My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Muslims who defend us

JTM

"Just in case"
Premium Member
Here's something to think about.

When they polarize us, black people think Katrina is whites' fault, and whites think it's the blacks' fault. Who does this help? Nobody? Wrong, it's the people that would cherish this polarization of the United States. With this polarization, they can do whatever they want. We recently had a moment of silence for "The violence at Fort Hood" in lodge, after which a brother stood up and very loudly/proudly exclaimed that the WM was wrong and that it was definitely a terrorist attack.

Who does that help? Words like Islamo-fascist and Muslim terrorist. Total crap.

This article brings up Cpt. Humayun Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed when he approached a suicide bomber in Iraq and other Muslims. Do we really need the word "Islamo" or "Muslim" in front of fascist and terrorist to give it more umph? An educated person would tell you that it detracts from the word "terrorist" and "fascist."

Keep in mind two people when reading this article: our Muslim brothers and the Muslims that still have to go to work every day in Ft. Hood that are working hard to protect our country.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09321/1013975-109.stm

Quoted here:

A sampling from the web:

"Why are these Muslim invaders allowed to carry on freely in this country -- protected by outreach, Obama and PC mental illness?"

"Simply put, most Muslims in non-Islamic countries have an evil axe to grind and a scurrilous hidden agenda."

"Muslims should be deported from this country! They offer nothing to Americans!"

This outburst of vituperation from message boards and bloggers is, of course, traceable to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist and American Muslim accused of shooting 13 people dead and wounding 29 others in a rampage Nov. 5 at Fort Hood, Texas. At this writing, we know next to nothing of why he did it.
Maybe he was a stone cold psychopath like Eric Harris who, with Dylan Klebold, shot up Columbine High in 1999.

Maybe he was deranged and delusional like Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in 2007.

Maybe he was driven by a grudge against the federal government like Timothy McVeigh, who blew up a federal building in 1995.

Maybe he was a terrorist.

Predictably, it is the last possibility that has ignited outrage and condemnation from the usual speak-first, think-later types, employing the usual sweeping half truths and untruths to argue that Muslims are un-American and contribute nothing to this country.

One wonders what they would say, then, to Cpl. Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

Or to Spec. Rasheed Sahib, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, accidentally shot to death by a fellow soldier in Iraq.

Or to Maj. James Ahearn, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a bomb in Iraq.

Or to Cpt. Humayun Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed when he approached a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Would they continue in loud ignorance? Or would they simply, finally, shut up?

The latter is probably too much to hope: The majority is often eager to stamp the minority with the worst actions of its worst members. The minority is left to wonder why only its worst are judged emblematic, while its best are forgotten or ignored.

So it is for Muslims, now, sacrifices and service unremembered and unremarked.

If you study the list of recent American casualties, you find names redolent of every other place on Earth, names that smell of Scottish highlands and Korean marketplaces, Yemeni ports and Nigerian mosques, Russian steppes and Mexican farms.

All of them choosing to make their lives here in the land of burger joints, rap music and amber waves of grain -- a land where, it is boasted, a man is not his past, a man is not his culture, a man is not his tribe. A man is a man.

It is an ideal never fully realized and yet, an ideal soldiers with names from every other place on Earth sign up every day to defend. That ought to tell you something. It ought to make you proud.

And it ought to leave you impatient with the shrill, intolerant voices who would have us believe Nidal Malik Hasan is every Muslim in America.

For what it's worth, those same voices sang out when Japanese-American soldiers left internment camps to fight for freedom. And when African-American soldiers went abroad to defend democracy, then came home and were lynched still wearing their uniforms.

The story is told of a black woman who refused to salute the American flag and scorned her father, a veteran, because he did. Finally he explained: He did not stand to honor the nation as it was, but the nation as it could be if it embraced its own ideals.

One suspects his reasoning would resonate today with the Muslim-American soldier walking his post in the wake of the shooting at Fort Hood. He stands up for his country.

Let us hope his country will do the same for him.

 

TCShelton

Founding Member
Premium Member
Who does that help? Words like Islamo-fascist and Muslim terrorist. Total crap.

Do we really need the word "Islamo" or "Muslim" in front of fascist and terrorist to give it more umph? An educated person would tell you that it detracts from the word "terrorist" and "fascist."

While I always appreciate a good rant, sometimes it just is what it is.

The words "Islamo" or "muslim" before fascist or terrorist is just like any other adjective. The first word lends more description to the second. Without them, we can assume that all terrorists from any different religion or region are all the same? McVeigh, Unabomber, and the 9-11 crew are all the same? Of course not. With McVeigh and the Unabomber, we'll use words like "homegrown" to describe what kind of terrorist they are. Are they any less evil? No, but they aren't Muslim.
 

JTM

"Just in case"
Premium Member
point being that when they talk about a terrorist attack, bringing up the fact that they're muslim doesn't add it to anything. why pick that adjective when you could pick another one?

Black-haired terrorist? White t-shirt wearing terrorist?

Why don't they use those words? Because they don't play on your emotions nearly as much as "Muslim terrorist," as if that *really* had anything to do with it.

if it did, we'd be screwed as we have 1.2 billion muslims in the world.
 

TCShelton

Founding Member
Premium Member
Well, if his muslim extremist views motivated the attack, then yes, it does have to do with it.

I do agree with what you are saying in regards to the sensationalist aspect to it though. The word "terrorist" doesn't really evoke much of anything in me anymore, regardless of what word comes before it.
 

Sirius

Registered User
You don't usually here the KKK referred to as Chrristo-Terrorists. But they are. The use the Bible to justify everything they do. They believe the bible is the literal word of god and that they have they only true interpretation of it. Just like Al-Qaeda. Both are fundamentalist and neither representative of the faith to which they belong.

I agree w/ JTM, words count.

I have agreed w JTM twice in one day, the end must be near. :biggrin:
 

TCShelton

Founding Member
Premium Member
I agree w/ JTM, words count.

Ok, to the best of my knowledge, we are both saying that the words count, just in different ways, and variences in importance. What exactly are you meaning here?


Black-haired terrorist? White t-shirt wearing terrorist?

Why don't they use those words? Because they don't play on your emotions nearly as much as "Muslim terrorist," as if that *really* had anything to do with it.

That is pretty self-explanatory if you look at it with common sense. Does the color of his hair or shirt have anything to do with why he blew something up? No, but his muslim affiliation does. Particularly when words like "jihad," which is a VERY muslim word, comes into play. An educated person would tell you that the more adjectives you use, the clearer picture you paint.

JTM, I hope that with your hatred for details, you never pursue a career in law enforcement... lol
 
Last edited:

RedTemplar

Johnny Joe Combs
Premium Member
Brethren, after reading the above statements, I have one question: Is there still a need for Freemasonry in today's World?
 

JTM

"Just in case"
Premium Member
Ok, to the best of my knowledge, we are both saying that the words count, just in different ways, and variences in importance. What exactly are you meaning here?

That is pretty self-explanatory if you look at it with common sense. Does the color of his hair or shirt have anything to do with why he blew something up? No, but his muslim affiliation does. Particularly when words like "jihad," which is a VERY muslim word, comes into play. An educated person would tell you that the more adjectives you use, the clearer picture you paint.

JTM, I hope that with your hatred for details, you never pursue a career in law enforcement... lol

what i'm meaning is that using the word "muslim" detracts from the reason that he's a terrorist. aka, "wait a minute, if he's a muslim, why is he a terrorist? that doesn't make any sense." oxymoronic, in a way. the only reason it's not treated like that by the general public is that a) they don't know jack shit about the muslim religion and b) news casters keep using it as sensationalism. the only reason b) works is because of a).

when you go around spreading muslim hate by calling it a muslim terrorist attack, what are you doing to the folks that still have to go to work at ft. hood that are muslim? "OH SHIT, HE'S A MUSLIM... HE MUST BE A TERRORIST!!"

total crap sensationalism that brought this on. it's also one reason the brother stood up in lodge and said "WM, you're wrong, this wasn't an act of violence, this was a muslim terrorist attack." total bullshit.
 

TCShelton

Founding Member
Premium Member
So, basically this is a "not all muslims are terrorists" debate? If so, agreed.

If we aren't allowed to place a descriptor in front of the word, then you are claiming that all terrorists and their motives are the same?
 

JTM

"Just in case"
Premium Member
nobody says you can't place a descriptor in front of the word terrorism, but at least get it right. however, i wouldn't use "muslim" just because it's sensational and this decade's fad.

also, you're saying that in some cases the terrorists are terrorists BECAUSE they are muslim, and that motivates them to be terrorists?

in this i think you're wrong. there has been enough research into this subject to prove otherwise... jihad is in fact one of the 5 pillars of islam. however, it also specifically prohibits the killing of innocents. so are these plane hijackings jihad? no, they aren't, they are a twisted and redefined version of islam, and in no way representative of jihad or islam in any way.
 

TCShelton

Founding Member
Premium Member
in this i think you're wrong. there has been enough research into this subject to prove otherwise...

I think you are wrong as well, and I'd like to know what research backs this.

Some terrorists are motivated by their radical Islamic views. Fact. They blow themselves up for their religious beliefs. Fact. A muslim terrorist has different motives than a homegrown terrorist. Fact. Motives are important when dealing with and tracking terrorists. Fact. The word muslim before the word terrorist offends mainstream muslims. Fact. Many terrorists are muslim. Fact.

Just because the word "muslim" is sensational and faddish doesn't make it any less true. You can't change truth just because you don't like the way it sounds or who it offends.

Yes, Islam is touchy when it comes to hurting innocents. Islam's definitions of what an "innocent" is varies depending on what part of the Koran you are reading. The Koran is like the Bible, where you can take pretty much any part of it and make it say what you want it to.
 

JTM

"Just in case"
Premium Member
oh come on, you're a RP fan just like me. you remember the whole blowback thing we had against "Rudy 9/11ani?"

they don't attack us because of their religion or because "Muslims hate christians." Even the 9/11 report acknowledges that. Al Qeada is only able to motivate it's soldiers to terrorize when we're over there. It's a response to the U.S. interventionism policy.

Anti-interventionist Terrorist would be a much more accurate way of putting it. people don't want to hear that though.

They could just as easily be christian or jewish. you can twist those religions just the same, cherry picking verses that show you how this is the way to go. you can only really motivate them to come over here and do this crap when we're over there, occupying their country.
 
Last edited:

TCShelton

Founding Member
Premium Member
Anti-interventionist Terrorist would be a much more accurate way of putting it. people don't want to hear that though.

Oh, but wait, that is another terrorism adjective. Wouldn't that offend anti-interventionists?

Either way, Islamic principles and teachings are why they are attacking even when we are there. The Koran is clear that while we are an aggressor, we are not innocent. Still goes right back to Islam.

Have you ever taken an anti-terrorism class?
 

JTM

"Just in case"
Premium Member
Zawahiri said:
“It is well known that whoever follows such a course, bombarding infidels, will inevitably hit their women and children, who are otherwise forbidden from being killed. Likewise, the same goes if Muslims are among them. It is compulsory that this [the possibility of hitting women, children, and Muslims] not dissuade the launching of an incursion against them… even if one dreads hitting another Muslim” (AQR,165).

Koran/Qu'ran said:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and
do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the
limits.

[18.74] So they went on until, when they met a boy, he slew him. (Musa)
said: Have you slain an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter?
Certainly you have done an evil thing.

Qur'an 2.190, 18.74

Zawahiri goes against the Koran when he says that it's okay to kill innocents. You can only retaliate, and only to reciprocate the crime. Killing one innocent for the crime of another is a sin.

Is Zawahiri teaching Islam? Not in the least. That's why 1.1999 billion condemn the 0.001% of muslims that think it's okay.
 

TCShelton

Founding Member
Premium Member
Those quotes look great, but since we have invaded their lands, our entire populations here are no longer considered innocent.

Read Surah 9.

Surah 5-33/34

Surah 5-51

The list goes on and on. This debate has gone on before in another old thread, where I listed a ton of verses that show Islam's tendency towards superiority, propensity to resist any "oppresion" violently, and rejection of world peace and tolerance. There is plenty in the Koran to base this stuff on. Does this make all Muslims bad? No, we should love them just the same. At the same time, we should still keep our eyes open.
 
Top