Posted on 11/08/2009 9:39:56 PM PST by Saije
"Going postal" is a piquant American phrase that describes the phenomenon of violent rage in which a worker--archetypically a postal worker--"snaps" and guns down his colleagues.
As the enormity of the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan sinks in, we must ask whether we are confronting a new phenomenon of violent rage, one we might dub--disconcertingly--"Going Muslim." This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American--a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood--discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans. This would appear to be what happened in the case of Maj. Hasan.
We are a civilized society. One of our cardinal rules of coexistence is that we (try always to) judge people only by their actions and not by their identity, whether racial, religious or sexual. This is our great strength as a society, and also, in the present circumstances, our great weakness: How to address the threat posed by the fact that, of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in our midst, there are a few (perhaps many more than a few) who are so radicalized that they would kill their fellow Americans? Must we continue to be neutral in handling all people from different groups even though we know that there are differential risks posed by people of one group? The problem here is a heightened version of the airport security problem, where we check all people--including Chinese grandmothers--regardless of risk profiles.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Oooh I love it.
“Nancy Pelosi is going Muslim on the United States.”
Of course, the public genius has already labeled the phenomenon as "Sudden Jihad Syndrome."
The cool thing is that somewhere here at FR I read someone post this term (”going muslim”) today.
That person who posted it should be proud - you’ve been plagerized by the media!
After what this Jihadi scumbag did why was he not releived of duty, fired or whatever it is the higher ups do? Why do they keep referring to him as “Major”. Anyone know?
This wasn’t sudden. This guy planned it for a while. Just like all the terrorists before him.
This was Islamicide.
I was thinking the same thing about membership in the KKK. Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and I would never consider thinking less of someone just because they were a member of this organization, any more than we would think less of someone for being a Muslim.
To me “going Islamic” rolls off the tongue better.
eventual jihad syndrome.....they’re all nutty.
What about ‘going Hasan’?
Nah. We already have a term for the phenomenon- Sudden Jihad Syndrome or SJS.
We shouldn’t be the ones worried about backlash, it’s the Muslims who should be worried. Why are we scared that Iran might commit nuclear blackmail against us sometime in the future, when we could subject the entire Muslim world to nuclear blackmail today?
I said this after 9/11 and I’ll repeat it. Muslims have an agenda to conquer the world, the only thing that has ever slowed down their pursuit is when they realize they are outgunned and can’t continue with jihad and survive. The sanest policy I can think of to convince them that it’s a lost cause is to state that it is US policy that if we suffer another Islamic terrorist attack, we will nuke Medina and Mecca, and be prepared to follow through on that promise.
It is not new. It has been going on for what now, 1,300 years or so? I do like the idea, however. "Going Muslim" is exactly what it is.
The better phrase because it is clearer, cleaner and annoys them more is “going Mohammedan”.
i pray that our media will re-work this one.
Muslims are as diverse as Christians.
Until our media shows me where I’m WRONG; I think the phrase should be “Going WAHBIST”.
The “Branch Davidians” WERE a subset of the Christian Faiths.
Why does the American Media fail to differentiate among the Muslim Sects? Why is ALL of Muslim portrayed “PEACE” oriented?
I would think he retains his rank until he is convicted.
I for one find it reassuring that our government warns people against a “backlash” or “violence.”
I mean, it would be terrible if there were any violence, wouldn’t it?
So -- how many did they shoot to bring on Janet Reno?
Don't say it was the ones thsy were trying to serve with a subpoena. If so, why was there a guy on the roof?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.