Highly rec'd.

There's two things going on here. The fetishes this group has and their absolute talent at having them made public. Someday I'd like to [publicly] thank them for the many gifts they've given to liberals in this regard. Pass the popcorn, please.

Another thing, in 1998 all thoughts on war were about the big kind, fought in the conventional method. Also, most people probably thought there would be a good reason if a war had to be fought, not a war of choice and mistakes against 'Islamofascists'. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are fought so much more personally than the conventional type. Or at least that's my take.

But may I remind ... and I'm spitting as I type ...

The points that I took offense to and I assume they are the same for you, are nowhere near the points Fred is asking you to dispute. Not as first cousins, or 19th cousins 20 times over. The two sets of statements have never met before in their stated lives. Emphases are mine.

The first question that entered my mind, bar none other, was this - Was the killer a Muslim?

A second question immediately followed - If so, was he acting out of hatred toward America that expressed itself in the murder of these American soldiers?

We now know the definitive answer to the first question - Yes.

We have at this early point a tentative answer to the second - Probably yes in the sense that his feelings about America as an entity expressed themselves in his actions against individual Americans.

I would have wished both answers to be different, but I was not surprised that are what they are.

Nowhere, in any of the articles that I've read, have I heard anyone say that his acts were about his feelings towards America as an entity or otherwise!!!!@!!!!!

Fred just took parts of the arguments that we all made against his hotly defended declarations, as quoted above, and made them like that's what he had been saying all along. BullShit. And then challenged you to dispute them!@!!!!

WTF, Fred?

Hitler. No explanation on the time travel involved in making that work.

Fischer's take on the 1st Amendment is equally entertaining. It reminds me of how the birthers interpret the 14th Amendment ... very selectively.

Congress has the liberty to promote religion in any way, as long as it does not single out one Christian sect or denomination and make it the nation’s official religion. That’s it. [my emphasis.]

That's a good one, bluebell. Let's keep it.

Thanks, bluebell. I appreciate it.

Thanks for linking it. What is your take on it?

Buttsekks!!!! to that fail.

I am extremely grateful that you did, Zipperupus. Your credibility (and integrity!) and military insights have greatly contributed to focusing the discussion on where it properly belongs, and not on the guilty Muslim meme.

Racism is so offensive that I can't just sit still. That it happened in our virtual corner still set my fur on fire. Thank you, again.

I'm not sure how you see denial of reality as the best way to show support and sensitivity to the families that recently lost their loved ones. Isn't it better to focus on the real problems and try to fix them, rather than divert attention to a scapegoat?

Blaming Muslims when much of the problem lies within military culture can only create more and worse harm. Grieving families are not unconscious to reality, Fred. Give me a break.

Thank you for making it back here, Qinn.

dd, You get the Seashelly award of the day, not only for persistence, but for being right, too!

And also.

With special feeling....

TruckNutz!!!

Nor is anyone here trying to balance anything by sacrificing the feelings of the families. There are also no attempts to justify Maj. Nidal's behavior.

Frankly, my intention was to get any discussion of why the incident took place out of the racist space you put it in, by using your deductive reasoning to show the same could be said of any number of factors in the universe of domestic terrorism factors. By your own admission, Muslim was your first thought. And you never had a second thought apparently, that went beyond Muslim.

The reason the Muslim community was so quick to condemn the act was because they figured out quickly that if they didn't, the backlash would be even worse. Yesterday, a man from that community was quoted as saying that it's gotten so ridiculous they're now apologizing for people they don't even know. And an American, no less.

Your certainty and arrogance here, along with the absolutely wrong racial approach to understanding the situation is what gives liberals a bad name.

Yes, liberals may have been shushed right after 9/11. But we were right in what we were claiming, and we still are. How you can equate that with insensitivity or disrespect is totally beyond rational understanding.

Wow. I believe you are on the right track, as far as Maj. Nidal is concerned. I know so little about military culture, that it didn't cross my mind to even add it to the universe of possible factors. But from what you wrote and what we have heard, it is a good match.

And it fits in with the wider theme that I was trying to show. Islam and/or Muslims are not real American threats or apparently, military threats, either.

Thanks so much for trying again to push through the morass of ethnicity and the 'Muslims hate Americans" meme. Sometimes the truth can come out.

But you're right, extreme nationalism belongs in the universe of factors that can contribute to domestic terrorism.

Thanks, Merrill.

I was only attempting to challenge a national belief that was wrong from the beginning and show why it is wrong - because it leaves out any other factor that may in fact be the true one.

But that is still a subset to the heart of the matter.

Which all goes to show the beauty of truth that can be found in music!

Thanks, TheraP. I am humbled by your wisdom.

If the universe of other factors, like religious fundamentalism and nationalism, had been included inductively in the premise, the conclusion could not have rested on ethnicity as being the problem.

Sorry about that. My wishy-washiness is a problem [sometimes!].