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?
Nothing I can say to you, extarbags, will make a difference. You'll just say "we don't know ANYTHING yet".
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.
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.
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!Originally Posted by JM
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.Originally Posted by Bahimiron
Last edited by ElGuapo; 11-06-2009 at 10:52 AM. Reason: Unclear who I was referring to. This thread is moving fast!
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.
Back on interesting news, Kevin Drum has a supposed eyewitness report of him robotically gunning people down.
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.
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.
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.
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".Originally Posted by extarbags
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.
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.
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.
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.