Christians except you rat-bum Christian phobes.

    People like you and Rosie O’Donell, who share your views, should be shunned for the Titanic Morons you are.

    Anonymous: What time period are you talking about? Are you talking just in the US or worldwide? Because I’d suspect under either standard, Muslims aren’t going to necessarily be higher than any other group.

    Anon, you’re a fool. Period, end of sentence.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I dont know why I’m wasting my time but:

    “There are cities with virtually no gun control, one in Carolina, where there hasn’t been a single reported incident in 20 years.”

    Yes, I’m sure there are no other crime-related differences between a city in Carolina (way to narrow it down there pal) and one of the major cities in the country with millions of people in most cases. It MUST be the gun control laws that account for the difference.

    “You see good little Socialist like yourself love to take guns away.”

    I am going to wait while you go look up the word hypothetical. Are you back? I haven’t advocated taking guns away from anyone, I’ve made the suggestion that guns are not a net positive vis-a-vis crime. I’ve also made the suggestion that society could do just fine without guns. I wouldn’t think any rational person would disagree with that concept. Now that is different from saying guns should be forcibly taken away, which rational people could come up with several arguments why that shouldn’t happen.

    “The problem is you do not know anything about Islam, and what “edicts” and commandments are in there for dealing with non-muslims.”

    A. That was a quasi non-sequitor. I pointed out that you misquoted the other poster, you moved on to a new, although at least related point. I’m going to go on a leap and suggest that much like I wouldn’t take a Muslim’s interpretation of Christian gospel as, well, gospel, nor will I take a Christian’s interpretation of the Koran as gospel. I certainly wouldn’t take your interpretation of much of anything as gospel. One can take passages from almost any religion and justify what ever one wants.

    “If what you are saying is true, then by implication: absent a letter from Einstein, Roosevelt would most likely not push for the A-Bomb.”

    Let’s recap. You said Einstein had NOTHING to do with the A-Bomb. I said, yes he had SOMETHING to do with it as his letter was A prime motivator. You then took that and changed A to THE and then with strawman set up, went on your way. You were wrong, admit it.

    “Even is you could draw a comparision between Christian Extremist Violence with Muslim Terrorism”

    I’m confused, because I thought I spoke specifically of all of Africa, much of which is TRIBAL-based and has zero to do with Christianity or Islam, and yet you chose to make it a duality between Christianity and Islam. Don’t you have any other moves? I mean it’s fine to have a couple of go-to moves, but change it up on occasion.

    “Anon, you’re a fool. Period, end of sentence.”
    To paraphrase someone famous, I’ve been thought a fool by better men than you. :)

  19. Socrates says:

    Readers of this post – please render a fair interpretation of my thesis: Muslims account for a disproportionally larger share of politically motivated violence. (And please remember my theme: even if this is true, Constitutional principles in our Republic render greater risk of crime one of the prices we pay for freedom).

    Some of the counter-arguments or faux-inquiries seem rather simplistic to me, and almost assume that I am making wild claims that this “proportion” of Muslim criminals must be HUGE, like a big chunk of the pie chart. No! My working hypothesis is that the elevated percentage of Muslim criminals is statistically significant, but not necessarily jaw-dropping. And I admit the data is insufficient to make forceful claims. But there IS enough data and anecdotal information to put some serious propositions on the table.

    First, let’s talk about Muslims and domestic crime. Many public survey organizations normally report about 2% Muslims in the U.S. (Estimates of the number of Muslims in North America range from a little over one million adults to seven million adults and children – one cause of the disagreement appears to be related to the percentage of Muslim immigrants who have abandoned Islam since they arrived in the US, or who still consider themselves to be Muslims, but who do not participate in mosque activities).

    Although constituting only about 2% of the U.S. total population, Muslims comprise about 6 percent of roughly 150,000 inmates at the federal level. In addition, the largest numbers of Muslims in state prisons can be found in New York, where they comprise roughly 18 percent of the 63,700 inmates; and Pennsylvania, where the figure is about 18 percent out of 41,100. This seemingly disproportionate share of Muslim criminals is worth examining.

    Second, let’s discuss Muslims committing crimes in Europe. In European nations, Muslims account for a disproportionate number of crimes. For example, Sweden has been suffering under exploding crime waves since the beginning of the mass immigration era from Muslim countries. In France and Holland, Muslims account for disproportionately more crime – such as France’s epidemic of “car arson.”

    Finally, let’s consider international political violence – wars and terrorism. Here, we have fairly straightforward evidence that Muslims are more involved in politically-motivated violence than other groups. At about 1.2 billion, Muslims represent about 22% of the world’s population (the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity, with 33% of the world’s inhabitants).

    In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, and the ensuing war produced at least 500,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of wounded. In the 1990s violence occurred between Muslims and non-Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, the Middle East, Sudan and Nigeria.

    In one inventory by “The Economist,” Muslims were responsible for 11 and possibly 12 of 16 major acts of international terrorism between 1983 and 2000. Five of the seven states listed by the U.S. State Department as supporting terrorism are Muslim, as are a majority of foreign organizations listed as engaged in terrorism. In counter-terrorism actions between 1980 and 1995, the U.S. armed forces engaged in 17 military operations against Muslim groups. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were underway in 2000; more than two thirds involved Muslims. Yet Muslims are only about one fifth of the world’s population.

  20. Cossio says:

    Socrates,

    You said it buddy.

    Anonymous: I’m confused, because I thought I spoke specifically of all of Africa, much of which is TRIBAL-based and has zero to do with Christianity or Islam, and yet you chose to make it a duality between Christianity and Islam. Don’t you have any other moves? I mean it’s fine to have a couple of go-to moves, but change it up on occasion.

    Again, as stated below I was refering to three people’s posts, sorry for any confusion, I had no idea if you Anons were the same or different people.

  21. Cossio says:

    Ahhh!!!

    Dammit. This blog…sometimes when you type a post and submit it you get a “error” message dealing with the Spam portection despite putting the right number in.

    Well it cut half my post up, so it doesn’t make sense.

    Anyways, I was addressing two Anons at the same time, so there was a confusion on who was saying what. The Einstein remark was first made by Socrates and followed up by Anon who decided to butt into the conversation.

    Finally to answer the other anon, I was going off memory. After Googling it, I got the right State:

    Gun town U.S.A., revisited – success of Kennesaw, GA’s gun ownership requirement law in preventing cri,e

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634/

    Anonymous: A. That was a quasi non-sequitor. I pointed out that you misquoted the other poster, you moved on to a new, although at least related point. I’m going to go on a leap and suggest that much like I wouldn’t take a Muslim’s interpretation of Christian gospel as, well, gospel, nor will I take a Christian’s interpretation of the Koran as gospel. I certainly wouldn’t take your interpretation of much of anything as gospel. One can take passages from almost any religion and justify what ever one wants.

    The point is Anon, that the current threat isn’t Christians flying Planes into towers, Nuns taking explosives into a subway, or Priests plotting Jihad.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Cossio,

    Your article is lacking a fairly crucial fact: what were the crime rates in that town before they required gun ownership?

    How dare that anon butt into the private conversation you were having with another anonymous person on a public blog!

  23. Comrade Cossio says:

    I’m impressed you noticed that, yet cannot disect the errors in statistical data and the omission of relevant facts on these gun reports.

  24. Anonymous says:

    “Muslims comprise about 6 percent of roughly 150,000 inmates at the federal level”

    Malcolm X wasn’t Malcolm X until he converted in prison. What percentage of folks convert in prison versus were Muslim when they entered?

    “For example, Sweden has been suffering under exploding crime waves since the beginning of the mass immigration era from Muslim countries.”

    Speaking of Europe, many Muslims in Europe are immigrants or second generation, there is a lot more racism and prejudice there then there is here in many ways and we actually do a better job of assimilation. Is crime in Europe about them being Muslims or simply about them being poor. Put another way, the early 1900s saw the Irish and the Italians as being high crime groups but as they moved up the socio-economic ladder the crime numbers went down. One is beginning to see the same in the African-American community. Point being that we aren’t just one thing. We can be Muslim and poor and a certain ethnic group. Which one of those things is why we commit violence? All? Some? One?

    And you could have typed:

    For example, Sweden has been suffering under exploding crime waves since the beginning of the mass immigration era from ______ countries. Insert many different regions or areas in the world, and Sweden would be suffering from the same exploding crime waves. Heck there are people right here who’d say that we have exploding crime because of mostly Latino immigration. Unassimilated immigrants have a hard time getting jobs, which leads to poverty, which leads to folks committing crimes to make money. I’m not defending the crime or blaming it on society to forestall the inevitable Cossio you are a liberal who blames society for crime malarkey, simply pointing out that it’s a common denominator across the globe.

    Finally, I think pointing to the wars between Iran and Iraq and similar events as evidence of Islamic predilections is particularly un-instructive. We only need to go back to the 60s and 70s to find a pretty deadly conflict that had nothing to do with Islam. Another 10 years and find another one that had nothing to do with Islam. And less than a century to find not one but two world wars that had nothing to do with Islam. Rwanda had nothing to do with Islam. Bosnia and Serbia Islamic people were the victims. What about the kidnappings and murders of foreigners in Central and South America.

    The point is, it’s an arbitrary time period. You pick 1980 to 1995 roughly, why not 1960 to 1995? Why not 1940 to 1995? Heck, wasn’t the IRA the top terrorist group in the 60s and 70s arguably? Does that mean the Irish have something wrong with them?

    I understand you say, hey I’m just asking questions, and that’s fine, but I guess the next step is, what’s your point? I think you were on firmer ground when you just said, we can’t discriminate against these folks, period.

  25. Anonymous says:

    “The point is Anon, that the current threat isn’t Christians flying Planes into towers, Nuns taking explosives into a subway, or Priests plotting Jihad.”

    That may be your point, it may even be a point, it most certainly was not the point.

    The point was that those Muslims flying planes or taking explosives are no more true representatives of their religion than any group of religious fanatics that have come before them or will come after them. It’s a point lost on you I know.

    “what were the crime rates in that town before they required gun ownership?”

    Very good question. Cossio let me make this easy for you. Let’s assume Town X had 20 violent crimes a year before a gun law came into effect. Now let’s assume three scenarios:

    A. The following years the number was significantly lower than 20
    B. The following years the number was significantly higher than 20
    C. The following years the numbers was roughly the same

    Would you not agree that scenario B would at least suggest that gun laws made things worse, while scenario A would suggest that gun laws made things better and scenario C would suggest they had no effect either way?

    Now, this is a simplistic approach admittedly but you are the one putting it forward that gun laws and violent crime are tied together. It could be violent crime has nothing to do with gun laws. So that even if crime drops after a gun law passed, it could be for a whole host of other reasons other than the gun law. It could be better policing, an aging of the general population (younger folks commit more crimes), an improvement in the local economy (less poor folks commit fewer crimes).

    In the reverse, it could be that a rise in crime after a gun law is also meaningless, the policing could lose funding or be ineffective, the population could become younger, or the local economy could tank.

    But at the very least, if you are going to try and make the argument, shouldn’t you know the crime rate before the law and the crime rate after the law?

  26. Socrates says:

    Anonymous,

    You raise interesting objections…but these objections are not strong enough to constitute a rebuttal. Your points are more like requests for refinement of the data. Put differently, there is a big difference between examining the “margin of error” and “error,” itself.

    In addition, it is obvious you have not properly construed my premise, which does not posit a “causal” relationship. I suggested a statistically significant correlation. (The NEXT step would be to examine the causal links) This fact alone makes much of your critique miss the mark.

    Your point about conversion to Islam in prison is worth examining, but your quibble leaves the basic point untouched. Its highly unlikely that 90% of incarcerated Muslims are all prison converts. Even if that WERE true, it would call for yet another examination of the link between Islam and crime, just from a different perspective.

    Your point about poverty, racism, or other causes is really a non-sequiter. Nobody would deny such a link. Its what in social research is called a variable. But pointing to other variables, in this context, is just a dodge; its beside the point. Poverty may contribute to crime, say, 80%, and Islam by only 2%. Such data, if it were possible to obtain, would leave my hypothesis unscathed. Your objection thus contains a hidden premise: Religion is not a sufficient motivator of human behavior to measure or matter. No serious social scientist believes this. Religion is one of the strongest basis of self-identity and behavior, and it is measurable, albeit not with the precision we would like. Furthermore, this seeming “defense” of Islam contains a hidden insult: “Islam is not important enough to affect the social and political behavior of Muslims.” (And you can’t have it both ways, imagining that the religion ONLY affects people for the GOOD)

    Your point about Sweden is wonderfully put. You leave a blank for the other variables. Now we are doing social science. Which variables do you suggest? I have put forward a falsifiable proposition. You have not.

    I will leave it for the audience to decide for themselves whether the fact that 2/3rd of the conflicts in the world involve Muslim countries, when only 1/10 of the world’s nations are Muslim, is worthy of further inquiry. You seem to be saying, “don’t go there!” You only quibble with the Iran-Iraq war, and subtley slip the phrase “Islamic predilictions” into the discussion, distorting my thesis. You are thus arguing more with the dreaded implications of my argument than the argument itself.

    We just recognized the 30 year anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Iran. The Iran-Iraq war started immediately after, and in reaction to, that revolution. To say that this deadly conflict “had nothing to do with Islam” … nothing? … really, NOTHING…is too defensive, betrays political correctness, and demonstrates more of your sensitivity than your historical knowledge. Yes, Islam had “something” to do with the ideology and violence in that war. Ditto with all the other nations and conflicts I list.

    In short, my post has caused you anxiety because you are imagining the racist and chauvenistic shadows of the argument. While I admit those shadows exist, I am not willing to look blindly away from compelling evidence that demands further inquiry.

  27. Socrates says:

    By the way, never ask Socrates “what’s the point?”

    Besides being a subliminal concession of intellectual defeat, the question suggests that some knowledge is not worth having. This is not a proposition Socrates can live with.

  28. Anonymous says:

    “Poverty may contribute to crime, say, 80%, and Islam by only 2%. Such data, if it were possible to obtain, would leave my hypothesis unscathed.”

    No it wouldn’t leave it unscathed at all. I’m sure one can find certain percentages of crime committed by folks with brown eyes versus folks with blue eyes. I think we’d all find any percentages would be fairly meaningless because eye color has very little if anything to do with crime.

    If the trait, in this case religion, has nothing or very little to do with the conduct involved, in this case crime, then like eye color it becomes a red herring.

    You use scientific terms like hypothesis and causal, but usually a hypothesis proposes some causality. I propose that X leads to Y because of Z. An hypothesis isn’t I’ve noticed there’s a lot of X.

    So if you are saying, I’ve noticed more than their numbers of Muslims commit crime or terrorism, a good scientist would:

    Prove Islamic folks do so more than their numbers
    Prove it’s based on Islam and not something else
    Prove your observation isn’t based on an arbitrary sample size (1980-1995) and that a longer period wouldn’t erase your observation completely
    What’s your point?

    Not a concession of intellectual defeat, but an inquiry that even if your observation is true, what is the meaning behind it.

    “Your objection thus contains a hidden premise: Religion is not a sufficient motivator of human behavior to measure or matter.”

    Didn’t say that at all. I said you haven’t proven that it is a substantive motivator for crime or that your arbitrarily small time period holds any real meaning vis-a-vis war and terrorism.

    “What variables” do I suggest? I think I was somewhat clear on this. I suggest immigration is one big variable. So insert any foreign country that is a third world country. So most of Africa, or Asia, or Central or South America. In the first half of the 20th century in America insert immigrants from Ireland and Italy.

    “We just recognized the 30 year anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Iran. The Iran-Iraq war started immediately after, and in reaction to, that revolution. To say that this deadly conflict “had nothing to do with Islam” … nothing? … really, NOTHING…is too defensive, betrays political correctness, and demonstrates more of your sensitivity than your historical knowledge. Yes, Islam had “something” to do with the ideology and violence in that war.”

    Huh? Re-read my post.

    “Finally, I think pointing to the wars between Iran and Iraq and similar events as evidence of Islamic predilections is particularly un-instructive. We only need to go back to the 60s and 70s to find a pretty deadly conflict that had nothing to do with Islam.”

    I did not say the Iran-Iraq War had “nothing to do with Islam” I said we only had to go back a couple decades earlier to find larger wars that DIDNT have anything to do with Islam. I was talking about Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI.

    That’s the point, if one pointed to that time period, then you could have made the equally IMO meaningless argument that Christians were responsible for almost all the violence in the world, even though Christianity had almost zero to do with any of those wars.

    Your argument that the Iraq-Iran War was about Islam makes about as much sense as saying WWI and WWII were about Christianity since the vast majority of participants in those wars were Christian nations.

    That’s my point. We have wars all of the time on this planet. Just so happens the “Christian parts” have had so many we’ve kinda warred ourselves out. If you look back in history, you see war is propagated pretty darn equally amongst all religions.

    Your picking a 20 year period and making an observation that well gosh seems like Muslims are involved in more wars than you’d expect, we should look into that…

    Well, it brings me back to the points above. What’s the point? Why just that time period?

    As for the dark side of the further inquiry…where else do you expect the further inquiry to go. Let’s analogize to African American crime rates. Those are disproportionate amongst the American population to the number of African American’s in the population. Now do we spend our time looking at race, or do we instead look longer term and say, gosh these same issues happened with other ethnic and immigrant groups prior to full assimilation, like the Italians, like the Irish. This really isn’t about race, it’s about poverty, or other issues.

    Iraq and Iran went to war because they were the two biggest boys on the block, because of territorial disputes, because Saddam wanted more power and influence…they could have both been insert your religion here and still have gone to war. Doesn’t mean Islam had “nothing to do with it” since the Shia/Sunni power struggle had something to do with it, but no I don’t think Islam had a lot to do with it.

    This really all goes back to the time period. Pick one time period and it looks like Muslims are outside, pick another and they look average, pick another and they look less likely.

    Put another way, if your observation doesn’t stand up to even small (in historical terms) changes in the observation time period, then no I don’t find it a particularly compelling observation.

    Go back to 1914 and move forward and I’d guess that Muslims are responsible for less than 2/3rds of all conflicts (a number you haven’t sourced well, which is to say, at all), I’d in fact highly suspect they wouldn’t even account for 1/10th of all conflicts. The history of conflicts in Asia and Africa alone over the last 100 years dwarfs what is going on now.

    That’s less than 100 years, a historical blink of time.
    You are going to need a lot more to make your observation, IMO, strong enough to make me go, let’s investigate that. Because as it stands, a 20 year period is too small of a sample size to be at all meaningful.

  29. Socrates says:

    First and foremost, “what’s your point” is simply a whine from you, its not part of any scientific method. And yes, I am asking valid social scientific questions. The problem is that I am trying to examine marginal factors, and you just do not have the patience for such apparent trivia (in your mind).

    Next, your analytical paradigm is fatally flawed.

    You propose four obstacles or problems:

    – “Prove Islamic folks do so more than their numbers.” (I met this challenge already, or at least put a reasonable basis to suspect this is true. Your central move was to shift the focus to other variables and expand and/or question the time scale. But you did not credibly propose a counter-factual, for example, that Jews, Christians, Conucianists, Tribalists, Hindus, Jains or Buddhists account for a higher percentage of politically motivated violence)

    – “Prove it’s based on Islam and not something else” (No, no, no. I do NOT have to prove that. This kind of statement makes me think you really DON’T know how to work with multiple variables. Its oversimplifying social science.)

    – “Prove your observation isn’t based on an arbitrary sample size (1980-1995) and that a longer period wouldn’t erase your observation completely” (This is your best argument. If this were an academic work, I would probably examine the period after the Islamic political awakening in the 1930s-40s; the birth of Israel in 1948; or the defeat of the Arab armies in 1967. Since I am examining politically motivated violence, I would hone-in on these key dates. This is a blog, and I put together a rapid sample in the first go around to at least make a plausible case with some evidence of a trend. Finally, “in the long run, we’re all dead,” as John Maynard Keynes said to rebut the weak objection that somehow long term resolutions to problems render temporal analysis of them unnecessary. Are you saying that if Christians caused most politically motivated violence between 1492 – 1789, and Muslims caused most of it from 1949 – 2009, this would be irrelevant knowledge if all religions contributed equally from now on? You need to distinguish between asking for data and making a counter-argument, because most of your “arguments” are really just disguised requests for more data.)

    – “What’s your point?” (Religion is a significant motivator of conduct…sometimes negatively, sometimes criminally. If you do not WANT to know this, or do not WANT this to be true, just say so, and I will stop)

    So, this discussion comes down to our real premises, because I think this is where we really differ.

    You say:

    “I’m sure one can find certain percentages of crime committed by folks with brown eyes versus folks with blue eyes. I think we’d all find any percentages would be fairly meaningless because eye color has very little if anything to do with crime.”

    Not so fast. You have already assumed your conclusion. If you could, in fact, demonstrate that people with brown eyes committed disproprionately more crime, and that difference was statistically significant, I WOULD want to investigate that. That’s called scientific inquiry. Perhaps there is a genetic linkage. Perhaps there is a reaction to people who look a certain way and this leads to violence. The possible reasons are numerous. In contrast, you have already determined that there can be no causality, so the inquiry ends there. That’s called belief.

    Your next step is a very subtle retreat:

    “If the trait, in this case religion, has nothing or very little to do with the conduct involved, in this case crime, then like eye color it becomes a red herring.”

    First, religion is a central part of people’s identify. In general, Muslims take their identity very seriously, much more so than their eye color or the other incidental “traits” that you infer.

    Second, there is quite a difference between NOTHING and VERY LITTLE…and MY preferred term: statistically significant. Statistically significant variables cannot just casually be blown off and assumed to be “red herrings.”

    Yes, its more fun, and far easier, to talk about the 50% factors and the 20% factors, but you have not persuaded me that the 2% or 5% factors are not worth studying, too. So, indeed, “immigrant status” may be a more important factor, generally, than “religion.” But you don’t just arbitrarily stop the inquiry there. You next compare immigrant categories and contrast religion. What percent of Hindu immigrants are committing crime in Sweden? What percent of Buddhist immigrants are committing crime in Sweden?

    No doubt I cannot convince you in a blog, where you correctly point out that I haven’t “sourced” my arguments to your satisfaction, seeming to forget the forum. But I think there is ample evidence that since September 11, 2001, until today, Muslims have committed acts of politically motivated violence disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

    Are you willing to engage in a thought experiment with me?

    Please draw a simple picture of the following religious figures: 1) Jesus; 2) Buddha; 3) Confucious; 4) Abraham; 5) Muhammad. Then ask yourself which group would most likely react violently to your picture. If you could put together an imaginary hierarchy of risk, which most people using common sense very well could, then you will get to the essence of “my point,” without the sophistry.

  30. Anonymous says:

    I’m confused. YOU are the one making the argument. YOU are the one who has to provide the relevant data. My telling you that you haven’t done so doesn’t somehow make my argument weak.

    “Are you saying that if Christians caused most politically motivated violence between 1492 – 1789, and Muslims caused most of it from 1949 – 2009, this would be irrelevant knowledge if all religions contributed equally from now on? You need to distinguish between asking for data and making a counter-argument, because most of your “arguments” are really just disguised requests for more data.)”

    I am saying something very simple that you are attempting to dance around. You cannot take a 15 year period of human history, “observe” that one group has done something more than they should have, and then have that observation mean jack squat.

    – “Prove it’s based on Islam and not something else” (No, no, no. I do NOT have to prove that. This kind of statement makes me think you really DON’T know how to work with multiple variables. Its oversimplifying social science.)

    So let me get this straight, it’s irrelevant to your observation whether or not your observation is based on an actual correlation. No wonder “social science” gets such a bad rap.

    “I met this challenge already, or at least put a reasonable basis to suspect this is true. Your central move was to shift the focus to other variables and expand and/or question the time scale. But you did not credibly propose a counter-factual, for example, that Jews, Christians, Conucianists, Tribalists, Hindus, Jains or Buddhists account for a higher percentage of politically motivated violence)”

    You have picked a small time chunk thrown up a ridiculously meaningless “observation.” No, I can’t prove that during a 15 year period of human history, a certain group accounts for a higher percentage based on religion than their numbers. Mostly because I do not have the inclination to go check it out. Although given the insanely tiny percentage of tribal religions versus the bigger religions not sure how you can even be sure that in Africa alone the percentage difference isn’t larger.

    1 million Hutu and Tutsi (primarily Roman Catholic) were killed in one year alone (1994). If I looked at just that year, wouldn’t you say Christians lead the pack that year, wouldnt you make that “observation” and say that in 1994? Or heck given that the Iran-Iraq War was in the 80s you could say even with Desert Storm more killing was done by Christians in the 90s than Muslims based just on that one year.

    It would be an utterly meaningless observation but I wouldn’t have to go back to 1492 which was a silly attempt to marginalize my point. I’d only have to go back to the 1990s to find a decade long period where Muslim violence wasn’t even 1/10th of Christian violence.

    “(Religion is a significant motivator of conduct…sometimes negatively, sometimes criminally.”

    Ok, and? So are 100 different other things. It’s such a generalized point as to be meaningless. Fear is a significant motivator of conduct, so is ideology, so is greed, so is plain old evil. That gets you what exactly? Your “observation” went a wee bit more specific than “religion is a motivator.” Want to try again?

    “Not so fast. You have already assumed your conclusion. If you could, in fact, demonstrate that people with brown eyes committed disproprionately more crime, and that difference was statistically significant, I WOULD want to investigate that.”

    Wow, you would? Because unless that number was insanely large, I would see little point in investigating it PARTICULARLY if that statistically significant difference came over a statistically insignificant period of time.

    Sample size. You want to ignore it. That’s fine, but it isn’t scientific. You want to focus on the data point but ignore the sample size. How in the world is that good science? It’s akin to lining up 20 people based on the population’s distribution of eye color and finding out that three times as many of the brown eyed folks commit crime. The sample size makes that “statistically significant” finding utterly meaningless.

    “Yes, its more fun, and far easier, to talk about the 50% factors and the 20% factors, but you have not persuaded me that the 2% or 5% factors are not worth studying, too.”

    It’s also more relevant, more accurate, more meaningful to talk about those other by your own apparent admission 95-98 percent factors. It’s not about “fun.” If you want to focus on minutiae feel free, but again, it’s pretty meaningless.

    “You next compare immigrant categories and contrast religion. What percent of Hindu immigrants are committing crime in Sweden? What percent of Buddhist immigrants are committing crime in Sweden?”

    Something you haven’t done. That’s the point, you’ve thrown out an observation as though it’s meaningful of further study, but not actually shown it’s meaningful of further study other than that you think it so. And then when I point out all of the various ways you haven’t proven it were so, you make it seem as though the fact that you’ve gone to step one on a 20 step process is somehow “sophistry.”

    No it’s called demanding evidence.

    “Please draw a simple picture of the following religious figures: 1) Jesus; 2) Buddha; 3) Confucious; 4) Abraham; 5) Muhammad.”

    That’s simplistic silliness. How about I rip up a picture of the Pope? In some places that would get my rear end kicked. How about I not even draw a picture in say Rwanda, how about I just be part of the wrong ethnic group. Those Christians will kill me like the other 1 Million who were killed.

    You are confusing the free speech and Democracy that exists in the West with the less free and Democratic societies that exists in the Middle East (and other places). And how many people have been attacked or killed for drawing a picture of Abraham? Not a lot. A lot of anger and shouting but then again, ever had an abortion debate with a conservative Catholic?

    “I think there is ample evidence that since September 11, 2001, until today, Muslims have committed acts of politically motivated violence disproportionate to their percentage of the population.”

    Ah, so now you’ve narrowed it to less than a ten year period. So you win. Muslims do it more from 2000 to 2010. I think Rwanda alone shows Christians did it more from 1990 to 2000. And that means what exactly?

    Not a darn thing.

  31. Socrates says:

    Your reliance on the “burden of proof is on me” argument is suspect, because I am attempting to raise a hypothesis and you are really trying to say that my hypothesis is an unacceptable one…not even worth a moment of pause or investigation. But since I live in a real world and think it meaningful that someone yells “Allahu Akbar” immediately before he kills 14 fellow citizens, I am willing to go there. Why does it matter? You know the answer to that rhetorical question. A) Formation of better social and international policy; B) Better screening for military service and deployment; C) Assessing security risks; to name just a few.

    I understand your points and you understand mine. So it seems it comes down to how we assess risk and how we go about asking questions. You are not Socrates, so of course, you are not as prone to ask questions as me.

    I think a “15 year period” does matter, because that is the period we happen to live in. I have as much right to know about a 2% risk as I have to know about the ingredients in my twinkies. Its not for you to determine which data is relevant for society to know and to cut-off because it doesn’t matter “a darn thing” to you.

    While I concede that we should study the most important correlations and causations more dilegently, I refuse to be as dogmatic as you about just stopping the inquiry when we violate somebody’s comfort zone. I am willing to examine Christian violence, black violence, Catholic priest sex abuse, or whatever social taboos that you imply are “off limits.”

    Our objective audience is free to determine whether somebody’s religion is as meaningless as someone’s eye color. I will just let that analogy rest on its own merits, because I think it sums up your sophistry. Yes, Christian violence is ALSO a risk, as your attempted diversions keep alluding to. Yes, immigration, racism, poverty, social isolation, etc. are important factors. I would like to know their proportions and to know as much as possible. In sum, I think that marginal risks do matter, especially for the military mission, which involves assessing risk.

    And yes, we both agree, I win.