I figure every single call from a gun shop owner should be taken seriously. Every single one should be investigated thoroughly.
No joke! Speaking of "common sense". Wasn't there a similar circumstance in either the CO or AZ shooting where authorities disregarded warnings by a psychologist or something? Seems like I have heard this story before...
The problem is the first time its taken seriously and the gun shop is wrong, they'll probably be sued for discrimination (and lose) and no other gun shops will want to make those phone calls anymore. Like all the school shootings, everyone asks how the parents, teachers and counselors didn't see anything. But when a kid brings in a home made clock and a teacher reports it, they get sued for millions. Now teachers are afraid to report again, good job.
Yep, the land of political correctness. I've even heard of people being sued for administering CPR even though they saved the person's life because they "left bruises". Such a sue happy society.
I have an honest question: last night I watched several news channels and all them stated that ISIS was calling for more attacks on America from their followers here and all news stations seem to agree that more attacks could or will happen so my question is this...how do you people think those isis supporters got here and as for the "home grown" terrorist who do you guys think they are being influenced by ?
we have gone round and round about muslim involvement in US terror attacks and many of you think it's just part of the percentages of rouge muslims and basically no big deal. I still stand by the thought of stopping all muslim entries in the US because the percentages are just too high, we can't solve every problem this way but it's a good start to minimalizing terrorist attacks on American soil and any immigrant and their children that are suspected of any involvement with terrorist or terrorist activity should be immediately investigated and detained or deported to the country they or their family is from. this ISIS thing has got way out of control (thanks Obama) and something needs to be done to protect the American people.
Godfather.
Given that you're not talking about a single percentage point of Muslims who seek to bastardize the name of their religion and terrorize because of it, my opinion is that humans owe it to humans to allow and assist in the pursuit of a better life, when those humans are willing to abide by the laws of the land and pay dues through taxes and improvements to the economy and social setting of their new home. Of course Americans will never see that - the United States aren't truly United States with the exception of the currency - let alone part of a united world where people care for each other's well being. When I visit America, I am hundreds of times more afraid of untreated mentally ill persons, or radical bigots such as yourself (who will protect your right to carry lethal weapons until death) than radical Islamists. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'm the only one.
when you visit America ? where are you ?
Godfather.
I'm in Canada, and I'm half-American (on my dad's side).
ahhh cool ! duel citizenship, good for you man ! that is cool.
I figure every single call from a gun shop owner should be taken seriously. Every single one should be investigated thoroughly.
No joke! Speaking of "common sense". Wasn't there a similar circumstance in either the CO or AZ shooting where authorities disregarded warnings by a psychologist or something? Seems like I have heard this story before...
The problem is the first time its taken seriously and the gun shop is wrong, they'll probably be sued for discrimination (and lose) and no other gun shops will want to make those phone calls anymore. Like all the school shootings, everyone asks how the parents, teachers and counselors didn't see anything. But when a kid brings in a home made clock and a teacher reports it, they get sued for millions. Now teachers are afraid to report again, good job.
Yep, the land of political correctness. I've even heard of people being sued for administering CPR even though they saved the person's life because they "left bruises". Such a sue happy society.
That's not PC, that is tort reform. But I would think good Samaritan laws protect you there. You can sue anyone you want. Doesn't mean you will win.
....but I will say that bad seeds are born just as you might say gay children are born, this guy who killed all those people at the gay bar had a history of ..unruliness starting back in grade school and probably earlier.
Godfather.
people can be born mentally ill....possibly. we don't know that yet. but people aren't born hating anyone. hate is learned.
I have an honest question: last night I watched several news channels and all them stated that ISIS was calling for more attacks on America from their followers here and all news stations seem to agree that more attacks could or will happen so my question is this...how do you people think those isis supporters got here and as for the "home grown" terrorist who do you guys think they are being influenced by ?
we have gone round and round about muslim involvement in US terror attacks and many of you think it's just part of the percentages of rouge muslims and basically no big deal. I still stand by the thought of stopping all muslim entries in the US because the percentages are just too high, we can't solve every problem this way but it's a good start to minimalizing terrorist attacks on American soil and any immigrant and their children that are suspected of any involvement with terrorist or terrorist activity should be immediately investigated and detained or deported to the country they or their family is from. this ISIS thing has got way out of control (thanks Obama) and something needs to be done to protect the American people.
Godfather.
Given that you're not talking about a single percentage point of Muslims who seek to bastardize the name of their religion and terrorize because of it, my opinion is that humans owe it to humans to allow and assist in the pursuit of a better life, when those humans are willing to abide by the laws of the land and pay dues through taxes and improvements to the economy and social setting of their new home. Of course Americans will never see that - the United States aren't truly United States with the exception of the currency - let alone part of a united world where people care for each other's well being. When I visit America, I am hundreds of times more afraid of untreated mentally ill persons, or radical bigots such as yourself (who will protect your right to carry lethal weapons until death) than radical Islamists. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'm the only one.
when you visit America ? where are you ?
Godfather.
I'm in Canada, and I'm half-American (on my dad's side).
ahhh cool ! duel citizenship, good for you man ! that is cool.
Godfather.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Being in Vietnam, for example, I felt a great deal of shame for having American blood in me. Hearing a gay person on Democracy Now talk about the events in Orlando and say, "our souls are dead - all that lives is the second amendment", I felt the same. I like to think we're only as good as our abilities to confront our faults head-on, and I see a tremendous collective failure to do so from Americans. I should add that like any statement about a collective, of course, that doesn't mean everyone, but many and most, or at least the overwhelming loudest of them.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I figure every single call from a gun shop owner should be taken seriously. Every single one should be investigated thoroughly.
No joke! Speaking of "common sense". Wasn't there a similar circumstance in either the CO or AZ shooting where authorities disregarded warnings by a psychologist or something? Seems like I have heard this story before...
The problem is the first time its taken seriously and the gun shop is wrong, they'll probably be sued for discrimination (and lose) and no other gun shops will want to make those phone calls anymore. Like all the school shootings, everyone asks how the parents, teachers and counselors didn't see anything. But when a kid brings in a home made clock and a teacher reports it, they get sued for millions. Now teachers are afraid to report again, good job.
I kind of doubt that. I don't think anyone can be sued for contacting authorities when they perceive a threat to public safety. Not when weapons are involved. We're not talking about bakers here. They're people selling guns. That's a lot different.
You doubt that? That has already happened, exactly what you said couldn't happen did happen 6 months ago and was national news. Maybe not with a gun shop, but people have admitted to not reporting something because they were afraid of being labeled racist or discriminating. Just 2 months after the "clock kid" incident happened where the White House hailed him as a hero and the district was sued for millions the San Bernardino shooting occurred. Not just one, but several neighbors admitted to seeing suspicious activity, but also stated they were afraid of being labeled as racist if they were to report it, so they did nothing. It has already happened, people were sued and lost jobs over reporting what they perceived as a threat to public safety because they were wrong. And in my opinion, if you saw a picture of that homemade clock, to someone who doesn't know anything about electronics or explosives could easily be frightened by it, and as a result I bet a kid can walk in that school tomorrow with something "suspicious" (like a real clock bomb, obviously I'm not referring to a shotgun or something) and no one will report it. Partially because its summer and no one else will be there, but still.....
I figure every single call from a gun shop owner should be taken seriously. Every single one should be investigated thoroughly.
No joke! Speaking of "common sense". Wasn't there a similar circumstance in either the CO or AZ shooting where authorities disregarded warnings by a psychologist or something? Seems like I have heard this story before...
The problem is the first time its taken seriously and the gun shop is wrong, they'll probably be sued for discrimination (and lose) and no other gun shops will want to make those phone calls anymore. Like all the school shootings, everyone asks how the parents, teachers and counselors didn't see anything. But when a kid brings in a home made clock and a teacher reports it, they get sued for millions. Now teachers are afraid to report again, good job.
I kind of doubt that. I don't think anyone can be sued for contacting authorities when they perceive a threat to public safety. Not when weapons are involved. We're not talking about bakers here. They're people selling guns. That's a lot different.
You doubt that? That has already happened, exactly what you said couldn't happen did happen 6 months ago and was national news. Maybe not with a gun shop, but people have admitted to not reporting something because they were afraid of being labeled racist or discriminating. Just 2 months after the "clock kid" incident happened where the White House hailed him as a hero and the district was sued for millions the San Bernardino shooting occurred. Not just one, but several neighbors admitted to seeing suspicious activity, but also stated they were afraid of being labeled as racist if they were to report it, so they did nothing. It has already happened, people were sued and lost jobs over reporting what they perceived as a threat to public safety because they were wrong. And in my opinion, if you saw a picture of that homemade clock, to someone who doesn't know anything about electronics or explosives could easily be frightened by it, and as a result I bet a kid can walk in that school tomorrow with something "suspicious" (like a real clock bomb, obviously I'm not referring to a shotgun or something) and no one will report it. Partially because its summer and no one else will be there, but still.....
I am well aware of those past accusations that you mention (no one got sued btw - it was just a point of conversation in the media), and I made a specific point about it being a gun seller. Different story completely IMO. I see and understand the points that you are making. They just aren't examples that apply to what I was actually saying.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I figure every single call from a gun shop owner should be taken seriously. Every single one should be investigated thoroughly.
No joke! Speaking of "common sense". Wasn't there a similar circumstance in either the CO or AZ shooting where authorities disregarded warnings by a psychologist or something? Seems like I have heard this story before...
The problem is the first time its taken seriously and the gun shop is wrong, they'll probably be sued for discrimination (and lose) and no other gun shops will want to make those phone calls anymore. Like all the school shootings, everyone asks how the parents, teachers and counselors didn't see anything. But when a kid brings in a home made clock and a teacher reports it, they get sued for millions. Now teachers are afraid to report again, good job.
I kind of doubt that. I don't think anyone can be sued for contacting authorities when they perceive a threat to public safety. Not when weapons are involved. We're not talking about bakers here. They're people selling guns. That's a lot different.
You doubt that? That has already happened, exactly what you said couldn't happen did happen 6 months ago and was national news. Maybe not with a gun shop, but people have admitted to not reporting something because they were afraid of being labeled racist or discriminating. Just 2 months after the "clock kid" incident happened where the White House hailed him as a hero and the district was sued for millions the San Bernardino shooting occurred. Not just one, but several neighbors admitted to seeing suspicious activity, but also stated they were afraid of being labeled as racist if they were to report it, so they did nothing. It has already happened, people were sued and lost jobs over reporting what they perceived as a threat to public safety because they were wrong. And in my opinion, if you saw a picture of that homemade clock, to someone who doesn't know anything about electronics or explosives could easily be frightened by it, and as a result I bet a kid can walk in that school tomorrow with something "suspicious" (like a real clock bomb, obviously I'm not referring to a shotgun or something) and no one will report it. Partially because its summer and no one else will be there, but still.....
I am well aware of those past accusations that you mention (no one got sued btw - it was just a point of conversation in the media), and I made a specific point about it being a gun seller. Different story completely IMO. I see and understand the points that you are making. They just aren't examples that apply to what I was actually saying.
I was pretty sure there was a lawsuit involved. Googling "clock kid lawsuit" has every search result on the first page stating that lawyers on behalf of the family have sent demand letters to the school district and the city in the sum of $15 million. Weather they have actually filed a lawsuit yet may be different, and probably wouldn't happen for several months while negotiations occur and the school lawyers up to respond. I know you referenced gun shops, I didn't say it but I don't think its a no stretch at all to go from suing a school district and city (or sending demand letters through a lawyer at the very least) to see it happening to a gun shop. To me seems like an easier lawsuit, gun shops aren't responsible for the safety of thousands of kids every day, schools should be on the highest alert and report anything that is the least bit suspicious and if they can get sued for that, anyone can. "Mr. Gun Shop denied me my second amendment right by refusing to sell me a gun without even a proper background check. I need $20 million to make my feelings better."
Well right. I assumed we were talking about cases that would actually be won. Where someone is going to sue and lose because it's a stupid law suit isn't really worth a discussion IMO, unless you are a lawyer taking the cases I guess.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The original point really had nothing to do with realistic cases. We were talking about the fear of reporting something and being labeled racist and. You said no lawsuit had been filed in the clock case, and my point wasn't that it should have been filed, but filing even a frivolous lawsuit can deter people. Anyone whose been sued, frivolous included, will tell you it costs thousands and why 9 times out of 10 they are settled out of court to avoid these fees. Even when you "win", you're still out thousands in a case like this. Even if the judge awards you lawyer fees (which only happens in very extreme cases, or if it is in a contract like a lease) it can take years to recover that money that you paid up front. My original point wasn't that a case would be won or lost, but that even a frivolous lawsuit can deter people from reporting something, and stated that is exactly what did happen with SB shooting (if not fear of a lawsuit, fear of a label anyway), Anyway, sounds like were basically on the same page except for a few schematics (schematics? Why do I get the feeling I'm using the wrong word here? Whatever, the weekend is almost here!)
The original point really had nothing to do with realistic cases. We were talking about the fear of reporting something and being labeled racist and. You said no lawsuit had been filed in the clock case, and my point wasn't that it should have been filed, but filing even a frivolous lawsuit can deter people. Anyone whose been sued, frivolous included, will tell you it costs thousands and why 9 times out of 10 they are settled out of court to avoid these fees. Even when you "win", you're still out thousands in a case like this. Even if the judge awards you lawyer fees (which only happens in very extreme cases, or if it is in a contract like a lease) it can take years to recover that money that you paid up front. My original point wasn't that a case would be won or lost, but that even a frivolous lawsuit can deter people from reporting something, and stated that is exactly what did happen with SB shooting (if not fear of a lawsuit, fear of a label anyway), Anyway, sounds like were basically on the same page except for a few schematics (schematics? Why do I get the feeling I'm using the wrong word here? Whatever, the weekend is almost here!)
You you're right and I think we are saying the same thing. Reciprocal fees are most common in contract law. Being sued is very expensive regardless of the merits of the case.
I was asking my friend, who's a Bosnian Muslim, about the hijab the other day and I was saying to her how we find such aspects hard to understand. I think it's important to remember that we cannot judge all Muslims by the actions of a relatively tiny percentage, no matter how terrible the deeds. We talked a bit about the general perception of Islam and these were just some of her thoughts.
'Most muslims are decent, warm, peaceful people.. A few bad eggs...and the whole religion is typecast. We don't consider the extremists to be muslim for their actions are not justifiable. Sadly the media is to blame a lot i think.'
It's the same thing with Christian extremists, but the difference with them is that the general public accepts the notion that they aren't representing Christianity because most of us in the U.S. have a lot of familiarity with the religion. When a Christian extremist kills someone, we attribute their motivations to something else and find a different label for them.
Exactly, we all grew up with a general understanding of Christianity. We don't really have a proper understanding of Islam, I certainly don't anyway. As usual, we fear and distrust what we don't understand. Instead of just condemning the notion of wearing a hijab and deciding it could only be a sign of repression, I asked about it and tried to better understand it. As a result, I don't regard it with the same suspicion and unease that I did before
I guess you guys didn't watch the above video.
I did, but tell me what I missed.
1:55 - 2:15 Please tell us what you think.
What I think is that you think that's enough of a sample size for you to support a conclusion you already have made. I also think I could phrase a similar question to a group of Southern Baptists and get a similar hand raising response. And hand raise response can also just be a measure of how much pressure there is to conform to the group. Also, with a lot of videos on the internet, I also question if it's been manipulated/edited.
Your link just has a paraphrase from a journalist years after and doesn't go into before the bombing. There's also many other individual acts where people have murdered motivated by their own version of Christianity. But once again, my point isn't that Christian extremist are as violent as Muslim extremists, it's that fundamentalism is the problem. And fundamentalism takes different forms, religion being just one of them.
I still think it's not valid to suggest we abhor Muslim terrorist acts more than we abhor Christian terrorist acts which was something you hinted at on page 19 of this thread.
To suggest something like that... we would need a genuine Christian terrorist act to compare one of the many Muslim terrorist acts we have been treated to recently... and then compare the responses. The McVeigh case was suggested as one, but it's not a Christian terrorist act. There have been no others presented (even in your post you referred to 'many other individual acts' instead of anything specific).
I can just about guarantee you that the FBI already has plants/paid informants inside mosques. Just because we don't read about it in the news doesn't mean it's not happening.
You're right, but it can't just be informants. For example, why didn't his ex-wife dime him out?
I think the lone shooters are going to be nearly impossible to stop.
Was it his ex-wife? I thought they were still together
edit: honestly I've kind of wondered why we haven't seen more lone shooter terrorism (al-queada/ISIS, etc.) since 9/11.
I think lone-shooter terrorism will continue to grow. It appears, to me, that psychos all over the world are pledging their allegiance to ISIS. It seems (and I could be totally wrong about this) that Al-Qaeda would train terrorists and send them out on missions. ISIS surly does this too. But I think ISIS has many "members" that really have no connection to them other than pledging allegiance. Was the Orlando shooter under orders of ISIS to do what he did? Has he ever met or communicated with an ISIS official? The answer doesn't really matter. He did what he did because of the influence of ISIS; be it directly or just because he believes in the message of ISIS.
This is why I support military action against ISIS. Another "war on terror" I suppose. If the influence by the leaders of ISIS is so strong that it's trickling down to everyday psychopaths, we've got to cut the head off the snake so to speak. How do we do that? Well that's where I have no clue.
Your first and second paragraphs don't really jive for me. The fact that ISIS leadership is not instrumental in planning and coordinating attacks is evidence that military action won't have the desired effect. Unfortunately, ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, whatever you call it is a thing bigger than itself now, if we bomb away the current incarnation, it will pop up somewhere else. Lone shooters will continue to pledge their allegiance to the Islamic State even if the actual organization is decimated, and as long as there are even a handful of actual, on the ground participants, they will continue to claim credit for attacks they didn't orchestrate.
GENEVA — Islamic State forces have committed genocide and other war crimes in a continuing effort to exterminate the Yazidi religious minority in Syria and Iraq, United Nations investigators said on Thursday, urging stronger international action to halt the killing and to prosecute the terrorist group.
The investigators detailed mass killings of Yazidi men and boys who refused to convert to Islam, saying they were shot in the head or their throats were slit, often in front of their families, littering roadsides with corpses. Dozens of mass graves have been uncovered in areas recaptured from Islamic State and are being investigated.
The investigators have produced 11 reports documenting wide-ranging crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by many parties to the five-year-old civil war in Syria, but in a report released on Thursday, they invoked the crime of genocide. They based their findings on actions taken by the Islamic State since August 2014 against 400,000 members of the Yazidi community, followers of a centuries-old religion drawing on many faiths.
Praise Allah, that this is a religion of peace! Things would be pretty messed up otherwise.
But wait for someone to post a link to the Westboro Baptist Church where the worst thing they do is hold up obscene signs outside funerals. Terrible actions but not remotely on par and 99.9% of Christians think Westboro is crazy.
I was asking my friend, who's a Bosnian Muslim, about the hijab the other day and I was saying to her how we find such aspects hard to understand. I think it's important to remember that we cannot judge all Muslims by the actions of a relatively tiny percentage, no matter how terrible the deeds. We talked a bit about the general perception of Islam and these were just some of her thoughts.
'Most muslims are decent, warm, peaceful people.. A few bad eggs...and the whole religion is typecast. We don't consider the extremists to be muslim for their actions are not justifiable. Sadly the media is to blame a lot i think.'
It's the same thing with Christian extremists, but the difference with them is that the general public accepts the notion that they aren't representing Christianity because most of us in the U.S. have a lot of familiarity with the religion. When a Christian extremist kills someone, we attribute their motivations to something else and find a different label for them.
Exactly, we all grew up with a general understanding of Christianity. We don't really have a proper understanding of Islam, I certainly don't anyway. As usual, we fear and distrust what we don't understand. Instead of just condemning the notion of wearing a hijab and deciding it could only be a sign of repression, I asked about it and tried to better understand it. As a result, I don't regard it with the same suspicion and unease that I did before
I guess you guys didn't watch the above video.
I did, but tell me what I missed.
1:55 - 2:15 Please tell us what you think.
What I think is that you think that's enough of a sample size for you to support a conclusion you already have made. I also think I could phrase a similar question to a group of Southern Baptists and get a similar hand raising response. And hand raise response can also just be a measure of how much pressure there is to conform to the group. Also, with a lot of videos on the internet, I also question if it's been manipulated/edited.
I don't think you would get a similar hand raise in a Southern Baptist church. You see, our big issues with the Church and gays right now is not making them wedding cakes, versus stoning them and throwing them off roofs in the Middle East.
Your link just has a paraphrase from a journalist years after and doesn't go into before the bombing. There's also many other individual acts where people have murdered motivated by their own version of Christianity. But once again, my point isn't that Christian extremist are as violent as Muslim extremists, it's that fundamentalism is the problem. And fundamentalism takes different forms, religion being just one of them.
I still think it's not valid to suggest we abhor Muslim terrorist acts more than we abhor Christian terrorist acts which was something you hinted at on page 19 of this thread.
To suggest something like that... we would need a genuine Christian terrorist act to compare one of the many Muslim terrorist acts we have been treated to recently... and then compare the responses. The McVeigh case was suggested as one, but it's not a Christian terrorist act. There have been no others presented (even in your post you referred to 'many other individual acts' instead of anything specific).
Come on, man. If you posted that link because you got the idea I was denying any violence linked to Christian ideology, you didn't need to: I'm aware that there are a few acts to speak of.
That list spans across four decades, features single murders and one suicide- shouldn't even count- and also includes the McVeigh case which wasn't religiously motivated (even the link speaks to his intense hatred of the government).
These sporadic events prove my point: Christian terrorist acts absolutely pale in comparison to Muslim terrorist acts. It's not even in the same galaxy. In fact, if this list was the Top 10 Muslim acts of terrorism... we wouldn't even be speaking about Muslim terrorism.
Change the guilty parties and the outrage would be equal for Christians. Without question.
Your link just has a paraphrase from a journalist years after and doesn't go into before the bombing. There's also many other individual acts where people have murdered motivated by their own version of Christianity. But once again, my point isn't that Christian extremist are as violent as Muslim extremists, it's that fundamentalism is the problem. And fundamentalism takes different forms, religion being just one of them.
I still think it's not valid to suggest we abhor Muslim terrorist acts more than we abhor Christian terrorist acts which was something you hinted at on page 19 of this thread.
To suggest something like that... we would need a genuine Christian terrorist act to compare one of the many Muslim terrorist acts we have been treated to recently... and then compare the responses. The McVeigh case was suggested as one, but it's not a Christian terrorist act. There have been no others presented (even in your post you referred to 'many other individual acts' instead of anything specific).
First, that article doesn't claim these are all Christians, but only white males. According to your article, only about half had religious ties-so it doesn't do much for me in terms of putting Christian terrorism on par with Muslim radicals.
I have several problems with this article. One, I've never heard anyone say that ONLY Muslims or non-whites are terrorists. No one says that. Look at Columbine, Colorado theater shooting, we know Muslims don't account for all mass killings. Yes, there is the idea when you mention a terrorist most may picture a middle-eastern male, but everyone knows they aren't the only terrorists or mass killings. Second, with the exception of the OK bombing, the highest fatality rate in that list was 6. Most were just 1 or 2 casualties, hardly on par with the 9/11 or Orlando attacks. And I said with the exception of OK bombing because even the article mentions it wasn't religiously motivated, so why is that brought up as Christian terrorism? It wasn't, it was anti-government, so we can exclude that bombing when we talk about Christian terrorism vs Muslim radical terrorism. Even half the the remaining attacks weren't by Christians, but by "white supremacists" as described in the article with no mention of Christianity, but we'll leave them on the list for argument sake. So doing a count as I skim through the article, 18 fatalities are used to argue why Christian terrorism (including non-Christian white supremacists) is just as bad or worse than Muslim terrorism? Triple that number were killed by a Muslim terrorist this week alone, and this article covers 4 decades as the previous comment noted.
The author of the article lost me when he criticized news coverage for being "matter of fact" when it comes to Christian terrorism. Isn't that how coverage suppose to be? What do you want them to do, make up facts to make it sounds as bad as Muslim terrorism in this country?
No one denies that there has been Christian bombings or killings, and acts of terrorism by white men, but to say its on the same level as Muslim terrorism in this country is just being in denial. But there is a reason why Americans associate terrorism with radical Islam. What is the worst terrorist act in our country? 9/11 and who did it? Orlando is now the worse mass shooting in our country, and he was shouting Allah Akbar while he did it. 2 for 2 so far.
What a sick fuck. Sometimes I wish I believed in hell, just so that I could get some comfort out of knowing pieces of shit like this creep would rot there for eternity.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I figure every single call from a gun shop owner should be taken seriously. Every single one should be investigated thoroughly.
No joke! Speaking of "common sense". Wasn't there a similar circumstance in either the CO or AZ shooting where authorities disregarded warnings by a psychologist or something? Seems like I have heard this story before...
The problem is the first time its taken seriously and the gun shop is wrong, they'll probably be sued for discrimination (and lose) and no other gun shops will want to make those phone calls anymore. Like all the school shootings, everyone asks how the parents, teachers and counselors didn't see anything. But when a kid brings in a home made clock and a teacher reports it, they get sued for millions. Now teachers are afraid to report again, good job.
Yep, the land of political correctness. I've even heard of people being sued for administering CPR even though they saved the person's life because they "left bruises". Such a sue happy society.
the land of political correctness? better than being the "land on uncompassionate assholes" which so many who criticize political correctness seem to want it to be...
can you provide links to actual cases where people are being sued for giving people bruises for performing CPR? even better, actual cases where the responder was found liable?
all 50 states have "good samaritan" laws that protect people from being sued for trying to help in time of emergency. you cannot be sued if you act as a "reasonable prudent person" and administer chest compressions or rescue breaths for someone in cardiac emergency. research shows that trying to help is better than not doing anything at all. these laws exist to encourage people to help without fear of being sued.
also, if someone ever actually needs CPR, they are more than likely coming out of it with more than bruises. broken ribs are extremely common after CPR.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Thank you Gimme. That was getting really irritating and I'm glad you swooped in bright some logic and reason to the conversation when it was most needed, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Thank you Gimme. That was getting really irritating and I'm glad you swooped in bright some logic and reason to the conversation when it was most needed, lol.
you know me. i call out outright falsehoods when i see them.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Your link just has a paraphrase from a journalist years after and doesn't go into before the bombing. There's also many other individual acts where people have murdered motivated by their own version of Christianity. But once again, my point isn't that Christian extremist are as violent as Muslim extremists, it's that fundamentalism is the problem. And fundamentalism takes different forms, religion being just one of them.
I still think it's not valid to suggest we abhor Muslim terrorist acts more than we abhor Christian terrorist acts which was something you hinted at on page 19 of this thread.
To suggest something like that... we would need a genuine Christian terrorist act to compare one of the many Muslim terrorist acts we have been treated to recently... and then compare the responses. The McVeigh case was suggested as one, but it's not a Christian terrorist act. There have been no others presented (even in your post you referred to 'many other individual acts' instead of anything specific).
First, that article doesn't claim these are all Christians, but only white males. According to your article, only about half had religious ties-so it doesn't do much for me in terms of putting Christian terrorism on par with Muslim radicals.
I have several problems with this article. One, I've never heard anyone say that ONLY Muslims or non-whites are terrorists. No one says that. Look at Columbine, Colorado theater shooting, we know Muslims don't account for all mass killings. Yes, there is the idea when you mention a terrorist most may picture a middle-eastern male, but everyone knows they aren't the only terrorists or mass killings. Second, with the exception of the OK bombing, the highest fatality rate in that list was 6. Most were just 1 or 2 casualties, hardly on par with the 9/11 or Orlando attacks. And I said with the exception of OK bombing because even the article mentions it wasn't religiously motivated, so why is that brought up as Christian terrorism? It wasn't, it was anti-government, so we can exclude that bombing when we talk about Christian terrorism vs Muslim radical terrorism. Even half the the remaining attacks weren't by Christians, but by "white supremacists" as described in the article with no mention of Christianity, but we'll leave them on the list for argument sake. So doing a count as I skim through the article, 18 fatalities are used to argue why Christian terrorism (including non-Christian white supremacists) is just as bad or worse than Muslim terrorism? Triple that number were killed by a Muslim terrorist this week alone, and this article covers 4 decades as the previous comment noted.
The author of the article lost me when he criticized news coverage for being "matter of fact" when it comes to Christian terrorism. Isn't that how coverage suppose to be? What do you want them to do, make up facts to make it sounds as bad as Muslim terrorism in this country?
No one denies that there has been Christian bombings or killings, and acts of terrorism by white men, but to say its on the same level as Muslim terrorism in this country is just being in denial. But there is a reason why Americans associate terrorism with radical Islam. What is the worst terrorist act in our country? 9/11 and who did it? Orlando is now the worse mass shooting in our country, and he was shouting Allah Akbar while he did it. 2 for 2 so far.
Once again, I'm not trying to say Christian terrorists have killed as many people, I'm saying the thinking on the individual level can be the same, but the media and public response is different. People absolutely deny that a Christian terrorist is motivated by their religion, or that they are influenced by Christian terrorist groups. They are typically pushed into the 'crazy' category. The Orlando shooter was labelled a terrorist in less than a day. And now they say he was 'influenced' by a terrorist group. So I'm guessing the next time a white male American shoots people who is motivated by a domestic terrorist group, we'll be calling him a terrorist too? The Charleston shooter was motivated by white supremacist groups, but I don't recall him being labelled a terrorist.
The language used around it is important to me because is guides the dialogue and the response by leaders and the general public. When someone is called a Muslim extremist, people conclude that the religion is the issue, not the issues that factor in to someone deciding they are going to kill people. It basically can shut down intelligent responses to these things (as you can see in this thread).
Comments
Godfather.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
It has already happened, people were sued and lost jobs over reporting what they perceived as a threat to public safety because they were wrong. And in my opinion, if you saw a picture of that homemade clock, to someone who doesn't know anything about electronics or explosives could easily be frightened by it, and as a result I bet a kid can walk in that school tomorrow with something "suspicious" (like a real clock bomb, obviously I'm not referring to a shotgun or something) and no one will report it. Partially because its summer and no one else will be there, but still.....
I know you referenced gun shops, I didn't say it but I don't think its a no stretch at all to go from suing a school district and city (or sending demand letters through a lawyer at the very least) to see it happening to a gun shop. To me seems like an easier lawsuit, gun shops aren't responsible for the safety of thousands of kids every day, schools should be on the highest alert and report anything that is the least bit suspicious and if they can get sued for that, anyone can. "Mr. Gun Shop denied me my second amendment right by refusing to sell me a gun without even a proper background check. I need $20 million to make my feelings better."
Anyway, sounds like were basically on the same page except for a few schematics (schematics? Why do I get the feeling I'm using the wrong word here? Whatever, the weekend is almost here!)
http://video.insideedition.com/services/player/bcpid4459728022001?bckey=AQ~~,AAABl3NGjUk~,c86X7VwaxEd28xku5GvPhWeKa1PCN8Q1&bctid=4943032876001
Stymied for words aside from that.
F**ked up, man.
Can't wait to hear the defences.
alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men
That list spans across four decades, features single murders and one suicide- shouldn't even count- and also includes the McVeigh case which wasn't religiously motivated (even the link speaks to his intense hatred of the government).
These sporadic events prove my point: Christian terrorist acts absolutely pale in comparison to Muslim terrorist acts. It's not even in the same galaxy. In fact, if this list was the Top 10 Muslim acts of terrorism... we wouldn't even be speaking about Muslim terrorism.
Change the guilty parties and the outrage would be equal for Christians. Without question.
I have several problems with this article. One, I've never heard anyone say that ONLY Muslims or non-whites are terrorists. No one says that. Look at Columbine, Colorado theater shooting, we know Muslims don't account for all mass killings. Yes, there is the idea when you mention a terrorist most may picture a middle-eastern male, but everyone knows they aren't the only terrorists or mass killings.
Second, with the exception of the OK bombing, the highest fatality rate in that list was 6. Most were just 1 or 2 casualties, hardly on par with the 9/11 or Orlando attacks. And I said with the exception of OK bombing because even the article mentions it wasn't religiously motivated, so why is that brought up as Christian terrorism? It wasn't, it was anti-government, so we can exclude that bombing when we talk about Christian terrorism vs Muslim radical terrorism. Even half the the remaining attacks weren't by Christians, but by "white supremacists" as described in the article with no mention of Christianity, but we'll leave them on the list for argument sake.
So doing a count as I skim through the article, 18 fatalities are used to argue why Christian terrorism (including non-Christian white supremacists) is just as bad or worse than Muslim terrorism? Triple that number were killed by a Muslim terrorist this week alone, and this article covers 4 decades as the previous comment noted.
The author of the article lost me when he criticized news coverage for being "matter of fact" when it comes to Christian terrorism. Isn't that how coverage suppose to be? What do you want them to do, make up facts to make it sounds as bad as Muslim terrorism in this country?
No one denies that there has been Christian bombings or killings, and acts of terrorism by white men, but to say its on the same level as Muslim terrorism in this country is just being in denial. But there is a reason why Americans associate terrorism with radical Islam. What is the worst terrorist act in our country? 9/11 and who did it? Orlando is now the worse mass shooting in our country, and he was shouting Allah Akbar while he did it. 2 for 2 so far.
can you provide links to actual cases where people are being sued for giving people bruises for performing CPR? even better, actual cases where the responder was found liable?
all 50 states have "good samaritan" laws that protect people from being sued for trying to help in time of emergency. you cannot be sued if you act as a "reasonable prudent person" and administer chest compressions or rescue breaths for someone in cardiac emergency. research shows that trying to help is better than not doing anything at all. these laws exist to encourage people to help without fear of being sued.
also, if someone ever actually needs CPR, they are more than likely coming out of it with more than bruises. broken ribs are extremely common after CPR.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The language used around it is important to me because is guides the dialogue and the response by leaders and the general public. When someone is called a Muslim extremist, people conclude that the religion is the issue, not the issues that factor in to someone deciding they are going to kill people. It basically can shut down intelligent responses to these things (as you can see in this thread).