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.
Better come off your high horse then. Because all states don't have the same good Samaritan laws. Depending on the state, yes, you could be sued for helping out as a good Samaritan. So, your posting falsehoods, sorry, but the truth. Better do your homework better before taking a bow.
The details of good Samaritan laws/acts vary by jurisdiction, including who is protected from liability and under what circumstances. Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, instead protecting only trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses and perhaps also emergency services personnel such as trained police, fire and EMS workers
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).
I disagree.
I said this at the bottom of my response to you: "Change the guilty parties and the outrage would be equal for Christians. Without question."
Muslim 'extremists' have earned a brutal reputation for themselves for good reason. Each one of their despicable acts is not an isolated event as much as some would like everyone to belief- they are all part of a growing body of work and people are really f**king tired of it.
And you spoke of 'Mushroom Head'? He received all the scorn and more for his obscenity. If more white supremacists committed similar acts... the trend would most assuredly be labelled as terrorism. As it happened, it was- more appropriately in my mind- labelled a hate crime. Further...and rightfully so, generalizations occurred for supremacists and their ideology: they were all painted as f**king idiots as Mushroom Head placed them in the spotlight.
Stop downplaying extreme Islamic actions. These clowns deserve every bit of criticism they get and the faith that inspires them should stand to 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.
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).
But how could the response be the same when one group is a hundred or a thousand times more deadly (yes, I do believe it to be a thousand times when you consider 9/11 and every other act that has killed dozens or hundreds) Maybe I was jumping to assumption about what others believe, but they are almost always referred to as "Radical Muslims" because we do want to separate them from the every day Muslim who doesn't want to blow you up. I haven't seen anyone do the same for Christian terrorists though, I haven't seen "Radical Christian" used here. In fact in this thread and many others I've seen all Christians referred to as "crazy Zombie Jesus believers" etc without distinguishing between the extremely few minority of crazy ones. That ridiculous preacher linked several replies back who praised the shooters is crazy, and represents less than 0.01% of Christians. Just like the Orlando shooter doesn't represent all Muslims. The Charleston shooter wasn't labeled a terrorist probably because there was no political motivation, which most terrorists have. That dude was just plain racist.
If 100 people kill someone shouting Alluhah Akbar and then one person kills someone shouting Jesus is Great, then what do you think the story is going to be? You would expect to hear something about Islamic terrorism. But why would you expect to hear something about radical Christian terrorism? Wouldn't you expect something more like we get now that the person is just crazy because it is so rare that someone else would do the same thing?
We call Islamic terrorism terrorism because there is a movement behind it and hundreds of attacks happen all over the world each month.
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).
I disagree.
I said this at the bottom of my response to you: "Change the guilty parties and the outrage would be equal for Christians. Without question."
Muslim 'extremists' have earned a brutal reputation for themselves for good reason. Each one of their despicable acts is not an isolated event as much as some would like everyone to belief- they are all part of a growing body of work and people are really f**king tired of it.
And you spoke of 'Mushroom Head'? He received all the scorn and more for his obscenity. If more white supremacists committed similar acts... the trend would most assuredly be labelled as terrorism. As it happened, it was- more appropriately in my mind- labelled a hate crime. Further...and rightfully so, generalizations occurred for supremacists and their ideology: they were all painted as f**king idiots as Mushroom Head placed them in the spotlight.
Stop downplaying extreme Islamic actions. These clowns deserve every bit of criticism they get and the faith that inspires them should stand to question.
I'm not downplaying anything. You're downplaying domestic terrorism and the faith that inspires them. I'm curious what the threshold is, though. A person kills 49 people, clearly a hate crime, but he's labelled a terrorist very quickly. Wouldn't it more appropriately in your mind be labelled at hate crime?
If 100 people kill someone shouting Alluhah Akbar and then one person kills someone shouting Jesus is Great, then what do you think the story is going to be? You would expect to hear something about Islamic terrorism. But why would you expect to hear something about radical Christian terrorism? Wouldn't you expect something more like we get now that the person is just crazy because it is so rare that someone else would do the same thing?
We call Islamic terrorism terrorism because there is a movement behind it and hundreds of attacks happen all over the world each month.
And why do you think we call domestic terrorism something else?
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.
Better come off your high horse then. Because all states don't have the same good Samaritan laws. Depending on the state, yes, you could be sued for helping out as a good Samaritan. So, your posting falsehoods, sorry, but the truth. Better do your homework better before taking a bow.
The details of good Samaritan laws/acts vary by jurisdiction, including who is protected from liability and under what circumstances. Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, instead protecting only trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses and perhaps also emergency services personnel such as trained police, fire and EMS workers
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.
Better come off your high horse then. Because all states don't have the same good Samaritan laws. Depending on the state, yes, you could be sued for helping out as a good Samaritan. So, your posting falsehoods, sorry, but the truth. Better do your homework better before taking a bow.
The details of good Samaritan laws/acts vary by jurisdiction, including who is protected from liability and under what circumstances. Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, instead protecting only trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses and perhaps also emergency services personnel such as trained police, fire and EMS workers
Nice research. Did you also find out how many people have sued their Florence Nightingale and actually won for leaving bruises during CPR?
In most states, it is very difficult to sue under the food Samaritan law. One would have to be able to prove that the good Samaritan was blatantly negligent in performing basic care within his/her skill level.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
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 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).
I disagree.
I said this at the bottom of my response to you: "Change the guilty parties and the outrage would be equal for Christians. Without question."
Muslim 'extremists' have earned a brutal reputation for themselves for good reason. Each one of their despicable acts is not an isolated event as much as some would like everyone to belief- they are all part of a growing body of work and people are really f**king tired of it.
And you spoke of 'Mushroom Head'? He received all the scorn and more for his obscenity. If more white supremacists committed similar acts... the trend would most assuredly be labelled as terrorism. As it happened, it was- more appropriately in my mind- labelled a hate crime. Further...and rightfully so, generalizations occurred for supremacists and their ideology: they were all painted as f**king idiots as Mushroom Head placed them in the spotlight.
Stop downplaying extreme Islamic actions. These clowns deserve every bit of criticism they get and the faith that inspires them should stand to question.
I'm not downplaying anything. You're downplaying domestic terrorism and the faith that inspires them. I'm curious what the threshold is, though. A person kills 49 people, clearly a hate crime, but he's labelled a terrorist very quickly. Wouldn't it more appropriately in your mind be labelled at hate crime?
I'm not downplaying domestic terrorism- there's nothing to downplay: the Christian inspired domestic terrorism 'teeny weeny scale one hit wonders' are nothing compared to the Islamic based terrorism waged right now.
You have tried to draw some comparisons between the two and spoke to the uneven responses we typically experience in the aftermath of these events. Because these comparisons are not even close... neither are the responses.
You have spoken to semantics which I can help with: when ISIS throws gay people off towers... they are committing a hate crime just like mushroom head in the Charleston church. When ISIS coordinates- either directly or indirectly- a military style assault on a large group of random people from another country... that is terrorism.
But hate crime... terrorism... who cares? Call it the hokey pokey if you want. It's mass murder and the amount of blood on Islamic murderer's hands is infinitely greater than that on Christian murderer's hands right now in the modern era... and this is the comparison you are trying to make.
I don't understand this need to compare Christian terrorism to Muslim terrorism? There's no comparison in terms of impact, so why would the coverage, views or anything else be similar? If you want more discussion about domestic terrorists, why not talk about Bill Ayres? The guy who founded the terrorist group the "Weather Underground." The guy who admits to bombing multiple public buildings, responsible for killing, and says he doesn't regret it. The guy who helped start Obama's political career and remains friends today. The guy who became a professor in Chicago impacting our impressionable youth. He's a bigger terrorist that the Christians you keep bringing up. And he admits to it, only let out of jail on technicalities.
I don't understand this need to compare Christian terrorism to Muslim terrorism? There's no comparison in terms of impact, so why would the coverage, views or anything else be similar? If you want more discussion about domestic terrorists, why not talk about Bill Ayres? The guy who founded the terrorist group the "Weather Underground." The guy who admits to bombing multiple public buildings, responsible for killing, and says he doesn't regret it. The guy who helped start Obama's political career and remains friends today. The guy who became a professor in Chicago impacting our impressionable youth. He's a bigger terrorist that the Christians you keep bringing up. And he admits to it, only let out of jail on technicalities.
The only difference is Christians terrorize psychologically while Islam does it violently.
Not always the case with the former. Matthew Shepherd anyone?
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.
Better come off your high horse then. Because all states don't have the same good Samaritan laws. Depending on the state, yes, you could be sued for helping out as a good Samaritan. So, your posting falsehoods, sorry, but the truth. Better do your homework better before taking a bow.
The details of good Samaritan laws/acts vary by jurisdiction, including who is protected from liability and under what circumstances. Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, instead protecting only trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses and perhaps also emergency services personnel such as trained police, fire and EMS workers
Nice research. Did you also find out how many people have sued their Florence Nightingale and actually won for leaving bruises during CPR?
I just spent about 10 minutes trying to find even one case in the US where someone has been sued for performing CPR and I didn't find one. There may have been a few cases at some point in history, and they are what grew this modern myth about getting sued for doing CPR, but I didn't come across any cases at all in my brief Google research. As already mnetioned, all 50 states have good samaritan laws. Yes, they vary from one state to the next (some actually require people to help btw), but they do all protect civilian bystanders from being sued for performing CPR unless there is gross negligence. They also protect civilians when there is a DNR order for someone, assuming the rescuer didn't know about the DNR. I also discovered, btw, that a VERY disturbing number of people will refuse to perform CPR on someone and instead just watch them die because they are worried they will be successfully sued even though that is basically an impossibility.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't understand this need to compare Christian terrorism to Muslim terrorism? There's no comparison in terms of impact, so why would the coverage, views or anything else be similar? If you want more discussion about domestic terrorists, why not talk about Bill Ayres? The guy who founded the terrorist group the "Weather Underground." The guy who admits to bombing multiple public buildings, responsible for killing, and says he doesn't regret it. The guy who helped start Obama's political career and remains friends today. The guy who became a professor in Chicago impacting our impressionable youth. He's a bigger terrorist that the Christians you keep bringing up. And he admits to it, only let out of jail on technicalities.
Good point bringing up Ayers. Although not a bigger terrorist than ones I mentioned, you support the point I'm making, which is that fundamentalist thinking is the issue, not the religion. Fundamentalism can take many forms, religious and otherwise. If someone someone buys into a strict right/wrong black and white value system, then combines that system with a world view that says the opposing way of life is a threat the their life and well being, they can be easily bumped or influenced to create damage and harm others. It's why you should always be cautious of anyone promoting their ideas that include the idea that we're a doomed society if we don't vote/buy/follow what their pushing.
Turkey is a NATO member and is supposed to be the most westernized of Islamic countries and yet they are regressing as well. I hate to repeat myself but these views are becoming more mainstream within Islam.
So what are some opinions of the wording being changed on the public transcripts of the 911 calls made? Should citizens not be able to draw their own opinions/conclusions based off facts instead of tampered transcripts? Is it not considered forgery of public information to change the direct quotes of the murderer's 911 statements, and for what reason? Edit: Just saw that they have now released the full transcript...maybe they realized they were breaking the law?
So what are some opinions of the wording being changed on the public transcripts of the 911 calls made? Should citizens not be able to draw their own opinions/conclusions based off facts instead of tampered transcripts? Is it not considered forgery of public information to change the direct quotes of the murderer's 911 statements, and for what reason? Edit: Just saw that they have now released the full transcript...maybe they realized they were breaking the law?
I find lack of transparency in all official forms to be utter bullshit. it's not flaming racism, it's just showing the facts of what the guy said.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
So what are some opinions of the wording being changed on the public transcripts of the 911 calls made? Should citizens not be able to draw their own opinions/conclusions based off facts instead of tampered transcripts? Is it not considered forgery of public information to change the direct quotes of the murderer's 911 statements, and for what reason? Edit: Just saw that they have now released the full transcript...maybe they realized they were breaking the law?
I find lack of transparency in all official forms to be utter bullshit. it's not flaming racism, it's just showing the facts of what the guy said.
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).
In fact in this thread and many others I've seen all Christians referred to as "crazy Zombie Jesus believers" etc without distinguishing between the extremely few minority of crazy ones. .
Ah ah ah if you believe in zombie Jesus one is a bit nuts.
Now now now I know yes yes.
But just think a bit, just a tiny bit how bat shit crazy that Bible tale is and.
Turkey is a NATO member and is supposed to be the most westernized of Islamic countries and yet they are regressing as well. I hate to repeat myself but these views are becoming more mainstream within Islam.
Turkey is a NATO member and is supposed to be the most westernized of Islamic countries and yet they are regressing as well. I hate to repeat myself but these views are becoming more mainstream within Islam.
Honestly, most of these issues would go away if Muslim women gained equality in Muslim societies. No community or society functions well when the women are by and large oppressed. When more than half of your adult population have little to no active role in governance, religion, or the economy, everything goes to shit. That's why female oppression is the one thing that all 3rd world nations have in common. The more equal the genders are in a society, the more peaceful and well-run that society tends to be.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't understand this need to compare Christian terrorism to Muslim terrorism? There's no comparison in terms of impact, so why would the coverage, views or anything else be similar? If you want more discussion about domestic terrorists, why not talk about Bill Ayres? The guy who founded the terrorist group the "Weather Underground." The guy who admits to bombing multiple public buildings, responsible for killing, and says he doesn't regret it. The guy who helped start Obama's political career and remains friends today. The guy who became a professor in Chicago impacting our impressionable youth. He's a bigger terrorist that the Christians you keep bringing up. And he admits to it, only let out of jail on technicalities.
this is the train, a place where most folks think the US citizens are greedy evil people and it's our fault that all the bad things in this world happen....wait till they meet terrorism face to face and try to convince a terrorist "it's not their fault" and that they understand LOL !
Comments
The details of good Samaritan laws/acts vary by jurisdiction, including who is protected from liability and under what circumstances. Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, instead protecting only trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses and perhaps also emergency services personnel such as trained police, fire and EMS workers
Here, better read all states laws, before thinking your good helping someone out.
https://recreation-law.com/2014/05/28/good-samaritan-laws-by-state/
I said this at the bottom of my response to you: "Change the guilty parties and the outrage would be equal for Christians. Without question."
Muslim 'extremists' have earned a brutal reputation for themselves for good reason. Each one of their despicable acts is not an isolated event as much as some would like everyone to belief- they are all part of a growing body of work and people are really f**king tired of it.
And you spoke of 'Mushroom Head'? He received all the scorn and more for his obscenity. If more white supremacists committed similar acts... the trend would most assuredly be labelled as terrorism. As it happened, it was- more appropriately in my mind- labelled a hate crime. Further...and rightfully so, generalizations occurred for supremacists and their ideology: they were all painted as f**king idiots as Mushroom Head placed them in the spotlight.
Stop downplaying extreme Islamic actions. These clowns deserve every bit of criticism they get and the faith that inspires them should stand to question.
Maybe I was jumping to assumption about what others believe, but they are almost always referred to as "Radical Muslims" because we do want to separate them from the every day Muslim who doesn't want to blow you up. I haven't seen anyone do the same for Christian terrorists though, I haven't seen "Radical Christian" used here. In fact in this thread and many others I've seen all Christians referred to as "crazy Zombie Jesus believers" etc without distinguishing between the extremely few minority of crazy ones.
That ridiculous preacher linked several replies back who praised the shooters is crazy, and represents less than 0.01% of Christians. Just like the Orlando shooter doesn't represent all Muslims.
The Charleston shooter wasn't labeled a terrorist probably because there was no political motivation, which most terrorists have. That dude was just plain racist.
If 100 people kill someone shouting Alluhah Akbar and then one person kills someone shouting Jesus is Great, then what do you think the story is going to be? You would expect to hear something about Islamic terrorism. But why would you expect to hear something about radical Christian terrorism? Wouldn't you expect something more like we get now that the person is just crazy because it is so rare that someone else would do the same thing?
We call Islamic terrorism terrorism because there is a movement behind it and hundreds of attacks happen all over the world each month.
So many people know what these "lone wolves" are up to but said nothing.
we will find a way, we will find our place
You have tried to draw some comparisons between the two and spoke to the uneven responses we typically experience in the aftermath of these events. Because these comparisons are not even close... neither are the responses.
You have spoken to semantics which I can help with: when ISIS throws gay people off towers... they are committing a hate crime just like mushroom head in the Charleston church. When ISIS coordinates- either directly or indirectly- a military style assault on a large group of random people from another country... that is terrorism.
But hate crime... terrorism... who cares? Call it the hokey pokey if you want. It's mass murder and the amount of blood on Islamic murderer's hands is infinitely greater than that on Christian murderer's hands right now in the modern era... and this is the comparison you are trying to make.
First Anderson from Tempe and now this pendejo.
The guy who admits to bombing multiple public buildings, responsible for killing, and says he doesn't regret it. The guy who helped start Obama's political career and remains friends today. The guy who became a professor in Chicago impacting our impressionable youth. He's a bigger terrorist that the Christians you keep bringing up. And he admits to it, only let out of jail on technicalities.
Not always the case with the former. Matthew Shepherd anyone?
we will find a way, we will find our place
Which is what a radical islamist is.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/19/busy-weekend-for-turkish-police-attackin
Turkey is a NATO member and is supposed to be the most westernized of Islamic countries and yet they are regressing as well. I hate to repeat myself but these views are becoming more mainstream within Islam.
It's so sad it's sickening. 2:40 on.
I wonder if she could be a lesbian muslim over there?
Radiohead streaming in Turkey? WTF?
Wonder why modern day bands don't play there...
Edit: Just saw that they have now released the full transcript...maybe they realized they were breaking the law?
-EV 8/14/93
Now now now I know yes yes.
But just think a bit, just a tiny bit how bat shit crazy that Bible tale is and.
How freaking ironic, you want to fight and kill Muslims in Middle East.
AND your views are becoming more mainstream within scared white folk listening to your Imams on FOX.
Godfather.