A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
Reactionary toward innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism. The man seemed to have serious mental issues and was ranting. IMO the biggest issue with humanity and our behavior is not being able to construe individuals vs. the group. Anyway, wish one of the bystanders was trained and had a concealed carry, would've been a different end to the story.
Sure, because shooting people inside a commuter train always ends well.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
Reactionary toward innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism. The man seemed to have serious mental issues and was ranting. IMO the biggest issue with humanity and our behavior is not being able to construe individuals vs. the group. Anyway, wish one of the bystanders was trained and had a concealed carry, would've been a different end to the story.
Sure, because shooting people inside a commuter train always ends well.
In vigilante fantasies, every shot hits its target.
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
Reactionary toward innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism. The man seemed to have serious mental issues and was ranting. IMO the biggest issue with humanity and our behavior is not being able to construe individuals vs. the group. Anyway, wish one of the bystanders was trained and had a concealed carry, would've been a different end to the story.
Sure, because shooting people inside a commuter train always ends well.
In vigilante fantasies, every shot hits its target.
In slow mo.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
Where do you think it fits in?
The story you linked hasn't several holes in it. It says he wasn't ranting and raving about a few things and then fixated on the Muslim women. The article alluded to the possibility of mental illness. The article also said the women left the scene before being questioned? They were likely very rattled by the disturbingly event, but who does that? Two guys get killed and another injured helping you and you just leave? Maybe I read that wrong.
This is an awful story.
* I reread it. Two people killed and another seriously injured. Gross.
Where do I think it fit in?
Let's take a look at what was reported. A man in Portland was spouting an anti-Muslim diatribe. He targeted two young women who appeared to be Muslim with his rant. Bystanders heroically intervened; two were killed and another injured. Of course the assumption is that it's just some crazy (white) guy, a one-off kind of thing.
Let's flip it around. Say it was a brown Muslim fellow on a train. Say this fellow was spouting an anti-Christian diatribe, maybe with a few "allahu akhbars" thrown in, because it is a common figure of speech, not strictly owned by terrorists. Say he targeted two young North American women, dressed as is common in the US, i.e. not modestly. Say it quickly escalated and he attacked and killed the bystanders. What would be the assumption, both here on AMT and in the wider world? I am confident that the assumption by many would be that it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by "Radical Islam".
A few months back a young Muslim man, a university student with no history of violence or ties to ISIS, killed some people. The details are lost to me; perhaps it was the young man who ran a car into a crowd, perhaps it was the person on the train in Germany. Whatever the details, I know that, based on the age, the fact that he was a student and the lack of history, I suggested it might have been a first episode of mental illness. I was roundly criticized for being some sort of terrorist denier; because, of course, killings by Muslims have to be assumed to be terrorist acts first, with other explanations a distant second.
Now the media is reporting that this individual in Portland was a white supremacist who had a history of posting disgusting things about Muslims. Maybe not just some random, crazy white guy.
This is what we are talking about regarding about the inherent racism in this discussion on AMT. It isn't about whether "Radical Christians" killed as many people this year or this decade as Muslims. It's about the assumptions made.
And Thirty, you're criticizing the young women for leaving the scene? Really? Someone shouted insults at them and then killed two people and seriously injured another, and you criticize them for getting the hell out of there?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
Where do you think it fits in?
The story you linked hasn't several holes in it. It says he wasn't ranting and raving about a few things and then fixated on the Muslim women. The article alluded to the possibility of mental illness. The article also said the women left the scene before being questioned? They were likely very rattled by the disturbingly event, but who does that? Two guys get killed and another injured helping you and you just leave? Maybe I read that wrong.
This is an awful story.
* I reread it. Two people killed and another seriously injured. Gross.
Where do I think it fit in?
Let's take a look at what was reported. A man in Portland was spouting an anti-Muslim diatribe. He targeted two young women who appeared to be Muslim with his rant. Bystanders heroically intervened; two were killed and another injured. Of course the assumption is that it's just some crazy (white) guy, a one-off kind of thing.
Let's flip it around. Say it was a brown Muslim fellow on a train. Say this fellow was spouting an anti-Christian diatribe, maybe with a few "allahu akhbars" thrown in, because it is a common figure of speech, not strictly owned by terrorists. Say he targeted two young North American women, dressed as is common in the US, i.e. not modestly. Say it quickly escalated and he attacked and killed the bystanders. What would be the assumption, both here on AMT and in the wider world? I am confident that the assumption by many would be that it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by "Radical Islam".
A few months back a young Muslim man, a university student with no history of violence or ties to ISIS, killed some people. The details are lost to me; perhaps it was the young man who ran a car into a crowd, perhaps it was the person on the train in Germany. Whatever the details, I know that, based on the age, the fact that he was a student and the lack of history, I suggested it might have been a first episode of mental illness. I was roundly criticized for being some sort of terrorist denier; because, of course, killings by Muslims have to be assumed to be terrorist acts first, with other explanations a distant second.
Now the media is reporting that this individual in Portland was a white supremacist who had a history of posting disgusting things about Muslims. Maybe not just some random, crazy white guy.
This is what we are talking about regarding about the inherent racism in this discussion on AMT. It isn't about whether "Radical Christians" killed as many people this year or this decade as Muslims. It's about the assumptions made.
And Thirty, you're criticizing the young women for leaving the scene? Really? Someone shouted insults at them and then killed two people and seriously injured another, and you criticize them for getting the hell out of there?
Well...
I guess if my son ever came to your need when you needed him (as I've fought him to do)... and he died in the ensuing struggle... yah... I'd want you to stick around and assist authorities.
You left out the victims in your rant here.
They're also saying this idiot had history of mental illness. In other cases where people with mental illnesses have killed people... you have typically been sympathetic with them. Yet here... you seem to admonish this tool as I might. That's kind of curious.
But yeah... a traumatic episode for sure... but two guys died coming to your aid. Stick around and assist with the process.
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
Where do you think it fits in?
The story you linked hasn't several holes in it. It says he wasn't ranting and raving about a few things and then fixated on the Muslim women. The article alluded to the possibility of mental illness. The article also said the women left the scene before being questioned? They were likely very rattled by the disturbingly event, but who does that? Two guys get killed and another injured helping you and you just leave? Maybe I read that wrong.
This is an awful story.
* I reread it. Two people killed and another seriously injured. Gross.
Where do I think it fit in?
Let's take a look at what was reported. A man in Portland was spouting an anti-Muslim diatribe. He targeted two young women who appeared to be Muslim with his rant. Bystanders heroically intervened; two were killed and another injured. Of course the assumption is that it's just some crazy (white) guy, a one-off kind of thing.
Let's flip it around. Say it was a brown Muslim fellow on a train. Say this fellow was spouting an anti-Christian diatribe, maybe with a few "allahu akhbars" thrown in, because it is a common figure of speech, not strictly owned by terrorists. Say he targeted two young North American women, dressed as is common in the US, i.e. not modestly. Say it quickly escalated and he attacked and killed the bystanders. What would be the assumption, both here on AMT and in the wider world? I am confident that the assumption by many would be that it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by "Radical Islam".
A few months back a young Muslim man, a university student with no history of violence or ties to ISIS, killed some people. The details are lost to me; perhaps it was the young man who ran a car into a crowd, perhaps it was the person on the train in Germany. Whatever the details, I know that, based on the age, the fact that he was a student and the lack of history, I suggested it might have been a first episode of mental illness. I was roundly criticized for being some sort of terrorist denier; because, of course, killings by Muslims have to be assumed to be terrorist acts first, with other explanations a distant second.
Now the media is reporting that this individual in Portland was a white supremacist who had a history of posting disgusting things about Muslims. Maybe not just some random, crazy white guy.
This is what we are talking about regarding about the inherent racism in this discussion on AMT. It isn't about whether "Radical Christians" killed as many people this year or this decade as Muslims. It's about the assumptions made.
And Thirty, you're criticizing the young women for leaving the scene? Really? Someone shouted insults at them and then killed two people and seriously injured another, and you criticize them for getting the hell out of there?
Well...
I guess if my son ever came to your need when you needed him (as I've fought him to do)... and he died in the ensuing struggle... yah... I'd want you to stick around and assist authorities.
You left out the victims in your rant here.
They're also saying this idiot had history of mental illness. In other cases where people with mental illnesses have killed people... you have typically been sympathetic with them. Yet here... you seem to admonish this tool as I might. That's kind of curious.
But yeah... a traumatic episode for sure... but two guys died coming to your aid. Stick around and assist with the process.
I guess that's asking too much from some people.
We have no idea if this man has mental illness or not. I'm not focusing on that. What I'm focusing on is what people on the Train choose to assume about perpetrators based on their race and religion.
Edit - to put it bluntly, I'm not admonishing anyone but some folks on AMT.
Edit #2 - when someone disagrees with you, it's a rant. I guess. And I didn't leave out the victims.
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
Where do you think it fits in?
The story you linked hasn't several holes in it. It says he wasn't ranting and raving about a few things and then fixated on the Muslim women. The article alluded to the possibility of mental illness. The article also said the women left the scene before being questioned? They were likely very rattled by the disturbingly event, but who does that? Two guys get killed and another injured helping you and you just leave? Maybe I read that wrong.
This is an awful story.
* I reread it. Two people killed and another seriously injured. Gross.
Where do I think it fit in?
Let's take a look at what was reported. A man in Portland was spouting an anti-Muslim diatribe. He targeted two young women who appeared to be Muslim with his rant. Bystanders heroically intervened; two were killed and another injured. Of course the assumption is that it's just some crazy (white) guy, a one-off kind of thing.
Let's flip it around. Say it was a brown Muslim fellow on a train. Say this fellow was spouting an anti-Christian diatribe, maybe with a few "allahu akhbars" thrown in, because it is a common figure of speech, not strictly owned by terrorists. Say he targeted two young North American women, dressed as is common in the US, i.e. not modestly. Say it quickly escalated and he attacked and killed the bystanders. What would be the assumption, both here on AMT and in the wider world? I am confident that the assumption by many would be that it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by "Radical Islam".
A few months back a young Muslim man, a university student with no history of violence or ties to ISIS, killed some people. The details are lost to me; perhaps it was the young man who ran a car into a crowd, perhaps it was the person on the train in Germany. Whatever the details, I know that, based on the age, the fact that he was a student and the lack of history, I suggested it might have been a first episode of mental illness. I was roundly criticized for being some sort of terrorist denier; because, of course, killings by Muslims have to be assumed to be terrorist acts first, with other explanations a distant second.
Now the media is reporting that this individual in Portland was a white supremacist who had a history of posting disgusting things about Muslims. Maybe not just some random, crazy white guy.
This is what we are talking about regarding about the inherent racism in this discussion on AMT. It isn't about whether "Radical Christians" killed as many people this year or this decade as Muslims. It's about the assumptions made.
And Thirty, you're criticizing the young women for leaving the scene? Really? Someone shouted insults at them and then killed two people and seriously injured another, and you criticize them for getting the hell out of there?
This story's victims are dead. Yet... I'm supposed to be feeling sorry for the Muslim woman who were berated by some f**king idiot... and also understand why they were too traumatized to stick around and assist authorities as they piece together their case charging the idiot who just murdered the guys who came to their assistance.
And white people killed/Muslim women berated is supposed to prove what compared to the Grande concert?
This story's victims are dead. Yet... I'm supposed to be feeling sorry for the Muslim woman who were berated by some f**king idiot... and also understand why they were too traumatized to stick around and assist authorities as they piece together their case charging the idiot who just murdered the guys who came to their assistance.
And white people killed/Muslim women berated is supposed to prove what compared to the Grande concert?
Holy Christ.
That's what you drew from this?
Holy christ indeed.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
This story's victims are dead. Yet... I'm supposed to be feeling sorry for the Muslim woman who were berated by some f**king idiot... and also understand why they were too traumatized to stick around and assist authorities as they piece together their case charging the idiot who just murdered the guys who came to their assistance.
And white people killed/Muslim women berated is supposed to prove what compared to the Grande concert?
Holy Christ.
That's what you drew from this?
Holy christ indeed.
Yeah, I agree. That summation entirely ignored the intent and letter of what you were saying. I don't get it at all.
White privilege plays a role in interpretations of criminal motivation because the dialogue instantly goes to confirming the preconceived conclusion that the person is an individual anomaly and acted outside if any external influence.
I think all the other terrible things that happen to people and animals is part of an argument against God. The things that aren't atrocities determined by free will. Drought, famine, horrible disease, devastating natural disasters, human nature ... Seriously, I don't understand how anyone who actually believes in God doesn't hate his guts.
I'll go back to this argument again. For the most part parents have children that they want to be decent human beings, but it doesn't always happen because they only have the ability to create life. Why can't the same be true of a god? They create life, but can't dictate how that life is lived or how it acts because we are born with our own thoughts and minds.
As I've said, I don't specifically believe in god, but a higher being, and I don't blame it for the shitty actions of humans. That's on us to figure out.
True. Also, God or any random higher being one might imagine can blow jelly beans out of volcanoes and make it rain trumpets, but can't thread a golden needle with the hair of all mankind. In other words, literally anything can be said about God/a higher being - I don't see how any statement is more valid than another when it is all completely made up out of thin air.
watching the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode "The Genesis Tub" put alot of this in perspective.
Whatever works for you. Doesn't matter to me whether someone believes or thinks it's all bullshit. I was Lutheran, then I was atheist and now I'm more of a higher being type believer. Imagine if all digital media was destroyed and lost regarding some of the major events that have happened in the last 100 years and then fast forward 2000 years from now and all you have are some written accounts that vary from a Fox News to a CNN perspective. Where's the middle ground? Hard to believe anything you can't touch, taste, hear, smell or see.
Anyway, I'm going to go eat some Jelly Bean and wait for the next volcano explosion
I'm somewhere in the middle between atheist and agnostic. it depends on the day, really. usually lean atheist, but then if I have time to sit and think too much about how fucking big the universe is and how it got created and how and why and all that, I can't help but think there was some sort of manufacturer to all of this.
but the christian god I was taught about as a kid? NOPE.
So who manufactured the manufacturer?
Answer- ehyeh asher ehyeh I AM THAT I AM
One of the greatest non-answers in the history of humankind, haha.
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
This story's victims are dead. Yet... I'm supposed to be feeling sorry for the Muslim woman who were berated by some f**king idiot... and also understand why they were too traumatized to stick around and assist authorities as they piece together their case charging the idiot who just murdered the guys who came to their assistance.
And white people killed/Muslim women berated is supposed to prove what compared to the Grande concert?
Holy Christ.
That's it TB let it all out and let's find the root cause of your anger. I let it go a long time ago that people on here just don't always share the same opinions. Breathe, inhale, exhale, Donald Trump will take care of you. Some people on here even think that cops are more evil than the current President Trump. Imagine that.
This story's victims are dead. Yet... I'm supposed to be feeling sorry for the Muslim woman who were berated by some f**king idiot... and also understand why they were too traumatized to stick around and assist authorities as they piece together their case charging the idiot who just murdered the guys who came to their assistance.
And white people killed/Muslim women berated is supposed to prove what compared to the Grande concert?
Holy Christ.
What in the hell are you talking about? Are people not supposed to have more than one concern at a time?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
This story's victims are dead. Yet... I'm supposed to be feeling sorry for the Muslim woman who were berated by some f**king idiot... and also understand why they were too traumatized to stick around and assist authorities as they piece together their case charging the idiot who just murdered the guys who came to their assistance.
And white people killed/Muslim women berated is supposed to prove what compared to the Grande concert?
Holy Christ.
um, pretty sure they were running for their lives. at least they thought that. I don't fault them at all for that.
it's telling as to the skewed nature of how the collective sometimes view things. "oh, white guy must have been crazy, it's an isolated incident" as opposed to "he's (automatically-before info collected) a muslim! GET HIM!".
Did the ladies come back or go in for statement at a later time? Is the media painting a picture?
Yes, they were teenagers. Frightened out of their minds when he started stabbing people. They are seeking privacy right now and not wanting to talk with the media.
Did the ladies come back or go in for statement at a later time? Is the media painting a picture?
Yes, they were teenagers. Frightened out of their minds when he started stabbing people. They are seeking privacy right now and not wanting to talk with the media.
And to those insisting the two teenage women should have stayed at the scene - bear in mind the suspect was not apprehended at the scene. He got off the train and was ranging around, yelling at people. So what you are asking is for the two young women originally targeted to stand by and watch their aggressor stab and kill two people and injure another, without police or security around to stop him, and stay nearby rather than fleeing. Sounds totally reasonable to me.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Did the ladies come back or go in for statement at a later time? Is the media painting a picture?
Yes, they were teenagers. Frightened out of their minds when he started stabbing people. They are seeking privacy right now and not wanting to talk with the media.
And to those insisting the two teenage women should have stayed at the scene - bear in mind the suspect was not apprehended at the scene. He got off the train and was ranging around, yelling at people. So what you are asking is for the two young women originally targeted to stand by and watch their aggressor stab and kill two people and injure another, without police or security around to stop him, and stay nearby rather than fleeing. Sounds totally reasonable to me.
I would have booked it out of there too, to get away from the huge guy going nuts with a knife. And then, of course, called 911 and b-lined to a police station or gone back in a bit or something.
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 think all the other terrible things that happen to people and animals is part of an argument against God. The things that aren't atrocities determined by free will. Drought, famine, horrible disease, devastating natural disasters, human nature ... Seriously, I don't understand how anyone who actually believes in God doesn't hate his guts.
I'll go back to this argument again. For the most part parents have children that they want to be decent human beings, but it doesn't always happen because they only have the ability to create life. Why can't the same be true of a god? They create life, but can't dictate how that life is lived or how it acts because we are born with our own thoughts and minds.
As I've said, I don't specifically believe in god, but a higher being, and I don't blame it for the shitty actions of humans. That's on us to figure out.
True. Also, God or any random higher being one might imagine can blow jelly beans out of volcanoes and make it rain trumpets, but can't thread a golden needle with the hair of all mankind. In other words, literally anything can be said about God/a higher being - I don't see how any statement is more valid than another when it is all completely made up out of thin air.
watching the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode "The Genesis Tub" put alot of this in perspective.
Whatever works for you. Doesn't matter to me whether someone believes or thinks it's all bullshit. I was Lutheran, then I was atheist and now I'm more of a higher being type believer. Imagine if all digital media was destroyed and lost regarding some of the major events that have happened in the last 100 years and then fast forward 2000 years from now and all you have are some written accounts that vary from a Fox News to a CNN perspective. Where's the middle ground? Hard to believe anything you can't touch, taste, hear, smell or see.
Anyway, I'm going to go eat some Jelly Bean and wait for the next volcano explosion
I'm somewhere in the middle between atheist and agnostic. it depends on the day, really. usually lean atheist, but then if I have time to sit and think too much about how fucking big the universe is and how it got created and how and why and all that, I can't help but think there was some sort of manufacturer to all of this.
but the christian god I was taught about as a kid? NOPE.
So who manufactured the manufacturer?
Answer- ehyeh asher ehyeh I AM THAT I AM
One of the greatest non-answers in the history of humankind, haha.
What is the greatest non-answer in the history of humankind? I AM THAT I AM? Exodus Chapter 3, that's where that answer came from.
Anyway, Kudos to Ariana Grande for getting back in the saddle right away. Trying to do something positive in the wake of that devastating day. Free/Benefit show for all who attended her show. The girl could have gone into hiding after that, but chooses to overcome the best she can, with some special guests too.
Anyway, Kudos to Ariana Grande for getting back in the saddle right away. Trying to do something positive in the wake of that devastating day. Free/Benefit show for all who attended her show. The girl could have gone into hiding after that, but chooses to overcome the best she can, with some special guests too.
Agree has to be devastating mentally when something like this happens at your show.
i wonder if a certain singer of a certain band who is on a solo tour in Europe and plays London the next night might make an appearance with Chris Martin and Coldplay at this show. just pure speculation but wouldn't totally shock me.
Anyway, Kudos to Ariana Grande for getting back in the saddle right away. Trying to do something positive in the wake of that devastating day. Free/Benefit show for all who attended her show. The girl could have gone into hiding after that, but chooses to overcome the best she can, with some special guests too.
agreed. to be perfectly honest, it wouldn't be unreasonable to me for her to hide in a closet for a year after this.
I think all the other terrible things that happen to people and animals is part of an argument against God. The things that aren't atrocities determined by free will. Drought, famine, horrible disease, devastating natural disasters, human nature ... Seriously, I don't understand how anyone who actually believes in God doesn't hate his guts.
I'll go back to this argument again. For the most part parents have children that they want to be decent human beings, but it doesn't always happen because they only have the ability to create life. Why can't the same be true of a god? They create life, but can't dictate how that life is lived or how it acts because we are born with our own thoughts and minds.
As I've said, I don't specifically believe in god, but a higher being, and I don't blame it for the shitty actions of humans. That's on us to figure out.
True. Also, God or any random higher being one might imagine can blow jelly beans out of volcanoes and make it rain trumpets, but can't thread a golden needle with the hair of all mankind. In other words, literally anything can be said about God/a higher being - I don't see how any statement is more valid than another when it is all completely made up out of thin air.
watching the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode "The Genesis Tub" put alot of this in perspective.
Whatever works for you. Doesn't matter to me whether someone believes or thinks it's all bullshit. I was Lutheran, then I was atheist and now I'm more of a higher being type believer. Imagine if all digital media was destroyed and lost regarding some of the major events that have happened in the last 100 years and then fast forward 2000 years from now and all you have are some written accounts that vary from a Fox News to a CNN perspective. Where's the middle ground? Hard to believe anything you can't touch, taste, hear, smell or see.
Anyway, I'm going to go eat some Jelly Bean and wait for the next volcano explosion
I'm somewhere in the middle between atheist and agnostic. it depends on the day, really. usually lean atheist, but then if I have time to sit and think too much about how fucking big the universe is and how it got created and how and why and all that, I can't help but think there was some sort of manufacturer to all of this.
but the christian god I was taught about as a kid? NOPE.
So who manufactured the manufacturer?
Answer- ehyeh asher ehyeh I AM THAT I AM
One of the greatest non-answers in the history of humankind, haha.
What is the greatest non-answer in the history of humankind? I AM THAT I AM? Exodus Chapter 3, that's where that answer came from.
I know that. That is what I was talking about. One of the greatest non-answers in the history of humankind (I don't think anyone on these boards could manage such a lofty non-answer as that, hahaha). Actually, one could also call just about the whole Bible the same thing, lol.
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
Anyway, Kudos to Ariana Grande for getting back in the saddle right away. Trying to do something positive in the wake of that devastating day. Free/Benefit show for all who attended her show. The girl could have gone into hiding after that, but chooses to overcome the best she can, with some special guests too.
Agree has to be devastating mentally when something like this happens at your show.
i wonder if a certain singer of a certain band who is on a solo tour in Europe and plays London the next night might make an appearance with Chris Martin and Coldplay at this show. just pure speculation but wouldn't totally shock me.
I was wondering about that too when I was posting my post this morning. lol
Comments
Let's take a look at what was reported. A man in Portland was spouting an anti-Muslim diatribe. He targeted two young women who appeared to be Muslim with his rant. Bystanders heroically intervened; two were killed and another injured. Of course the assumption is that it's just some crazy (white) guy, a one-off kind of thing.
Let's flip it around. Say it was a brown Muslim fellow on a train. Say this fellow was spouting an anti-Christian diatribe, maybe with a few "allahu akhbars" thrown in, because it is a common figure of speech, not strictly owned by terrorists. Say he targeted two young North American women, dressed as is common in the US, i.e. not modestly. Say it quickly escalated and he attacked and killed the bystanders. What would be the assumption, both here on AMT and in the wider world? I am confident that the assumption by many would be that it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by "Radical Islam".
A few months back a young Muslim man, a university student with no history of violence or ties to ISIS, killed some people. The details are lost to me; perhaps it was the young man who ran a car into a crowd, perhaps it was the person on the train in Germany. Whatever the details, I know that, based on the age, the fact that he was a student and the lack of history, I suggested it might have been a first episode of mental illness. I was roundly criticized for being some sort of terrorist denier; because, of course, killings by Muslims have to be assumed to be terrorist acts first, with other explanations a distant second.
Now the media is reporting that this individual in Portland was a white supremacist who had a history of posting disgusting things about Muslims. Maybe not just some random, crazy white guy.
This is what we are talking about regarding about the inherent racism in this discussion on AMT. It isn't about whether "Radical Christians" killed as many people this year or this decade as Muslims. It's about the assumptions made.
And Thirty, you're criticizing the young women for leaving the scene? Really? Someone shouted insults at them and then killed two people and seriously injured another, and you criticize them for getting the hell out of there?
I guess if my son ever came to your need when you needed him (as I've fought him to do)... and he died in the ensuing struggle... yah... I'd want you to stick around and assist authorities.
You left out the victims in your rant here.
They're also saying this idiot had history of mental illness. In other cases where people with mental illnesses have killed people... you have typically been sympathetic with them. Yet here... you seem to admonish this tool as I might. That's kind of curious.
But yeah... a traumatic episode for sure... but two guys died coming to your aid. Stick around and assist with the process.
I guess that's asking too much from some people.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
We have no idea if this man has mental illness or not. I'm not focusing on that. What I'm focusing on is what people on the Train choose to assume about perpetrators based on their race and religion.
Edit - to put it bluntly, I'm not admonishing anyone but some folks on AMT.
Edit #2 - when someone disagrees with you, it's a rant. I guess. And I didn't leave out the victims.
This story's victims are dead. Yet... I'm supposed to be feeling sorry for the Muslim woman who were berated by some f**king idiot... and also understand why they were too traumatized to stick around and assist authorities as they piece together their case charging the idiot who just murdered the guys who came to their assistance.
And white people killed/Muslim women berated is supposed to prove what compared to the Grande concert?
Holy Christ.
Holy christ indeed.
That summation entirely ignored the intent and letter of what you were saying.
I don't get it at all.
One of the greatest non-answers in the history of humankind, haha.
it's telling as to the skewed nature of how the collective sometimes view things. "oh, white guy must have been crazy, it's an isolated incident" as opposed to "he's (automatically-before info collected) a muslim! GET HIM!".
www.headstonesband.com
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/us/portland-train-teenager-stabbing/
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
And to those insisting the two teenage women should have stayed at the scene - bear in mind the suspect was not apprehended at the scene. He got off the train and was ranging around, yelling at people. So what you are asking is for the two young women originally targeted to stand by and watch their aggressor stab and kill two people and injure another, without police or security around to stop him, and stay nearby rather than fleeing. Sounds totally reasonable to me.
I AM THAT I AM?
Exodus Chapter 3, that's where that answer came from.
Trying to do something positive in the wake of that devastating day.
Free/Benefit show for all who attended her show. The girl could have gone into hiding after that, but chooses to overcome the best she can, with some special guests too.
i wonder if a certain singer of a certain band who is on a solo tour in Europe and plays London the next night might make an appearance with Chris Martin and Coldplay at this show. just pure speculation but wouldn't totally shock me.
www.headstonesband.com