Sept. 1, 1939
Nazis Invade Poland
Overcrowding in Germany Cited
Sept. 2, 1939
For Nazis, a Hard Time To Be Europeans
Neighbors’ Suspicions Caused Stress, Resentment
Sept. 3, 1939
In Central Europe, Other Countries Invade Their Neighbors, Too
Sept. 4, 1939
When Fuhrers Snap
Rallies, Pogroms Took Toll on Leader
TalkingHead says:
Sounds like the bloody Onion! Guess the NYT has always been an apologist rag for statists.
November 10, 2009, 11:20 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
That’s the Washington Times. As soon as they found out FDR was on the other side, they ramped up their obstructionism.
November 10, 2009, 11:25 amtroll_dc2 says:
Those headlines read like a joke. I am curious as to who the correspondents were who wrote the articles (though they did not write the headlines).
November 10, 2009, 11:42 amB.D. says:
You’re kidding, right?
November 10, 2009, 11:43 amYankev says:
Okay, this IS satire, right?
November 10, 2009, 11:43 amWidmerpool says:
November 7, 2009:
Democrats Invade Healthcare
Overcrowding in Republican Aisle Cited
November 8, 2009:
For Democrats, A Hard Time to Compromise
Republicans’ Suspicions Caused Stress, Resentment
November 9, 2009:
In Europe, Other Countries Invade Healthcare, too
November 10, 2009:
When Presidents Snap
November 10, 2009, 11:49 amTea-Party Rallies, Protests Took Toll on Dear Leader
CJColucci says:
How anyone thought these “headlines” could be real is astounding. If nothing else, they aren’t in the language of the 1930′s. It’s obviously a joke. Not much of a joke, mind you, but a joke.
November 10, 2009, 11:50 amEric says:
Don’t you think trying to figure out why the Fort Hood gunman struck is important? You know, to learn from the past to help prevent it from happening in the future?
November 10, 2009, 11:52 amHans Bader says:
The Fort Hood killer escaped scrutiny because of an obsession with ‘diversity’ shared by government officials and fostered by elite media like the New York Times.
Intelligence officials knew that Nidal Hasan, the soldier who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was trying to contact Al Qaeda. (He once attended the same mosque as 9/11 terrorists.)
Our government’s obsession with “diversity” created the climate in which officers were afraid to report his suspicious behavior. Although his anti-American, pro-terrorist views were common knowledge, “a fear of appearing discriminatory . . . kept officers from filing a formal written complaint,” reports the Associated Press. As a result, he escaped any disciplinary action or review of his fitness.
The Fort Hood shooter had previously said that Muslims should rise up against the military, “repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers,” was pleased by the terrorist murder of an army recruiter, and publicly called for the beheading or burning of non-Muslims, talking “about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire.” But thanks to a politically-correct double standard, nothing was done to remove him from a position where he could harm others.
The lesson of the Fort Hood shootings is that applying politically-correct double standards, rather than treating people equally, can be lethal. (Dorothy Rabinowitz has an excellent column on related themes in today’s Wall Street Journal.)
In a desire to curry favor with the liberal Congress that funds it (and the Obama Administration), the military has increasingly adopted politically-correct policies that abandon equal treatment. One example is racial preferences in admissions to the military academies, imposed in the name of “diversity.” (In practice, “diversity” seems to mean crude “racial proportionality”: it is harder for Asians to be admitted to the academies than for whites and Hispanics, and harder for whites and Hispanics to be admitted than for African-Americans. Such preferences are of dubious legality under Supreme Court precedent.)
In this climate of political correctness and double standards, it is understandable that officers were afraid to file complaints about Hasan, for fear that they would incur the wrath of the “diversity” police.
Even now, the Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, denies that the military failed to pick up the obvious warning signs about Hasan, and he is more concerned that the shootings will undermine the army’s commitment to “diversity,” than he is about the tragedy itself. He claims that a backlash against diversity would be an even “worse” tragedy than the one that took place at Fort Hood. He remains wedded to a “zero tolerance” policy against criticism of “diversity,” i.e., double standards. He seems more concerned that “diversity” will become a “casualty” of such shootings than that American soldiers will.
President Obama’s initial response to the tragedy was embarrassing, even for some liberal journalists. Obama’s initial remarks about the tragedy came buried in the middle of a speech laced with “wildly disconnected” ramblings about an unrelated topic, starting with a “joking shout-out.” Even the liberal Boston Globe chided the president for a speech lacking in ”empathy” for the victims.
In an absurd display of political correctness, early media reports chose to harp on the false claim that the killer had PTSD (which he didn’t: he never even served overseas) or the unsupported claim that he had been subjected to harassment (support groups for Muslim soldiers say they have received no recent reports of harassment). They also jumped to conclusions in denying that the shooter’s motives had anything to do with his extreme religious beliefs or “any related political causes.”
November 10, 2009, 11:55 amzuch says:
Godwin’s Law strikes early….
Cheers,
November 10, 2009, 11:56 amzuch says:
It’s a sad day when this is a common question.
Cheers,
November 10, 2009, 11:58 amBruce Boyden says:
I’m having trouble finding any Times headlines in the last week remotely similar to the alleged parodies above — Eric, can you point to which ones are supposed to be similar? For example, is “For Nazis, a Hard Time To Be Europeans” supposed to be analogous to “Complications Grow for Muslims Serving Nation”? If so, the analogy is off.
November 10, 2009, 12:02 pmB.D. says:
Wow! So eager to defend the Times!
November 10, 2009, 12:07 pmSarcastro says:
…I’ve got nothing to add here.
November 10, 2009, 12:21 pmRPT says:
Hans: Why didn’t the Bush/Cheney administration act on this matter when they learned of the incriminating information regarding Hasan and Al Qaeda? What was the purpose and utility of all of the surveillance and information gathering done by the prior administration if not to protect against such risks? It appears that they completely failed to do so. Thank you for your invitation to focus on their failure in this regard.
November 10, 2009, 12:22 pmyankee says:
What’s the point of this supposed to be? Is it part of the right’s “Universal Health Care = Hitler” message?
November 10, 2009, 12:23 pmAnderson says:
Bader: The Fort Hood killer escaped scrutiny because of an obsession with ‘diversity’ shared by government officials and fostered by elite media like the New York Times.
Bader’s proffered evidence for his assertion:
[ ]
November 10, 2009, 12:28 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
I liked Taranto’s recap of NY Times & Guardian’s Pre-Trumatic Stress Syndrome theory of Hasan’s massacre:
Incidentally, regarding “Other [Central Europeans] Countries Invade Their Neighbors”: Poland did invade Czechoslovakia along with the Nazis, so there wasn’t a lot of sympathy from those quarters when Poland got its turn.
November 10, 2009, 12:28 pmDakota Loomis says:
No, no, it’s part of an orchestrated campaign to tie every single event and decision made by opposing persons or organizations (see Obama, NY Times, the poor) back to an easily identifiable atrocity. I’m just waiting for the analogy comparing expansion of SCHIP to the Rape of Nanking.
November 10, 2009, 12:29 pmAppalled says:
Indeed, which is why it’s odd that such a large proportion of the elite media ignore his religious and political views, as well as his apparent terrorist connections.
November 10, 2009, 12:30 pmLN says:
That’s funny, I was just reading about Hasan’s terrorist connections in the New York Times today. Where did the rest of you discover these connections?
November 10, 2009, 12:35 pmAnderson says:
Btw, despite my disagreement w/ Posner on numerous issues, the post really is kinda funny.
November 10, 2009, 12:35 pmML says:
This is a idiotic post. Are you saying that the current NYT would be sympathetic to a Nazi invasion of Poland? Why not make a substantive critique rather than just bringing up Hitler?
November 10, 2009, 12:36 pmwlpeak says:
“Are you saying that the current NYT would be sympathetic to a Nazi invasion of Poland”
Well, they certainly would be sympathetic to a Stalinist one.
November 10, 2009, 12:39 pmML says:
wlpeak,
They certainly would? Look, just say you don’t like the newspaper. Invoking Nazis and Stalin this way demeans those who actually suffered.
November 10, 2009, 12:44 pmSk says:
“Are you saying that the current NYT would be sympathetic to a Nazi invasion of Poland?”
I wouldn’t know. Is the NYT still being published?
Sk
November 10, 2009, 12:48 pmSarcastro says:
I lied, I totally have things to add.
I’ll bet this Hasan guy voted for Obama.
Nidal Malik Husan…Fort Hood terrorist
Barack Hussein Obama…President of the United States
I also am curious about whether Hasan gave Obama a shout-out when doing the shooting.
When will the media point out this guys was a total Muslim, as I learned from reading the media?
November 10, 2009, 12:51 pmHarryEagar says:
From a Poynter Institute column by diversity and ethics muser
Angie Chuang:
‘And so I wonder why Nidal Hasan’s role as an Army psychiatrist — the accounts that he was disturbed by the severe physical and emotional problems of returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets he encountered in his job — seem to have taken second place to his religion.’
What you see is what you expect to see, not what’s there.
(I would call Poynter a liberal think tank for journalists, except that not much thinking goes on there.)
November 10, 2009, 1:02 pmEric says:
So the fact that every single “elite” media member is writing about it is what you mean by “ignore?”
November 10, 2009, 1:03 pmB.D. says:
Wow, is this satirical post really too difficult for some of you to comprehend?
Think of the various news angles that have dominated this story since it broke: PTSD, “Pre”-PTSD, PTSD-by-contact, all the suicides Fort Hood, the stress of impending deployments, Hasan being upset at being called names by racist colleagues, Hasan getting a poor performance review, Hasan being unhappy with having to go to Texas . . . how does any of this add up to a man who would try to kill dozens of his fellow troops?
Why didn’t he just kill himself if he was sad or didn’t want to deploy?
Sure, there’s been mention of and perfunctory investigation into the Muslim extremist angle by the media. But how could there not be, when there is already so much evidence to suggest that Hasan might have engaged in jihadist violence against the United States?
November 10, 2009, 1:13 pmSarcastro says:
What I see is that Muslim soldiers are clearly inherently more inclined to kill their compatriots than other soldiers. Clearly the benefits of such institutionalized suspicion far outweigh the dangers!
Though rather than make any suggestions, I’ll just attack the media for not doing what I want it to do, though what I want it to do is unclear.
November 10, 2009, 1:13 pmEric says:
Yep. That’s what the media does on every big story in world of 24 hour news. It’s sort of been that way since Turner created CNN a few decades back. They cover every possible angle they can think of. Then they create some more. Then the media goes back and creates stories about the coverage.
Because otherwise they are left merely repeating themselves and people change the channel. So they need to create more, more, more.
Film at 11.
November 10, 2009, 1:21 pmYankev says:
I thought that this was a self-answering question. Apparently I was wrong once again.
November 10, 2009, 1:29 pmYankev says:
Some are born jihadist. Some acheive jihadist. And some have jihadist thrust upon them.
November 10, 2009, 1:32 pmYankev says:
They did spend the pre-war years discounting Hitler (y”Sh)’s plans for the Jews as revealed in Mein Kampf. The NYT also made sure that news reports about the wholesale murder of Jews were either not run, or were buried on the back pages and reported as being mere rumor, even when there were eyewitness accounts.
November 10, 2009, 1:38 pmEvilDave says:
Hell they would win a Pulitzer Prize for such reporting on Stalin.
November 10, 2009, 1:48 pmOh wait ….
Stormy Dragon says:
Yes, because the health care bill is just like the Nazi invasion of Poland.
November 10, 2009, 2:00 pmsoccer dad says:
Well I took a look back at the actual headlines, it was good to know that Americans opposed Hitler and interesting the Germans didn’t think that the invasion of Poland would start a world war.
November 10, 2009, 2:04 pmJust Dropping By says:
Yes, clearly people who engage in killing sprees on military bases do so exclusively out of their Islamist convictions
The Press Enterprise (Riverside, CA.)
September 16, 2007, Sunday
SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. B02
HEADLINE: RIVERSIDE RECOLLECTIONS – Officer Goes On Shooting Spree
BYLINE: HAL DURIAN, THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
BODY:
In March 1944, Riverside’s Camp Anza was a busy Army base involved in the training of soldiers for the expected invasion of Japan.
One of the infantry officers on the base was 2nd Lt. Beaufort G. Swancutt, who had made it through the difficult Army Officers’ Candidate School despite having a long police record in his native Wisconsin. His record of petty crimes and general instability had been overlooked by Army officers.
Swancutt sat with 2nd Lt. Harry J. Light and two young women in the officers’ club. Swancutt suddenly became angry, we will never know why, and pulled a pistol, firing several shots. He killed both women and wounded Light and another officer who was standing nearby.
Then, he ran to the room of his company commander and shot Capt. Aubrey Serfling, who later died of his wounds. As Swancutt fled the captain’s quarters, he shot Cpl. Robert Sampson, who recovered.
Swancutt took over an Army staff car and ordered the driver to take him off the base. At gunpoint, the driver was told to head to Arlington. He stopped a car driven by Ray Schlegel, who had his wife and infant child with him. Schlegel refused to drive.
Two Riverside policemen arrived on the scene, and were greeted by shots fired by Swancutt. One of them, Arthur B. Simpson, was wounded. Swancutt was hit in the chest by two shots. Also injured in the shootout was Ray Schlegel.
Schlegel was taken to the Riverside County Hospital where he had surgery.
Simpson died from the gunshot wounds. Swancutt survived and was brought to an Army court martial. His defense was insanity, but court-appointed psychiatrists found him to be sane at the time of the shootings. Swancutt was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Swancutt died later in a military prison.
Thanks go to Dean Ayer and Kevin Hallaran of the Riverside Museum for their assistance on this column.
November 10, 2009, 2:09 pmcookiemonsta says:
It’s kind of strange how the NYT, a US-based newspaper owned and managed by Jewish people, would be so eager to cover up the crimes of Hitler and Stalin.
Why would Duranty, a Jewish reporter, want to cover up the anti-semitic crimes and mass murders committed by Stalin? Maybe he was impressed with the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, the Soviet Zion. Maybe the NYT just didn’t have anyone else “reporting” from Moscow?
November 10, 2009, 2:11 pmuh_clem says:
The Volokh Conspiracy.
Now pre-Godwined for your enjoyment.
November 10, 2009, 2:15 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Actually, he did proffer evidence:
It’s pretty bad if someone is espousing pro-jihad views and people are scared to report him because someone might cry racism.
November 10, 2009, 2:17 pmDangerMouse says:
If the guy was a Christian, that would be all that’s necessary for the Times to connect the dots to wherever it wanted to connect them (Example headline: killer had car with an AM radio – Rush Limbaugh refuses to acknowledge responsibility for for his part in the killings). Iowahawk had a great post on his blog on how it would be spun.
The times is fishwrapping anyway. I really don’t know why people read it. I guess out of force of habit, but to my knowledge the only news they ever really “broke” are the divulgances of national-security secrets during the Bush administration, from disgruntled CIA/FBI libs.
November 10, 2009, 2:19 pmJust Dropping By says:
And obviously the failure to identify and remove people from the military with a predisposition toward violence is driven overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, by political correctness….
News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) March 9, 1997 Sunday,
March 9, 1997 Sunday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1
HEADLINE: NOBODY LISTENED – A SOLDIER WARNED OF HIS VIOLENT INTENTIONS
BYLINE: TODD RICHISSI, STAFF WRITER
BODY:
The murder trial of Sgt. William Kreutzer Jr. was exceptionally quick. In less than 2 days, all witnesses testified, prosecutors and defense attorneys made arguments of life vs. death and a jury of soldiers voted for Kreutzer’s execution.
The trial moved swiftly in part because few facts were disputed. On Oct. 27, 1995, attorneys on both sides agreed, Kreutzer slung two rifles over his shoulders, crawled into a foxhole at Fort Bragg and opened fire on hundreds of fellow soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division. He shot 19 men, killing one of them, in the most serious domestic assault ever at a U.S. Army base.
The trial, of course, was to assess Kreutzer’s guilt or innocence and to determine his sentence. But even now, more than 16 months after the shooting and nearly nine months after the trial, the Army has yet to review how such a shooting could have occurred.
What internal military records show is this: Had the Army followed its own policies, Kreutzer probably would have been discharged from the service long before he shot the troops. In fact, numerous documents show that officers were aware for years that they had a danger in their ranks and failed to respond.
Among the records was an application that Kreutzer completed more than a year before his assault. He was seeking mental health help.
He wrote: “I feel a great deal of anger and hatred and I am preoccupied with violent feelings/ thoughts.”
After completing the application, he warned an Army mental health counselor that he was losing control, that he felt an overwhelming impulse to kill.
Rather than sending Kreutzer to a doctor or discharging him from the service, the Army declared him fit for duty, promoted him, placed him in charge of a squad of young soldiers and handed him the keys to a stockroom of powerful weapons.
Army officials, while refusing to comment specifically on the case, have maintained that little could have been done to prevent the shooting because there was no way to know Kreutzer was unstable.
“There was no indication that he was going to do all this,” said Maj. Mark Wiggins, spokesman for the 82nd Airborne.
But the Army’s own documents show otherwise. In looking at Kreutzer’s case, The News & Observer reviewed internal Army psychiatric evaluations that detail his mental history, Army reports obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and more than 1,800 pages of investigative and court records. In addition, The N&O conducted extensive interviews inside and outside the military, including 12 hours of telephone interviews with Kreutzer himself.
Mark Waple, a former prosecutor and defense attorney in the military, said the Kreutzer case is a compelling illustration of how the Army consistently ignores serious problems with its mental health system.
“There are at least two tragedies here,” said Waple, now a private lawyer in Fayetteville who defends military personnel but was not part of Kreutzer’s defense. “The first tragedy is that the shooting clearly would have never happened had the Army showed even a minimal display of competence handling Kreutzer’s mental problems. The second tragedy is that they absolutely refuse to acknowledge their mistakes.”
Kreutzer takes full blame for the shooting. His life is as good as over, he says, and he is now concerned that the Army continues to ignore soldiers with mental problems.
“For every one like me who actually did it, there’s probably 100 people out there who fantasize about it,” he says. “I believe that it’s inevitable unless they take some major steps to help their soldiers … ”
[Ellipsis in original]
November 10, 2009, 2:19 pmJust Dropping By says:
And definitely, if only we purged radical (read “all” in the view of many VC commenters) Muslims from the armed forces, our military bases would be safe!
The Associated Press
October 19, 1993, Tuesday, PM cycle
SECTION: Domestic News
LENGTH: 434 words
HEADLINE: Job Disappointment Might Have Prompted Shooting Spree
BYLINE: By JANE GIBSON, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: FORT KNOX, Ky.
BODY:
An Army supply clerk who recently found out he did not get a permanent promotion killed his boss and two colleagues and critically wounded two others at this Army base housing the nation’s gold repository.
Arthur Hill fired in a controlled fashion and seemed calm before he turned the gun on himself, witnesses said.
Hill was in critical condition today at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Louisville, hospital spokeswoman Marla Highbaugh said. She said Hill was breathing with the aid of a respirator and was not considered brain dead.
Hill started firing about an hour after he reported to work Monday morning, but confined his shooting to one area, Army Lt. Col. Kevin Kelley said.
“It wasn’t as though he went on a rampage through the building,” Kelley said.
The 53-year-old retired Army master sergeant and his victims were civilians working at the Training Support Center at Fort Knox, home of the nation’s gold reserve and an Army tank training school. The support center houses equipment used in military training and teaching.
The shooting was about three miles from the gold repository, base officials said.
One of those killed was Paul W. Higdon, 49, of Louisville, chief of the center. His son, Jason, said Hill had just learned that a 120-day temporary promotion to supervisor was not to be continued.
After the shootings, Hill drove 40 miles to the VA hospital in Louisville, walked into a bathroom and shot himself in the mouth with the .38-caliber gun he’d used earlier, authorities said.
“He didn’t appear nervous, jittery or anything like that,” hospital spokeswoman Marla Highbaugh said.
Hill had been treated for medical problems at the hospital but never admitted, Highbaugh said.
Higdon had mentioned Hill recently, his son said. “About a week ago he spoke of Mr. Hill and about how things weren’t right with him,” the son told the Lexington Herald-Leader. “We had no idea it would end like this.”
November 10, 2009, 2:36 pmAppalled says:
Really? Every single one? I suppose that means that if I can find just one single counterexample you’ll admit that you’re wrong? No? I didn’t think so.
November 10, 2009, 2:45 pmRyan Waxx says:
You’re right. We’re all waiting with baited breath for a mighty wave of rampaging Presbyterian psychiatrist-mass-murderers and wondering how to survive the slaughter.
November 10, 2009, 2:58 pmJiffy says:
Go for it!
November 10, 2009, 3:02 pmrarango says:
Dakota Loomis says “I’m just waiting for the analogy comparing expansion of SCHIP to the Rape of Nanking.”
Given that SCHIP has driven up the price of my cigars a dollar a stick, yeah–we are right up there with the rape of Nanking.
November 10, 2009, 3:19 pmkrs says:
We’re all waiting with baited breath
This is a malapropism I often find hilarious because of the pictures that come to mind.
November 10, 2009, 3:21 pmRyan Waxx says:
That’s OK. You won’t be laughing when the rampaging Presbyterians behead you. At least, not for long.
November 10, 2009, 3:45 pmCJColucci says:
Some years ago, the late Lars-Erik Nelson of the Daily News was on a morning gasfest answering call-in questions. One caller gave a long, detailed rant about various Clinton scandals — real and fake — and complained that the mainstream media weren’t covering them. Nelson calmly asked: “How did you hear about them?” No answer. Everything that everyone whining here knows or thinks he knows about Nadal Malik Hasan comes straight out of the mainstream media. It’s not as though Rush or Drudge or Malkin had independent sources and dug it out on their own.
November 10, 2009, 4:06 pmBlargh says:
It’s no Weekly World News, that’s for sure.
November 10, 2009, 4:14 pmEH says:
Maybe now our military leaders will heed the call to weed out those soldiers most predisposed to violence.
November 10, 2009, 4:39 pmB.D. says:
It’s a question of emphasis and viewpoint. Not all angles are equally plausible or important to the story.
So, yes, in this case there has been SOME reporting on the possible role of Muslim extremism in this attack. But there has been a disproportionate amount of PTSD-type nonsense coming from the Times and other media sources.
November 10, 2009, 4:42 pmAriel says:
Thread winner?
November 10, 2009, 5:00 pmArthurKirkland says:
I can’t recall a Presbyterian mass-murderer, but singularly depraved murderer-torturer-sadist Dennis “BTK” Rader was a leader of his church (Lutheran or Methodist, I believe) for decades. Eric Rudolph was a far-right, white-supremacist, self-proclaimed Roman Catholic; those who aided and abetted his crimes were largely evangelical Christians, if I recall correctly. Domestic terrorist Clayton Waagner claimed he was on a Christian “Mission From God,” and those who aided and abetted his terrorism were Army of God Christians. Domestic terrorist Shelley Shannon was another Army of God nut. A website glorifies many murderers and terrorists who are Christian extremists. Scott Roeder’s domestic terrorism was inspired by Christian extremism. After Michael Griffin murdered in the name of God, his spiritual advisor, John Burt, was unrepentant:
The string of evidence could go on and on. The evidence, coupled with the standards proposed for Muslims, indicates we should be suspicion of (to the point of investigating and surveilling) every Christian in the United States.
That would be as silly as the selective paranoia concerning Muslims.
November 10, 2009, 5:01 pmArthurKirkland says:
If you are thinking of the Eric Rudolphs and Tim McVeighs, why not just use the names?
November 10, 2009, 5:05 pmcorneille1640 says:
I wonder what religious tradition Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and the Columbine Shooters were raised in. Probably not Islam.
November 10, 2009, 5:06 pmHans says:
I’m not an Evangelical Christian.
But let’s be honest, Evangelical Christianity is not linked to the recent mass killings.
I always see the false argument parroted about by lefties that various mass killers were supposedly “Christian” or “Evangelical Christian.”
Timothy McVeigh was avowedly NOT Christian.
Eric Rudolph was part of a bizarre sect whose tenets are rejected by most Christian denominations.
By contrast, Nidal Hasan was an avowed Muslim.
Jim Jones, incidentally, was not Christian at all. His People’s Temple did not even believe in God (although they treated him like a God).
The Columbine shooters didn’t claim to be Christian.
November 10, 2009, 5:08 pmcorneille1640 says:
I didn’t see the connection with the Ft. Hood incident.
I originally thought Mr. Posner put this “satire” up in honor of the anniversary of the Berlin Wall falling and in light of the recent posts about the crimes of Communist regimes. We all know that the NYT is liberal, and that liberal means sympathetic to Communism. Therefore, isn’t lovely to see how the NYT would act if it were pro-Nazi instead of pro-Stalin?
Just to confirm the supposition, I looked up the NYT on the database I have access to, for 25 October 1956, the day after Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest. Well, the article wasn’t an anti-Stalinist/Kruschevian screed, but it wasn’t particularly sympathetic, either. It was, well, news about what had happened. Imagine that!
November 10, 2009, 5:12 pmCJColucci says:
So, yes, in this case there has been SOME reporting on the possible role of Muslim extremism in this attack. But there has been a disproportionate amount of PTSD-type nonsense coming from the Times and other media sources.
And you know what’s “disproportionate”? How? If you have some independent knowledge of what actually drove Nadil Malik Hasan that the mainstream media have missed, please be so good as to share it with us. And report it to responsible authorities while you’re at it.
November 10, 2009, 5:13 pmcorneille1640 says:
I guess the argument is always false when Christian is defined as “someone who would never commit mass murder.” (I admit you did not make this claim in your comment. But I think many (some? a few?) who take the position you do would, if they were pressed and they were honest, eventually admit that this is the circular reasoning they are using.)
My beef isn’t with Christians, evangelical or otherwise. It’s with the notion that all Islam is inherently and exceptionally violent.
November 10, 2009, 5:19 pmB.D. says:
I can tell you the PTSD angle is absurd, and thus disproportionately reported and speculated upon by the media.
Nice try at snarky argument, troll.
November 10, 2009, 5:20 pmDangerMouse says:
My beef isn’t with Christians, evangelical or otherwise. It’s with the notion that all Islam is inherently and exceptionally violent.
And yet, it’s on record that when the abortionist Tiller was murdered, Olberman wasted no time in labeling it a “terrorist” action. See Newsbusters for the evidence. And he has yet to label this action as “terrorist.” Hemming and hawing from libs on this issue of Islam isn’t hiding it, it’s only exposing it. You’re not fooling anyone.
Oh, and of course no one believes that if a fundamentalist Christian did something similar, the MSM would refrain from leaping to judgments on Christianity or his faith. Their entire purpose is basically to destroy Christianity, as it’s part of their general attack on Western Civ.
November 10, 2009, 5:27 pmbailey says:
The flip side of the christian killer arguments the lefties love to make to excuse having to make a moral judgment about Islam is the inability to find that church that is praising the killer the following Sunday, printing up posters to his or her martyrdom or or dancing in the streets to celebrate the act of mass murder.
November 10, 2009, 5:34 pmbailey says:
Could someone point me in the direction of the denominations that proclaimed Eric Rudolph heroic? How about McVeigh (even though not a Christian)? One could go on and on but even the leftists know it is true. It’s just easier to make the Islam/Christian comparisons to try to sound worldly.
November 10, 2009, 5:39 pmcorneille1640 says:
First, I don’t necessarily consider myself a liberal.
Second, I’ll take your word for it about Olerman, who I can’t stand watching anyway. I’ll also assume for the sake of argument that the MSM is biased toward selectively inveighing against crimes committed by Christians and downplaying the putatively religious nature of crimes committed by Muslims.
Third, and related to my second point, the bias you point to in the mainstream media is not relevant to the question of whether Islam is inherently and exceptionally violent. It’s this latter notion I have a problem with. If the bias you identify is accurate, I suppose I have a problem with that, too.
November 10, 2009, 5:44 pmjcm says:
Joke? why?
November 10, 2009, 5:53 pmthe NYT russian correspondent, Pulizert winner , didn’t see any corp during the 8 millions victims ukrainian famine
CJColucci says:
I can tell you the PTSD angle is absurd, and thus disproportionately reported and speculated upon by the media.
You can tell us anything. What I asked is what you know, and where you could have learned it. Early reporting on a story like this is going to run off into a lot of blind alleys until the dust settles and people have actual solid information to report. In hindsight, whatever blind alleys anyone runs down will look “disproportionate.” Sensible consumers of news will keep this in mind and wait for the real information to get out before getting more invested in the early reporting than the early reporters and wailing because they give a few more column inches than you think appropriate to a theory you’re predisposed not to like.
November 10, 2009, 5:54 pmcorneille1640 says:
I didn’t realize that McVeigh was an avowed non-Christian. If that’s true, I partially retract what I said, to the extent that I implied (and I did imply) that they were all Christian. However, my claim was not that he, or any of the others I mentioned were Christians, only that they had been raised in a non-Islamic tradition. I ought also to point out that I was responding, in part, to this claim that, as worded, seemed to suggest that people raised in a Christian tradition never committed mass-murder:
If that was not intended, then I stand corrected. But I still contend that the implication was there and ought to have been called out. So I did.
As to Bailey’s point:
I can’t point to a single one. *shrug*
I’m actually not trying to argue that there aren’t extremist elements in Islam. I am arguing against the notion–one which I detect here in in a lot of the comments–that Islam is inherently and exceptionally violent.
However, perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe one who is learned in Islamic history and theology can point to characteristics that, exceptional to Islam, tend toward violence in a way that, say, other religions are not capable of promoting. Still, if such a learned person were to make that case to me and make it convincingly, I’d still need to be convinced that such a tendency is inherent and not only unique.
November 10, 2009, 5:55 pmHarryEagar says:
‘It’s with the notion that all Islam is inherently and exceptionally
violentsupremacist.’Which it is.
You could call it the Sixth Pillar. Muslims may differ among themselves about divorce rituals and stuff, but they all agree that Allah has promised that eventually dar al-Islam will encompass the whole world. Some are willing to wait for Allah to do it on his own; it’s the ones who want to help him get it down NOW who are the problem.
It’s a problem built into the religious doctrine. Other religions don’t have it.
November 10, 2009, 6:15 pmSenatorX says:
Brilliant mockery.
November 10, 2009, 6:18 pmNew Pseudonym says:
Please list the “many” commenters who have said that all Moslems should be “purged” from the armed forces. (is there an equivalent to Godwin’s law about requiring posters on blogs to cite sources? — for the liberals posting here, this is sarcasm, not a real request for a list)
Somehow, I’d be satisfied if they just purged the ones in the Army that CID knew were in contact with radical Imams associated with Al Quaida concerning appropriate measures for waging “Jihad.” But that’s just me.
November 10, 2009, 6:39 pmbartman says:
So, a uniformed soldier killing other uniformed soldiers is now “terrorism”? If that’s so, then the word “terrorism” doesn’t reslly mean anything anymoe. It used to refer to attacks on the general public designed to elicit political change, so how, today, do we go about differentiating those things from attacks on soldiers if the word”terrorism” has been denuded of its core meaning?
November 10, 2009, 8:10 pmRowerinVA says:
Umm … you do realize that Nazis were on the left too? A different type of leftist than communism, true, but left. National Socialism, and all that.
November 10, 2009, 8:40 pmcorneille1640 says:
I’d be satisfied, too. I’m not sure how many liberals wouldn’t be. I’m not sure how many conservatives wouldn’t be, either.
November 10, 2009, 9:07 pmcorneille1640 says:
I might quibble that just because a group calls itself socialist doesn’t mean it’s “of the left,” and it also doesn’t necessarily mean it’s socialist, just like the German Democratic Republic wasn’t necessarily democratic, key words in this already overly long sentence being “just because” and “wasn’t necessarily.”
But if you want to call Nazis leftist rather than rightist, I’m not gonna stop you.
November 10, 2009, 9:12 pmbartman says:
Umm … you do realize that Nazis were on the left too? A different type of leftist than communism, true, but left. National Socialism, and all that.
Before 1933, maybe. But certainly not after. Read up on the night of the long knives, if you care to learn something.
BTW, according to the original definition, the Founding Fathers were “leftists”.
November 10, 2009, 9:35 pmneurodoc says:
Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) defines the term “terrorism” as meaning “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” To that definition, the US State Department, which is required to report annually to Congress on international terrorism, adds, “…usually intended to influence an audience. For the purposes of this definition, the term ‘noncombatant’ is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty…We also include as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as the bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.”
You are quite right that the term “terrorism” is used stupidly by some to describe that which does not comport with the legal definition given by the US Code, nor any that non-tendentious political scientists would allow, and thus it is robbed of meaning. For example, I heard Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC ask Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR whether he didn’t agree that anyone who went on a murderous rampage in a workplace should be seen as a “terrorist,” and of course Hooper agreed, as did Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post. (Stupid on Capehart’s part to concur; disingenuous on Hooper’s part; and arguable as to Ratigan.) And “terrorism” is used obscenely by those who accept or reject it selectively, maintaining that it is a matter of one’s point of view, with “one man’s ‘terrorist’ being another’s ‘freedom fighter.’”
It remains to be seen whether what happened at Ft. Hood may be counted as “terrorism” according to the US Code definition or any other reasonably objective and rigorous one. Hasan clearly acted with “premeditation,” and arguably animated by “politics,” so his might be seen as “politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.” But it may turn out that his conduct was mostly the expression of his personal “issues,” and it appears unlikely at this point that he acted on behalf of any “subnational group” (might those dedicated to the cause of radical Islam be seen as an “uber-national group?) or as a “clandestine agent, though almost certainly he was influenced by terrorist and/or terrorist supporters, like imam Anwar al Awlaki.
Whether what happened at Ft. Hood is to be counted “terrorism” or just something like terrorism (much more like terrorism that an individual going “postal” in no political context, only in a singularly personal one, e.g., anger over job loss, emotional rejection, etc.), it is of much greater meaning and significance than the murdering miscreant who will be tried for his crimes.
November 10, 2009, 9:41 pmneurodoc says:
You don’t really think it would be sufficient “…if they just purged the ones in the Army that CID knew were in contact with radical Imams associated with Al Quaida concerning appropriate measures for waging ‘Jihad,’” do you? I assume you would want those responsible for protecting us and our military members to do far more than simply “purge” those that CID knew were in contact with the likes of Awlaki. I am not sure, though, what exactly the “more” would be, since I don’t know how to stop those who haven’t announced themselves as clearly as Hasan did before they can act. Do you?
November 10, 2009, 9:55 pmSarcastro says:
I did a google search fo “Roeder was a hero” and found a lot of fakr websites!
http://www.armyofgod.com/index.html
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3237
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382402/posts?page=5#5
http://vikingkitties.blogspot.com/2009/05/george-tiller-assasinated.html
Not to mention how the United States Conference of Bishops said they ‘publicly denounced all forms of violence in our society, including abortion as well as the misguided resort to violence by anyone opposed to abortion.’
Classy way to equate killing TIller with abortion. I’m sure if CAIR equated the murder of innocent Afghan children by American Predator drones with the Fort Hood massacre that’d be totally cool though.
November 10, 2009, 10:03 pmbartman says:
It remains to be seen whether what happened at Ft. Hood may be counted as “terrorism”
I’m guessing it was a spectacular (and bizarrely, failed) attempt at suicide-by-cop. Basically, “I’m gonna go out with a bang, I’ll take as many infidels with me as possible.” But he couldn’t even pull that off.
November 10, 2009, 10:39 pmR Gould-Saltman says:
“Just Dropping” may have a point, which those of you who practice some criminal law, or who’ve paid attention to the news for more than a year or two, may want to consider.
Periodically, unfortunately, some small number of people run amok at their jobs, and kill everyone they can manage to kill, and then either kill themselves, or arrange for the cops to do it.
For a while, it was accepted wisdom among vox pop that working for the U.S. Postal Service could by itself do the trick, thus the expression, “going postal”.
If they’re soldiers, unfortunately, they’ve often got access to (a) more weapons and (b) a larger bunch of people in relatively confined space.
Having practiced family law for 30 years, I can attest that, periodically, some other small group of folks become so distraught by combined mental illness, economic and family problems that they kill one, or more, or all, of their family members, and then either kill themselves, or arrange for the cops to do it.
Both kinds of nut-job murderers often send out communications in advance of their final snapping, which telegraph, in retrospect, that there was a serious problem; these often get ignored, because they seem, frankly, to be from nut-jobs, and are often sent to people or agencies who have no interest in, or jurisdiction over, the problem. (When I worked for Superior Court, we considered indicated cc’s to the Governor, President, Atty General, heads of the FBI and CIA to be an indicator of the nuttiness of the letters or pleadings we’d get from folks who wanted, e.g. to restrain the NSA from reading their minds…)
Often, as they’re sending out this stuff, or making that “last stand”, these folks rave about their religion and deity of choice.
I’m waiting for someone to show me something which suggests that Hasan was in any way part of any organization, as opposed to just such a solo nut-job.
November 10, 2009, 11:51 pmArthurKirkland says:
Not familiar with the similar poppycock known as the Book of Revelation?
November 11, 2009, 12:05 amneurodoc says:
November 11, 2009, 12:47 amJoseph Slater says:
The brave soldier who stopped the killer was/is a dues-paying member of the public sector union AFGE. But will we read about that on the VC? No!
Oh, and the idea that the Nazis were “left wing” is one of the dumbest memes to circulate in certain right wing circles in recent years, and that’s saying something.
November 11, 2009, 8:22 amneurodoc says:
The LEO who shot Hasan and was wounded herself by him may or may not be an AFGE member. What she isn’t is a soldier, because soldiers do not belong to unions.
November 11, 2009, 8:49 amYankev says:
Do not underestimate the desire of some American Jews to shed every last vestige of Jewishness, short of converting to Christianity. And do not underestimate the social pressure pre-1960′s to do so. Read the book or see the movie “Gentelman’s Agreement” for a picture of US attitudes toward Jews in the 1940s. The novel is based on the author’s actual experiences. Better yet, pick up a copy of the non-fiction GI Jews, a study of Jewish service in the US Armed Forces in WWII, which has an excellent background section on social attitudes toward Jews, who were seen as not quite American. People react to such pressures in different ways, and the Ochs and Sulzberger families reacted by trying to blend in among “real” Americans.
November 11, 2009, 9:16 amJoseph Slater says:
Neurodoc:
Fair enough. She was not a technically a “soldier,” but she was part of the police force on the base. And she was/is definitely a dues-paying member of AFGE. And she was brave and heroic.
November 11, 2009, 9:20 amYankev says:
Here are a few things that are much more obvious. Not always is not the same as never. Not all is not the same as none. Not jumping to the false and stupid conclusion that every Muslim in uniform is a threat is not the same as refusing, for fear of being accused of prejudice, to consider evidence that a particular soldier might be.
These observations are self evident. But please be careful not to skin your knuckles against all the straw men that you are punching.
November 11, 2009, 9:21 amYankev says:
Wihtout discounting Arthur Kirkland’s examples, I’m pretty sure none of the murderers you mentioned went into the murders yelling “Jesus saves” after complaining that the US was at war with Christianity. We do know that the Columbine killers were contemptuous of Christianity, and questioned one of their victims about her Christianity just before they killed her. Nice attempt at moral equivalence, though.
November 11, 2009, 9:28 amYankev says:
How about treason? This in not a case of a solider in the uniform of his own army killing enemy soldiers who are wearing the uniform their army, is it?
November 11, 2009, 9:34 amYankev says:
Because everyone knows that every conservative is inherently racist, and anything that say that does not appear to be racist can quickly be shown to be racist by analyzing the code words and context. Hence the accusation on a radio show a few years ago that the NRA, which was founded after the Civil War by officers of the Union Army, and which helped a black pastor in a southern town in the 1950s to form a gun club to arm his community and resist armed attacks by the KKK, and which has one or more directors who are black, actually stands for “Negro Removal Association.” Or the rants on left wing web sites that the NRA was founded to provide for continuing the KKK’s activites the year the KKK was outlawed.
November 11, 2009, 9:41 amArthurKirkland says:
I have wondered about the significance (if any) of yelling “Allahu Akbar” — some American girls, for example, utter “Oh My God” in odd ways at curious moments. For all I know, “Allahu Akbar” is a clear signal of serious religious purpose. Or, it could be the equivalent of screaming “Jesus H. _____ Christ” when hammer meets thumb. If a paratrooper yells “for Christ’s sake” as he leaps from an airplane, what does that mean — commence religious crusade, or holy sh . . .
November 11, 2009, 11:09 amneurodoc says:
Yes, “for all (you) know” is a very apt qualifier here.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/ignore+role+radical+Islam/2204684/story.html
November 11, 2009, 11:54 amneurodoc says:
I agree that Kimberly Munley was “brave and heroic,” I just don’t know why you are calling attention to the fact that she is “a dues-paying member of AFGE.” Is that somehow noteworthy here? (Incidentally, I am a former chapter president of another federal union myself, and appreciate those who join federal unions and pay the dues rather than freeride as so many do.)
November 11, 2009, 12:13 pmYankev says:
In your experence do American girls yell “rise up and attack Americans” or “strap bombs on yourselves and and go to Times Square” at inappropriate moments as well? If so, you know (whether or not in the Biblical sense) a peculiar and unsavory sample group of American girls.
– from the Ottawa Times story that Neurodoc linked to.
November 11, 2009, 2:19 pmHarryEagar says:
‘Not familiar with the similar poppycock known as the Book of Revelation?’
Yes, I am. But the NT is not consistent, and the preponderance of opinion in it is that ‘many are called but few are chosen’ — as few as 144,000 all told, according to some prominent sects.
In any event, Christianity explicitly declares that not everyone will be converted, while Islam explicitly declares that everyone will be.
November 11, 2009, 2:21 pmMartha says:
At least this Marine reservist isn’t cowed by PC pressure:
I do agree with this:
I’ll bet most people would agree.
November 11, 2009, 2:41 pmB.D. says:
Hasan was born, raised, and educated in America. He speaks English. The convenience store worker said Hasan’s Arabic was bad. That should answer your question.
November 11, 2009, 5:33 pmVisitor Again says:
Hans Bader says:
The Fort Hood killer escaped scrutiny because of an obsession with ‘diversity’ shared by government officials and fostered by elite media like the New York Times.
Intelligence officials knew that Nidal Hasan, the soldier who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was trying to contact Al Qaeda. (He once attended the same mosque as 9/11 terrorists.)
Our government’s obsession with “diversity” created the climate in which officers were afraid to report his suspicious behavior. Although his anti-American, pro-terrorist views were common knowledge, “a fear of appearing discriminatory . . . kept officers from filing a formal written complaint,” reports the Associated Press. As a result, he escaped any disciplinary action or review of his fitness.
—————————
So the lesson you would have us draw is that we should stop being afraid of appearing to be discriminatory? Or is your point a much narrower one, that we should stop being afraid of appearing to be discriminatory where there is no real reason to be afraid of appearing to be discriminatory? I’m all in favor of the latter.
And I’d even go along with stopping being afraid of appearing to be discriminatory so long as you can explain to me how we can reliably tell the difference between those only appearing to be discriminatory and those who actually are discriminatory. If you’re asking us to trust the say-so of those who appear to be discriminatory that they really aren’t discriminatory, no dice.
November 11, 2009, 5:34 pm