Monday, November 9, 2009

Dr. Phil and Medicine Woman tell us how a guy like Hasan can snap at a moment's notice

(H/T: GoV)

First of all, let me apologize to my readers for hosting such mindless nonsense. But this kind of attitude, this kind of suicidal idiocy, my friends, is what we're up against in modern, liberal, suicidal America.

So, is Medicine Woman, aka Shoshana Johnson, telling us in her own way that she could snap at anytime too since she apparently feels ... deeply? Nice that she declares herself to suffer from PTSD. Not only is she another government welfare case, but she's got herself a crutch to lean all the days of her life.


Anonymous said...

People all talking about how this is not a well person, a sick person...guess what?

Radical Islam is pretty sick.

Terry Morris said...

Radical Islam? Is there any other kind?

Anonymous said...

Of course.

The vast majority of the world's billion Muslims are only observant at all because they don't want to get killed over it. Even the majority of suicide bombers are motivated by worldly considerations like providing for their families. If you look at the economics of a lot of these countries, the material incentives are significant.

There's also the "we've taken all your children to a 'safe' place till after you do your duty to Allah" thing. How radical does a parent have to be to consider it worthwhile to trade his life for those of his children?

Virtually all suicide bombings take place in the context of those two factors, and there's a definite gradient. But this Hasan guy...he apparently came up with this out of a sincere desire to act out the dictates of the Koran. Go figure...but somebody does have to be radical in order to keep the rest of the Muslims from thinking they could all just convert to some other religion.

This is the secret that too many people fail to understand about's all about who's willing to kill and who's not willing to die over it.

Terry Morris said...

Yes, I recognize the fact that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide do not commit acts of violence/holy jihad. In other words, the vast majority of Muslims are bad Muslims, by the "prophet's" standards.

My point is that while there exist "moderate Muslims" (which I certainly acknowledge, though I don't know how any of us could ever reliably make that kind of a distinction or assessment about a given Muslim considering Taqiyya and Kitman), there's no such thing as a "moderate Islam."

One of the huge problems I see with inviting Muslims into Western countries, giving them political rights and so forth (empowering them, in CAIR's words), is this -- I tend to think that people of all faiths and cultural and ethnic backgrounds tend to cling to their particular faith and customs in times of need, of crisis, of adversity. And it doesn't only happen on an individual level, within the lifespan of the individual in question. This happens, I think, on a generational level too, whereby entire communities, based on whatever form of suffering afflicts, or that they perceive afflicts them as a community, cling to and become more religious, more orthodox in the practice of their religion's teachings. In the case of Muslims, this is a recipe for disaster. At this very moment, and in this process, we're mainly seeing Muslims in America observing their ancient customs and rituals, things like wearing the hijab and other Muslim garb, praying towards Mecca five times a day at their worksites, observing Muslim holy days/holding public self-flagellation ceremonies (absolutely disgusting!), public footwashings and so on. It's only a matter of time before they commit Jihadist terrorism on a large scale on our people.

But, of course, there's a lot more wrong with it than that by my estimation.

Anonymous said...

Well, Islam means 'submission'...and Muhammad himself certainly preached that all morals (including any open display of loyalty to Allah) should be...flexible.

In other words, Muslims who just go with the flow to avoid being killed are not bad Muslims, they are practicing the moderate version of Islam. While those who deliberately pick fights with nations vastly more powerful than Islam are actually disregarding rather important tenants of Islam. A moderate Islam would still enforce submission among the believers and seek to extend the influence of Muslims generally, but wouldn't be attacking countries like America and Israel.

This moderate version of Islam does exist, though its practitioners are generally submissive enough to avoid directly contradicting the most bloodthirsty Muslims. Walking onto a U.S. Army base and opening fire on hundreds of American soldiers is radical in this context.

Moderate Muslims can still enforce submission on others, but they would prefer to do so only when the cost to themselves is very low. For example, a moderate Muslim would only carry out an honor killing if reprisal was unlikely, say because one was living in an Islamic country anyway. To do so in America, where evading punishment is going to be costly and result in a loss of one's accustomed lifestyle, is not quite so moderate.

There is a reason that "crusade" is such a dirty word with Muslims, though they wouldn't admit the real reason. A crusade is a war which one is morally compelled to fight even if it is hopeless. This is fundamentally different from the idea of jihad. A jihad is supposed to be blessed by Allah. If you don't win, your struggle was in vain and doesn't count.

You will not find one Muslim, no matter how radical, who will ever admit that failure is possible. The commonly expressed Western idea of a battle that must be fought no matter what is completely absent from Islamic thought. Muslims do not fight battles they don't expect to win. That would be contrary to the basic world-view of Islam. It would be heretical.

One must never fight the inevitable when one's entire philosophy is based on submission.

Radical Islam is delusional based on the simple fact that they cannot win. They can at best destroy Western Civilization...but if they succeed in doing so where will the newly barbarous peoples turn their wrath? Not to mention their many thousands of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The idea that the Western nations can be Islamicized through violence is stupid, and most Muslims realize it.

Terry Morris said...

Okay, so the distinction you're making between moderate and radical Islam is that the "moderate" version (which the vast majority of Islamites follow) seeks to destroy/dhimmify the West mainly by covert, non-violent means -- subversive infiltration, while the few, the proud, the delusional radical Islamists choose rather to engage in open warfare against us?

Anonymous said...

Basically. The moderate version is no more dangerous than any other New Age bullshit, you don't want to end up in some commune based on it but tolerance of is possible for a securely Christian culture.

Of course, it's an oversimplification to claim that there is some sharp division between the two. It's very much a scalar rather than discrete sets. many 'moderates' see the way the West reacts to the radicals and make the apparently reasonable assumption that Islam really has an opening here. Like I say, the only thing keeping the Anglo-Saxon-Germanic barbarian spirit from exterminating every last Muslim in the world is the veneer of Christian civilization. If the Islamists really managed to destroy Christianity, they'd have less than an hour to savor their 'victory'. Talk about pyrrhic.

The thing to understand is that Muslims respond fundamentally differently than Christians or Western pagans to a show of irresistible force. If America made it a policy to seriously hunt down and kill terrorists and their advocates, Muslims would sit down and shut up. It would be un-Islamic to do otherwise. Fear of being killed is the number one motivation to be a Muslim. Number two is carnal lust, as Hasan confirms (as if we needed to hear more about the role fantasies of unlimited sexual conquest play with these folks).

By the way, it is important to note the underlying reasons that access to porn will never do anything to suppress or dissuade violent Islam. The entire nature of Islam is to appeal to the basest instincts...inflaming the feeling most important to the young male jihadist population isn't really going to help.

The only emotion in Islam that westerners (with their long history of Christianity superseding Stoic paganisms) would recognize as remotely religious is the feeling of community affirmation that comes from association with a large group of like-minded individuals (of course, it is one of several significant human emotions that I cannot experience directly). But of course it's only the same feeling you'll get from rooting for the home team at a sports event. I understand why most people would feel it at a well-attended religious service, but don't really understand how Christians (who emphasize a personal relationship with Christ) conflate it with religious experience. Stoic pagans would merely find it distracting

But it ranks about third or so in the hierarchy of Muslim religious experience, and first in 'spirituality' as far as they understand it.

Anyway, I don't know how important it is to understand all the details of Islam. Really the only thing that Westerners need to understand is that unrestricted use of lethal force against violent Muslims is not only justified but eminently pragmatic. Non-violent Muslims become more violent as they see Islamist violence go unpunished or succeed, they will become less inclined to violence if they see it as doomed and futile.

Lettie said...

I find it pretty pathetic that you resort to calling Shoshana Medicine Woman in this "blog". Especially calling her a Welfare case. You have no idea what she is up against having gone what she went through. Imagine being beat repeatedly, starved, nearly killed by your own forces b/c they didn't know where you were each and every day! Would you come back completely fine. Atleast she has the sense about her to get help and know that she needs it. And after watching the interview, I do not believe that she would snap because she has her wits about her. She was mearly pointing out to the idiot JAG Officer that anyone can suffer emotion from their surroundings. The true sad story here is that anyone can have a blog and post uneducated and ill-informed "guesses" about people.

Terry Morris said...


She has sense enough about her to know that she's got a crutch to lean on all the days of her life -- a crutch that affords her all kinds of benefits and entitlements she likely could have never had otherwise. I'll give 'er that much. The bottom line, though, is that she shouldn't' have been in a combat zone in the first place. Period.

By the way, I was being facetious with my question about the likelihood of Shoshana's eventually "twisting off" in the manner of Hasan. But I guess you didn't pick up on that.

Finally, there were at least two (liberal) idiots on that panel, and the JAG officer wasn't one of them.

You have yourself a good day now, hear.