Probably. But not specifically Islam. Disturbed people use religion a framework to shape their grievances, real or imagined, all the time.Originally Posted by JM
Probably. But not specifically Islam. Disturbed people use religion a framework to shape their grievances, real or imagined, all the time.
I believe religious extremists are pretty disturbed people, but that's another conversation.
If the guy was a hardcore Christian shooting an abortion clinic, would his religion be irrelevant?
Why?
5
Oh, I thought I said law enforcement doesn't need to make up stories (he has cancer, his wife left him, or whatever else mmalloy's fanfic was about).
Nothing I can say to you, extarbags, will make a difference. You'll just say "we don't know ANYTHING yet".
I think you've made it quite clear how far you'll go to turn a blind eye to, say, religion. I don't know why religion is off-limits to you, but for the rest of us it isn't. It's a real thing, it really motivates people, it really exists, it's there. Trust me on this: there is such a thing as religion. I promise.
I never said it wasn't a real thing. I said it wasn't something that should be focused on. It's like focusing on the color of someone's skin. If the excuse was 'Black Rage' rather than 'Muslim Rage' would people still be on board with it? So yeah, I guess I think a blind eye should be turned towards things like that. Because they don't matter or inform the situation.
I don't see why the media can't look at the person instead of trying to sensationalize with the Muslim angle. I'm interested to see if the Orlando shooter is called a Jew or a Christian, etc.
Yeah, there I go again, harping on "facts" and "evidence."
Don't misunderstand me, extarbags - I get what you're doing. But this isn't a court of law, and we are allowed to consider probabilities.
Or Timothy McVeigh. The biggest act of domestic terrorism prior to 9/11, and he was an Irish Catholic. I had to go to Wikipedia to look up his religion, since I never remember it mentioned anywhere.
Blaming it on religion is almost as lame as an excuse as blaming Columbine on videogames. It's all a matter of looking for something to blame, as opposed to the fact that maybe just something was broken in his head.
The issue here is a group threat to America. You have radical Islam which is sometimes hard to separate from Muslim because they sects do seem to intermingle. Then you equal threats like the "Militia's" which Timothy McVeigh, and the Free Republic morons. So we can hate on one whole class and understand they ARE dangerous, but on another you have 99% which are wonderful Americans, and a small percentage that hate us due to our involvement with Israel and the fact everyone who does not think like they do should be exterminated.
The irony here is the religious hate and Borg mentality is not relegated to just radical Islam. There are plenty of Christian groups like that, Scientologists, etc. There's a little truth in what everyone has stated here... except Sansker. He reminds me of those monkeys with bright red asses.
I'm perplexed.
Did you purposely ignore what she was saying because you're a stupid ignorant fuck and want to stay that way, or did you misunderstand what she was saying because you're a stupid ignorant fuck and know no other way?
Watch out, JM! You sound like you're about to start writing some fanfics!
Of course it does. As does the fact that he is a US soldier. But a factor in the way he acted does not equal the cause of his actions. Just like (in the excellent example above) the people who kill doctors who provide abortions have a high likelihood of being christian, doesn't mean that christianity is the problem or that we should be watching christian groups.
I think the biggest problem with focusing on the victim being muslim is the second statement. A person can say "we face significant danger from muslim extremeist groups". But what does that mean, what is that person impling. What is next statement along those lines of thinking?
Is it that we should be watching muslim groups? Is it that we shouldnt allow muslims to serve in critical positions? Is it that we have additional safety standards for muslims getting on planes, buying guns, etc?
That second statement is the scary one. I don't know what the point after "we face significant danger from muslim extremeist groups" is.
Specifically to this case I dont think that he was muslim was the critical fact. The fact that he professed to support terrorist actions (according to the colonel interviewed on fox) and the death of american soldiers is the warning flag in my opinion, not his religion.
Way to ratchet up the intelligent discourse there, my man.
Last edited by ElGuapo; 11-06-2009 at 10:52 AM. Reason: Unclear who I was referring to. This thread is moving fast!
What are you referring to?
I guess it's just that I don't see the probability. Being in the army and shooting your fellow soldiers on base is not something Muslims are known for, not even radical Jihadi types. Also, there's not a particular need to jump to those conclusions; the guy will be awake in a couple days, and being shy about their motives is also not something radical Jihadis are known for, so this is all going to be known pretty soon.
In the meantime, assuming that is worse than pointless; it's harmful, as you can see by looking at the horrid, unverified reporting of this incident, and it really does kind of smack of bigotry to assume that they guy did this for religious reasons outside of a religious context, when you wouldn't render the same assumption about someone of any other religion.
And what I'm saying is purposefully refusing to consider even the possibility of someone's religion being a factor in committing a crime is ridiculous. We DON'T ignore the color of someone's skin. We don't ignore their financial situation, their health, their marital status, or anything else. Why do we have to ignore religion? The answer is we don't have to, so we won't.
You really can't see why the media makes mention of his religion, including his postings on radical Muslim websites? Or are you saying you'd like to pretend you don't know why that's happening?
That there's some sort of uniquely Muslim angle to soldiers flipping out? There doesn't appear to be much evidence for that so far.
Back on interesting news, Kevin Drum has a supposed eyewitness report of him robotically gunning people down.
Ok, a bit extreme, but seriously, this is the kinda crap they they (the anti-gunners) are going to trot out as an example as to why all guns should be banned.
I don't know exactly how weapons procurement system on s military base works, but, I'm pretty sure psychiatrist-boy didn't go down to the armory and request a couple of handguns and 100 rounds of ammo.
Reason for request of weapons?
I'ma goin on a keeling spree, Allah Ackbar!!!!! (parody of a combo of bad middle eastern accent mixed with southern drawl here)
No, see I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that.
Instead he used his own privately owned firearms.
I do know a bit about base security though, see my mother and father both worked on a miltary base for 20+ years each.
Prior to 9/11 the base was open, meaning anyone could just drive on the base and do pretty much anything you wanted to, except for the "restricted areas".
Post 9/11...yeah, shit hit the fan, they were searching each and every vehicle.
Every day.
For at least a week.
Now, security is back to it's lax standards again.
If you don't have a base sticker, you get searched, and you are asked your reason for being on base.
Base sticker=no search.
SO?
Betcha psychiatry-boy had a base sticker.
Meaning he could go down to the local drive through gun shop (the do have those in Texas) bought some guns, hell loaded them even, and left them lying in plain sight on the seat of his car.
Because his car would have just been waved through the security checkpoint on return to base. (sticker has it's advantages)
The short answer?
Privately owned, easily obtained firearms used in this shooting are something that the anti-gunners current president included abhor, and have vowed to end in their lifetimes.
Ehh, as far as the muslim angle on this, once upon a time, America was in a different war, with a foreign country.
It rounded up every one that had been born in that country, or had ancestors from that country and put them in camps to keep an eye on them.
(not a particularly proud moment in history, but it did happen)
Now, America is at war with an ideaology, or at the very least a splinter faction of the particular ideaology.
(camping's not going to be an option this time)
End result, bad news for a lot of people no matter how you look at it.
Here is my litmus test. If person, who is of category X, says things along the lines of "people in category X should kill people in category Y, and applaud every time it happens.", then you watch out for them. No category that makes up X or Y should be ignored. Especially ones where it's happened before.
Why should anyone bother? NWJ is given plenty of opportunities for 'intelligent discourse' and in response he shits his pants and blames the Islamists.
See my point about Christians and abortion clinics. Damn right I'd make an assumption there. I could end up wrong - and freely admit I could be wrong here - but there's logic to it and it's not "bigotry".
Kael,
Thanks. Your first paragraph is the point I'm making. A couple of people in this thread think his religion is irrelevant when in fact it could be (I think may well be, others this is unlikely to be) highly relevant. To deny even the possibility is a little strange.
I find it funny that Sansker keeps bringing stuff up that nobody else is talking about. Gun control? Really? Hell, the soldiers on the base don't even carry firearms.
This event isn't about guns, and I highly doubt it will ever be a rallying cry for those favoring gun control.
Seriously? Seriously. This is the point I am making. I just come down on the side of SKIN COLOR AND RELIGION DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON, A KILLER, OR A TERRORIST. Which is what the MEDIA CONSTANTLY IMPLIES when they report on it. It is what they FOCUS on. It is how they skew the story and make headlines. They make it IMPORTANT and it is not. These people are PEOPLE. They are deranged, sick people who do terrible things. These people are not different than you because of their religion and their skin color, it's because of the CHOICES THEY MAKE. They, singular. Not the choices their entire religion or race make.
It perpetuates a cycle that you are pretty much proving here: that Muslims are terrorists and people who will kill you eventually. Because their religion tells them to. African-Americans are totally all bank robbers and muggers and rapists because there is barely any case that hits the media that is not made into a Black v. White issue and hey, there's more of 'them' than 'us' in jail right?
What we're seeing now is an American v. Muslim issue. People have every right to be afraid of terrorists. But they come in all kinds of shapes, sizes, religions, and colors. They don't come with a handy dandy stamp on their forehead. Neither do the people that shoot up their families/coworkers/random people on the street. It's an 'us' v. 'them' mentality only in this case, it's a white guy so something else has to make him 'different.' Oh right, his religion.
Hehe thanks for making me blurt out laughing as I was thinking the same thing.
Yeah, but when abortion doctors get killed, it's always Christian extremists. That's who does those killings. If a Muslim detonates a suicide bomb in Jerusalem, you can go ahead and make those kinds of assumptions, and you'll probably be right. But these shootings on military bases happen from time to time, though not generally as bad as this one, and they're not generally carried out by Muslims. So Muslim extremists don't usually do this, and people who do this are not usually Muslim extremists. What's your logic?
mmalloy,
I seriously don't like NWJ. I think he's been one of the more irritating trolls on here since he joined.I just come down on the side of SKIN COLOR AND RELIGION DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON, A KILLER, OR A TERRORIST.
But I can guarantee you that he feels the same way as you, if I've quoted you correctly.
If he does, he's coming across the wrong way with the posts he's making. He sounds more like one of those people that thinks we're at war with Muslim countries rather than being at war with the terrorists hiding in them.
You've chosen to ignore the initial reports of his radicalisation, which is fine and I understand your reasons for it. We know for a fact he was very strongly opposed to the war, and that + his own personal religion = frontrunner for the reasons behind his actions.
The method is not really relevant - just the fact that there have been several cases of individuals who have become radicalised and acted on it.
Richard Reid was a messed-up guy who was a hilariously incompetent shoe bomber. White guys don't normally try and bomb planes, but his religion did play a role.
Oh, I think he quite enjoys seeing you get so wound up, but sadly I'm on his side on this one. It is not smart to ignore factors, whatever they may be, and religion, race, ethnicity, etc, are all factors. They all shape who we are; skin colour may only be a difference of pigmentation and nothing else, but it sure as hell makes a difference to your life.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote