- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Oh, save the hurt little bird act for somebody who doesn't know you.
Who has argued about what god has asked you to do? What he asks of you is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion because it can't be confirmed one way or another. What I'm saying that god, whether you admit it or not, has asked the important people of your religion to kill on more than one occasion. Once you agree with that you by definition must accept that, at the very least, your deity and by extension your religion, are both violent.
Then why did you just post it?This is as dumb of a response as claiming more gun laws are needed.
Then why did you just post it?
You'e really more disgusted by people's opinions of shootings than the actual shootings themselves?
That's ****ed up.
I'd rather have zero shootings and a thousand blowhards pontificating on past shootings than the opposite.
I agree......this should be TALKED about. And yes, gun availability should be talked about as well. I don't know the answer, but I am sick of crazy mother****ers buying guns legally and then shooting up crowds.
Curiously...this 'spree shooting' or incidents of domestic terrorism isnt an uncommon occurrence. Yet...we so seldom here of the rather common incidents...It seems we have had an epidemic of social terrorism dating back to at least Columbine yet there has been a national effort at denying the problem because each one gets viewed as "isolated."
It's very revealing how all Muslims get disparaged by some fake Muslims in one attack but no matter how many white guys go on spree killings they are still the innocent group.
I thought you were an atheist? You're sounding like god actually does tell these people to kill. Do you really believe that? Or isn't it true that people wanted to kill and "god talking to them" is a convenient excuse? If this were the case, it isn't religion that's violent, it's the nutjob who is violent.
Curiously...this 'spree shooting' or incidents of domestic terrorism isnt an uncommon occurrence. Yet...we so seldom here of the rather common incidents...
Update: Police say OKC shooting not tied to Thunder game; Arrests made | ProBasketballTalk
Police: 2 killed in shooting outside funeral - Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5
Clash between 2 families led to shooting that injured 7, says cruise operator | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com
Police: Alabama bar shooting suspect charged - CNN
And this is just recent.
Curiously...this 'spree shooting' or incidents of domestic terrorism isnt an uncommon occurrence. Yet...we so seldom here of the rather common incidents...
Update: Police say OKC shooting not tied to Thunder game; Arrests made | ProBasketballTalk
And this is just recent.
Really? Don't jump to any conclusions now. Personally, I think the picture in front of the swastika is a pretty good indication, but I can understand you waiting for more proof. After all, he might be part of ACORN or some other leftist organization well known for killing minorities.
Not domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism.
I agree gun-related violence and killings is too common in our advanced and moral society. What disturbs me is the reluctance to have an honest and thoughtful conversation about prevention. There seems to be an almost knee-jerk defense that goes up among the NRA / pro-gun folks before we can even ask the intelligent-ethical question: How can we do better?
No level of gun violence or killings is acceptable, however it seems that, IMO, NRA folks seem to be okay with a certain level of blood as long as they are not inconvenienced with more paperwork or restrictions on purchases.
This is just my observation and opinion.
Ah...but ALL spree shootings...and...where is the 'story'? Where is the hue and cry? Where is the outrage? And...typically...with no knowledge of ANY of the incidents, you call for anti-gun legislation. Would it have been effective in ANY of the incidents cited? And...isnt it interesting that your first thought is of gun control and not the victims in those incidents?Not domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism.
I agree gun-related violence and killings is too common in our advanced and moral society. What disturbs me is the reluctance to have an honest and thoughtful conversation about prevention. There seems to be an almost knee-jerk defense that goes up among the NRA / pro-gun folks before we can even ask the intelligent-ethical question: How can we do better?
No level of gun violence or killings is acceptable, however it seems that, IMO, NRA folks seem to be okay with a certain level of blood as long as they are not inconvenienced with more paperwork or restrictions on purchases.
This is just my observation and opinion.
And knock off the attempts at condescending intimidation for someone who doesn't know YOU. It don't work with me.
No. What I accept is that there is and has been violence in my religion... same as there has been in most if not all religions, societies, countries, etc... That does NOT mean they defined AS violent. Big difference.
OK, let's review. Your argument previously was that conservatives should condemn him AND his ideas. Then you said that ideas are not the problem, separating the individual from the ideas.You seem to have a problem with misrepresenting the posts of others. The beliefs that I am referring are his EXTREMISM, NOT his ideology.
If the individual is using (interpreting) literal translations, such as verse calling for the killing of non-believers (which is in the Abrahamic texts), then it is still the individual AND the ideology, they are not separate, they are combined. We do not excuse murder because of the ideology being used, the literal interpretation is condemned, that text is condemned by many because of ideology of justifying the murder of non-believers. There are whole schools of apologists defending the text, setup just to defend some the most insane, irrational aspects of the text.Of course it does. It's like Islam or Christianity. Neither religion causes violence. What causes violence is how an individual interprets the words of those religions. Same for anything.
Oh yes, you first condemned the individual AND the ideology, then you condemned just the individual, and now you have gone back to condemning both with your new "extremism" argument.Not at all.
Aside from the fact that your argument keeps flip-flopping, I was never required to show that an ideology was the problem only when it is 100% effective, causing ALL to act out in its most extreme, literal form.No, I addressed your points. You don't agree with them. You have made no compelling argument that demonstrates that any of your points are more valid that what I have said. You have been unable to show that two individuals, believing in the same ideology could NOT act differently. When you can, THEN you might have a point.
Domestic terrorism is someone of the country attacking his fellow countrymen with a hate/scare/political agenda. It isn't a made up media term. Lets not blame the media for everything.
Spree shootings are when the shooter(s) pick totally random victims with no motive to instill fear or financial gain.
OKC Thunder shooting was a D-boy shooting, not spree, not domestic terrorism. OKC bombing in '95 was domestic terrorism. It wasn't social and it wasn't a spree. We in Oklahoma understand the difference, it was brought home in gruesome detail as a firefighter brought the body of a small child out of the rubble- that damn sure wasn't 'social'.
The Sikh Temple shooting was domestic terrorism. Play word games all you want, there is a difference between rival drug gangs having it out and a man with white supremist ties walking into a place of worship and shooting those of a different faith.
I have to wonder if any of these crazy fanatics have considered,
If God wanted someone Smote, wouldn't it make a better show if He did it himself.
Calling it 'domestic' terrorism is a word game. Terrorism is terrorism.Domestic terrorism is someone of the country attacking his fellow countrymen with a hate/scare/political agenda. It isn't a made up media term. Lets not blame the media for everything.
Spree shootings are when the shooter(s) pick totally random victims with no motive to instill fear or financial gain.
OKC Thunder shooting was a D-boy shooting, not spree, not domestic terrorism. OKC bombing in '95 was domestic terrorism. It wasn't social and it wasn't a spree. We in Oklahoma understand the difference, it was brought home in gruesome detail as a firefighter brought the body of a small child out of the rubble- that damn sure wasn't 'social'.
The Sikh Temple shooting was domestic terrorism. Play word games all you want, there is a difference between rival drug gangs having it out and a man with white supremist ties walking into a place of worship and shooting those of a different faith.
Terrorism is terrorism. We dont run around the globe pointing out it is 'only' domestic terrorism when some scumbag blows up a souk in Iraq. We shouldnt qualify it as anything less than here.No Vance-
refining the data to show this terrorist attack was done by one countryman on his fellow countrymen is why 'domestic' is added to terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist.
Social terrorism??? I can't find anyone who agrees with that term as real and domestic as fabricated by the media....
please link to where you found this.
No Vance-
refining the data to show this terrorist attack was done by one countryman on his fellow countrymen is why 'domestic' is added to terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist.
Social terrorism??? I can't find anyone who agrees with that term as real and domestic as fabricated by the media....
please link to where you found this.
I have no need to qualify the term. Terrorism is terrorism. Acts of terrorism can be committed by the white guy next door or the Muslim guy down the road. They commit acts of terror. Why do you insist on qualifying it?It is domestic terrorism when Sunnis kill ****tes, but not when al-Queera operatives come into Iraq to kill Iraqis. But I am curious, why do you use the term 'only' with domestic terrorism? I don't consider domestic terrorism to be lower than international terrorism.
Why do you think that way?
I have no need to qualify the term. Terrorism is terrorism. Acts of terrorism can be committed by the white guy next door or the Muslim guy down the road. They commit acts of terror. Why do you insist on qualifying it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?