Well, as I think someone mentioned earlier, he had for a long time been working with soldiers returning from Iraq suffering from PTSD, he had to hear their stories and help them, and then he's told himself, that he's being shipped off to Iraq, the place where he's seen all this young men come back from, broken.

Maybe that simply made him snap?

So far there is no actual rproof that this was religiously motivated, in fact, there is no proof these statements a small group of personnel claim he said, were ever even made.

He himself reported very early on being harassed for his ethnicity, this harassment might very well have been from these few people, who are now trying to cover their own responsibility in his mental breakdown, by isntead trying to paint the picture of him as a religious extremist.

No other people that actually knew Malik as a person have so far stepped forward and supported the notion that he was an extremist, in fact, the few reports form people who actually knew him well, have been that he was generally a more secularized Muslim than most.

So I think we should just wait and see what the official investigations etc turn up.

Seems you are bending backwards to ignore the elephant in the room.

Uh, except he actually put the comments in writing:





He didn't ever deploy, he only saw them after they were back in the states.

Ok, let's say that he did have PTSD, why wouldn't a guy who specializing in giving PTSD not seek help for what he "suspected" was PTSD?

The Koran calls for this type of murder. I'll post a large portion so you can't claim that I'm using poor hermeneutics.





As someone who has a Bachelor's degree in Theology, post bac studies in Theology and has been a guest speaker for the Protestant view of Theology with a Catholic Theologian who teaches at a State university, I'd dispute that claim.

The difference is that there is not a doctrine of murdering unbelievers. Every major jurisprudence in Islamic Theology calls for attacks on infidels. There is a lack of doctrine for that type of work in Scripture.

-The Inquisition was political dressed up as Church Doctrine. Ironically, it was the Church who pushed to end it. It also killed very few people (less than 10K by most standards).
-Crusades were defensive wars brought on by Islamic conquest, after all Turkey was a large Christian Empire. The Sancta Sophia was a Christian Cathedral. The sacking of Constantinople was a political sham that had the Catholic Church condemn and excommunicate those who partook. Point to me to one serious fatwa by Imams against Islamic suicide bombers. You can find ones that are against "all terrorism", but not one specifically calling themselves out.
-Now, the recent attack and murder of an abortion doctor in the Lutheran Church makes a good point, except that church's doctrine is more Unitarian than Lutheran. Also, many church leaders came out to condemn it without equivocation. Not so much with imams. In fact there has been a small scandal in AZ with a Muslim man murdering his daughter and his son and other members of the Muslim community defending his actions as being "cultural".
-The OT's call for slaughtering of the Canaanites is a whole other story. First thing is that it calls for the killing to be done by Israel, not by Christians or Jews. It is a call for those people one. What could be so bad to warrant their slaughter? Well, you see they had a religion that involved the rape and sodomy of children. They also believed that Baal required that they roast a baby alive and the longer and louder the child screamed the more god was pleased. Not the type of people that need to be continuing that practice.

The doctrinal differences and the religious practices are immense. After all, show me where in the world Christians are suicide bombing or going on rampages over "Piss Cross".



Not going to Godwin's Law, but you can draw the logical extension about not everyone who has held an ideology doing evil. The main difference is that doctrinally Christianity and Judaism does not have the ideology that Islam and Communism has with regards to prorogation.

Communism has a long history of slaughter to propagate itself.
So does Islam

Oh it gets better Panzer.



Link

Gargantou,

Secularize Muslim? I don't think so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOeXzamxSk8&feature=player_embedded



Even if you buy the claim he didn't want to go to kill Muslims, he would never have killed them unless they came over the wire (Chances=Near Zero).

If anything, he could have helped Muslims there in Iraq...

It was an auditorium, not hard to kill a number when there are dozens of people lined up facing away.

I think we'll need more information about the motivation. Some can perpetuate this from a purely Islamic standpoint... they're the terrorist. However, what if you have a psychologically punishing life and you turn to this radicalism to vent off or get back at those people punishing you (psychologically)?

Too many factors to consider. A person who's in pain can immediately turn to something (terrorism, jihad) to feed that pain and gain a motivation to punish whatever he/she deems necessary to be punished. And this is just a specific case.

You don't turn to terrorism to feed the pain. You turn to something to feed the pain and that result of turning to "something" is terrorism.

Pain + "Something" = Terrorism.

That something has to be an ideology unless it is complete mental breakdown. There is too long of a history of these types of attack to be a mental breakdown. The differences between this and the VT shooter is large. The VT shooter did a video (not strange), but was completely irrational throughout the video in justifying his act. Yet, we have the guy who went an killed his fellow soldiers in Kuwait who made the case based on an ideological position. He basically said, "I believe X, I don't want to see X get hurt, which would cause me pain, so I turned to terrorism."

For another real world example: It wasn't terrorism that was fed by Charles Manson, it was the ideology that lead him to terrorism.

Edit for spelling error of the name.

Was that Charles Manson("mason")? I doubt that it can satisfy the terrorism part since Charles Manson went on to murder white people to start a race war. Debate over terminology, terrorism and crime is expected to follow for clarity. Was the Jones town massacre a terrorist activity, the killing of a congressman IIRC (A direct assault on the state?). Both had ideologies indeed but is inflicting terror merely incidental?

I cannot argue about the intermediary from pain + "something" and then terrorism since my post was already speculative enough and going from that would turn to more speculation. "Racial harassment" being involved might not require that "something". People have been known to jump from pain to outright murder (violence). Some cases don't even need an ideology (but it's a good excuse). Is the ideology an excuse? I'll have to wait further since these are all academic.

I'm sorry for fueling the fire. If the admins intended this to remain in Community Hall as a thread for mourning, I'll have to rest my case.

My condolences to the family of the victims and all.

It isn't too hard to see where this is going. I'll let it ride though... Sometimes trying to apply logic to something like this just doesn't work.

Good luck.