Not any more illogical than lumping together a German, nationalistic, Shiite-turned-Christian together with ISIS.
You still don’t get it. You’re blinded by the fact that he was an ethnic Persian, because to you – apparently – all Muslims are the same (even ones who are Shiite rather than Sunni, even ones who aren’t Arab, and even ones who convert to Christianity if that’s what he did). Talk about “fake narratives”! The point is not what Breivik would have thought of him. The point is that he identified as a native-born German (which he was), and hated Turks and other foreigners. And decided to kill as many as he could. Just like his hero, Breivik. Even apart from the fact that in lumping him with Isis, you forget that the largest numbers of Isis’s victims have been Shiites and other non-Sunnis.
Hm…I did not recall anyone calling Mateen, the terrorist in Orlando, a “left-wing” terrorist because he was registered democrat - he was still an Islamic terrorist motivated by militant Islamic beliefs.
You know people’s world views are falling past when they start to make nonsense up by calling someone “right-wing” just to create a fake narrative.
Seriously where is the evidence that the Munich shooter was religiously motivated? It doesn’t exist.
This would make a great SAT question about logic and fallacies. The post is philosophically chaotic, but that is what passes as logic these days. SAT logic failure in the droves going on here.
You do have to wonder what kids are learning from adults these days when an adult compares an inanimate object to a human and still think they are making a logical point.
No, 10,000 people are not killed intentionally by guns each year in the US - actually, 10,000 people are intentionally killed each year by other people. See, murder requires intent, which requires cognitive processing, a human attribute, which a gun does not possess.
And of those 10,000 killed, some 95%+ of 7,000 are gang-bangers killing each other for turf and in retaliation, which most Americans never experience because most Americans do not live in ghettos and such places. It is so out of the norm for most Americans that no one on CC even wastes time listing the 10+ shooting deaths a weekend in Chicago alone and no one even mentions the 50% increase in homicides in Baltimore this year.
In contrast, Islamic terrorists wantonly kill innocent people with which they have no relationship.
Intellectually disturbing that some adults cannot distinguish the difference between gangs killing each other, the mentally-ill/deranged person killing others (Sandy Hook and Colorado), AND the intentional targeting of innocent people based on a radical religious ideology, which teaches to continue killing until there are no infidels left or until infidels convert.
Really nothing more can even be said if there are people who are so logically challenged that all deaths, regardless of cause, are the same to them.
And as a final illustration as to how illogical, yet perversely ideological the post is, think of this - there are also 10,000 people annually who die in accidents caused by a drunk driver. Yet, you never see this poster or others write - “10,000 people killed by cars each year.” Tells you everything you need to know.
They are both Islamic, and they both killed mass quantities of people. @DonnaL uses the fact that he targeted other Muslims as evidence that he was “right wing”, but killing anyone regardless of religion is a hallmark of an Islamic terrorist.
I would like to know how many were protected by guns. I understand that most who do not want citizens to have any guns, most of these people are protected by heavily armed body guards. If we are to ban the guns, we need to remove them also from all those body guards who are protecting people that are against others having guns for self-protection. It should be no hypocrisy here.
“where is the evidence that the Munich shooter was religiously motivated?”- I heard the interview with the Arabic speaking witness, who said that she heard clearly what shooter was proclaiming and it was very much religious. It was the same thing (I do not want to repeat it here) as at other terrorist attacks, including the ones here, like on army base in Texas several years ago. BTW, many more would be killed during this one if it was not for a non-military person with the gun who stopped the killings. Military personal at our bases are NOT allowed to carry the guns and the terrorist knew it very well and abused it. Going back to the Munich shooter, he was detained before but released by a liberal judge, convincing the judge that he is not being influence by terrorism. The blood of innocents is on this judge hands. I wish he does not sleep a minute for the rest of his life! Unfortunately this type do not experience any remorse though.
Except he may have converted - and of even if he didn’t, there isn’t indication that this was a religiously motivated shooting. “Islamic terrorism” very clearly implied that not only was the killer Muslim, but also he was acting on radical jihadist grounds. As of now, we have no reason to suspect the latter requirement, and this attack is a mass shooting committed by a person who happened to be Muslim
I wake up every day expecting to hear of some act of terror that happened overnight.
And invariably (99%+) in the vast majority of attacks the terrorist(s) is a radical Islamist (nationality is irrelevant - it is the ideology/religion that matters) and the majority of people killed are innocent people who have nothing to do with anything involving the terrorist. Interesting how deducing cause and effect is so difficult for some people.
It is for the ability to spot false constructs such as these that I insisted my DSs had two serious courses in philosophy BEFORE they went to college.
This sounds like a pure group-think construct to falsely justify painting a negative picture of conservative/right-wing people. What in the world does right-wing or left-wing have to do with the fact that a terrorist targets his own Muslim brethren? Absolutely nothing!
Given this twisted logic, then gang-bangers who target their own black people in order to keep them quiet and to clamp down on snitches in the neighborhood are right-wing gang-bangers. See how silly that sounds. No, these people are simply evil.
However, what is truly wrong about this false right-wing label is I am not aware of any Islamic terrorist who exclusively targets Muslims. Islamic terrorists target ANYONE who disagrees with them, Muslim or otherwise. There is nothing left-wing or right-wing about killing people who just disagree with you, yet have done nothing to you personally - it is simply evil.
Sometimes kids do well to take a class in diplomacy or comportment if they are unlikely to get it at home.
In simple speak, your post #17 says that social media makes rumors and lies circulate at warp speed, and unfortunately, the truth may never have the chance to catch up before serious destruction is done.
We saw it here in CC many a times, as people got caught up in several fake rape claims and argued for days and speculated that the cases must be real, even though things never seemed to add up. And people still believed even after proved false. Same with Michael Brown and hands up don’t shoot which never happened at all. Look back at all the posts that believed that when it was first said. Same for Mateen the supposed gay-loather in Orlando shooting, which the FBI found zero evidence he was even gay or targeted the club because it was a gay club - there were pages of posting of people literally convincing themselves that it could not be Islamist terrorism, but a self-hating gay person.
Yes, social media is great in many ways in getting information out to people, but as with anything, there are upsides and downsides and does require heightened awareness to digest the information.
There is a famous quote along those lines.
I fly from the US to Germany. Germany to Turkey. Then I walk across the border to Syria.
How is the government going to track that? Even if you crossed at all legitimate border crossings and had your passport scanned, how would the government get that information? Is another country going to send their massive database of people that entered their country to the US government?
Also, is every American going to Syria going to train to become a terrorist? If not, how to we distinguish?
And for what it’s worth, we do put a lot of time and effort into tracking foreign fighters, but it is a very difficult problem.
I have seen numerous news stories about the large muslim Somali community in Minneapolis being a hotbed for ISIS recruitment:
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/02/minneapolis-somali-community-struggles-with-islamic-state-recruitment
http://www.businessinsider.my/minneapolis-isis-problem-2015-9/?r=US&IR=T#KPLH6r4oIF2VdzCW.97
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-community-struggles-with-isis-recruiting-tactics/
Where relative to the University of Minnesota does this activity occur? And is the university a high probability terrorism soft target?
@awcntdb :
“And of those 10,000 killed, some 95%+ of 7,000 are gang-bangers killing each other for turf and in retaliation, which most Americans never experience because most Americans do not live in ghettos and such places. I”
Citing on those statistics? While it is true in gun deaths where it is an intentional killing at least half the time involve people of color, that doesn’t change the fact that 10,000 (in 2015, 12,000) people were killed by guns. Not to mention that a lot of the victims are not gang members, in the areas you are talking about the victims are often young kids and innocent bystanders, not the gang members they were targeting, arguing it is gang guys killing their own, as if that makes it okay, is like the people I know who used to talk about Mob killings and say 'well, they kill only their own" (which isn’t true, that is romantacized bs).
Your argument, if I read it correctly, is that with gun violence most people won’t experience it, that most of it is centered in inner city bad areas that most people don’t live in…but if you are going to use that argument, most people won’t experience Islamic terrorism directly either, does that mean that that, too, doesn’t count? More importantly, islamic terrorism shares something with gun violence, it tends to occur in certain places. The attacks don’t occur in some small town in Georgia, it doesn’t happen in a town in the Alaskan Bush, attacks tend to happen in population centers, for the very reason that it attracts a lot more attention. Paris, Nice (major tourist area), Munich, Orlando (big tourist area, gay nightclub loaded with people)…so why should most people care about Islamic terrorism if they don’t live in likely target areas? If you live in Duluth, Minnesota, or Gatorville, Florida (if there is such a place), or Debuque, Iowa or whatnot, or even a suburb of NYC, odds are terrorists aren’t going to hit because the target makes no sense…in fact, I could argue that a large percent of the population of the US is highly unlikely to experience it…so why bother?
That doesn’t mean that Islamic terrorism is not a major threat, especially with ISIS extolling lone wolves to act, but that doesn’t mean that the parallel with gun violence isn’t an apt comparison, given that some people are very, very likely to experience gun violence. The other problem with your argument is you are looking at gun deaths, how many people are seriously injured by gun violence each year?
Then, too, even taking gang violence out of it, you likely are seeing 5 or 6000 people killed that is not gang related…how many people died last year in the US from Islamic violence? a couple of hundred?
Merkel is under pressure:
It’s pretty easy for governments to track movement now. The Normandy priest killer tried to go to Syria. Three Somali-Americans from Minneapolis were caught and tried for doing the same thing. It’s a matter of will, not capability.
Since we know the government can track us anyway (that cat is out of the bag), they might as well use the ability to enhance safety for the general population in this regard. Most people aren’t going to be all that upset if they aren’t allowed to fly to jihadi hotspots.
Re Post #37 - Interesting how the US media creates mass ignorance by making sure such stories do not get printed here (or at least not widely disseminated), then the media pretends to act all surprised by something such as Brexit being successful.
What was interesting is that the mainstream media played on a narrative with Brexit that followed the standard “approved” line (remember how Brexit was losing by 7 points some 12 hours before the vote?) Yet, it was the online and other media that called it correctly by saying that there was much more unrest than the mainstream media was letting on.
The same “hide the news” is going on here with many refugees. This approach is even creating females who “take one for team” in the most perverse ways. This is truly stupidity of the highest order.
This one is even worse - this female actually lied about who attacked her to hide the fact she was raped by migrants: