IMO a young person raised in the west sucked in by ISIS ideology has a mental illness.
@zinhead that article says it is based on this one which says:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/portland-suspect?utm_term=.frnMd3kLDP#.pkjZwezPGD
It seems like the whole country on both sides is getting more hateful Right and Left.
Very sad indeed 
I had a HS teacher who explained that the whole left/right divide is really a bit misinformed. Instead of it being line, with a left and a right that get more extreme as they go out, he suggested visualizing it as a circle. Moderate/centrist, moving to left and right on opposite sides, but then meeting again in the back with extremism.
Not that extremists would agree with each other, but that they are equally far removed and radical. At that point, they are essentially the same.
Extremists do feed on each other and help each other grow. They win when they successfully convince others that they are representative of a much larger group that typically wants nothing to do with them. For example, Daesh wins when some Americans believe Daesh propaganda that Daesh represents all Muslims, resulting in those Americans hating all Muslims. In turn, any votes, policies, or hate crimes against Muslims by such Americans help Daesh recruit disaffected Muslims who see Americans as the enemy.
So, where does the fault lie UCbalumnus? Statistically speaking as you peruse the data worldwide? It is growing not shrinking
I have 3 realatively close muslim friends that I cant ever see doing something like this, but that is often what is said after something horrible happens when they reflect on the attacker
When Imams hide and protect those that align with “Daesh/ISIS” ideologies I think there is a problem. That is exactly what happened in Manchester.
So, how is this stopped? From sprrading, growing, and killing more innocent lives solely due to religious belief?
Interesting that this is turning into a discussion of islamic extremism rather than what the OP posted - discrimination against slims and the death of 2 upstanding people who tried to intervene against discrimination…smh.
*muslims
The third hero, the one who survived, is Micah David-Cole Fletcher. He’s looking for the veteran who gave him first aid, then picked up his phone and called his mother, telling her to come to the hospital, but downplaying her son’s injuries so she wouldn’t panic on the way. Fletcher’s injuries look terrifying to me, but happily he reportedly is recovering well.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/surviving_victim_of_portland_m.html#incart_big-photo
Look for the helpers. Praise to the first aid giver.
The fault goes to all who espouse noxious extremist ideologies, whether in support of them, or taking on other noxious extremist ideologies in reaction to the other extremists.
This tidbit was in the story in post #28
Affecting encounter between the mother of the third victim, the one that survived, and Micah Knipe, the guy who saved his life.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/portland-stabbing-survivors-mom-meets-hero-saved-sons/story?id=47701953
The murder is heinous and the man should be tried and assuming convicted, he should be given the maximum sentence allowable. I am not a fan of the concept of “hate” crimes. Hate is a motive and certainly could be used to prosecute some one but I don’t see how one can outlaw hate. To present this from another viewpoint the protestors at Berkely and Middlebury could be said to have hated those they were protesting. Who is the judge. Should they be prosecuted differently because of their motive? The crimes were not of the same magnitude but who gets to decide what is a hate crime? Do we set aside certain groups who would be the only ones able to hate? Murder is murder and should be prosecuted as such. Hate is an attitude that is best overcome by others who love, care and are able to change the hearts and minds of individuals. It is not something that can be outlawed.
^But motive is always important in crimes, isn’t it?
I’m not a lawyer or an investigator but I think motive helps determine who commits the crime by giving them a purpose for committing it. It may be used to determine the scope of the crime ie. accidental, premeditated etc. but it doesn’t change the crime itself. I think the term hate crime is mostly useful in allowing legislation which would determine who is capable of hating and who is not.
“The crimes were not the same magnitude.” To even talk about them in the same paragraph is ridiculous. We’re talkin about murder here, by someone who was menacing people on account of their religion…
Hate crimes do not just mean someone hated someone. They mean someone threatened and/or attacked someone on the basis of a class they belong to, like race or religion. There are specific legal parameters, so no need to ask rhetorical questions about “outlawing hate.” Because that’s not what’s meant by hate crimes.
False equivalency syndrome is rampant in this thread.
@garland I apologize for my ignorance. I will have to investigate the legal parameters in the future before stating an opinion. I’ll refrain from any other opinions on this subject for fear of shutting down the discussion.
A crime is a crime is a crime - assault, vandalism, murder, arson - regardless of motive. The only justifiable use of hate crime laws is to allows federal prosecutors to step in where state and local prosecutors are refusing to act, as in the 1960s civil rights era. State hate crime laws adding special sauce to regular criminal acts are just bad policy. I really don’t care if the guy that stabbed me hated women or engineers or cat owners or old people.
This is not true at all. Let’s take obstructing justice for an example. I am allowed to shred my paperwork. But if I shred my paperwork to avoid a subpoena, that is a crime. It’s only a crime because of my motive.
Or let’s look at employment law. Mostly in the US we have at-will employment. I can fire an employee for almost any whim-- because I don’t like her taste in music, because I want to hire my brother-in-law instead, almost anything. But I can’t fire her because she’s a woman; that is a crime, only because of my motive.
But this in a case where the underlying action is a crime regardless of the motive. Who stabs people out of affection and respect? Punish the crime, not the motive.
Hate crime laws exist at the state level. I believe it to be bad policy, but understand that a lot of laws are on the books that I believe to be bad policy.