Terrorist Shooting In Orlando, FL

callen said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

McVeigh told The Guardian that he did not believe in heaven or hell.

http://www.businessinsider.com/20-years-after-the-oklahoma-city-bombing-timothy-mcveigh-remains-the-only-terrorist-executed-by-us-2015-4

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).

Here's a list of some genuine Christian terrorist acts. You can also include nearly all targeted killing of doctors who perform abortions and any abortion clinic bombings.
alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

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.

goldrush said:

Godfather. said:

the only thing we can do is rid ourselves of these people in our country.

Godfather.

As this was missed last time, and as you keep bringing this 'solution' up, I'd genuinely be interested to see how you would answer these questions...

goldrush said:

Godfather. said:

how else would we get a handle on the terrorism committed by "home grown muslims" ?

Godfather.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second... Suppose that the US gave in to all the hate-filled propaganda being thrown around about deporting Muslims:

1. Where do you suggest 3 million people should go? Before you say "back to where they came from", remember you are also including American-born Muslims in this

2. How do you propose they get there? Will the US foot the bill for mass migration?

3. If (again, devil's advocate), all 3 million people are a danger to the rest of us, what gives the US the right to force that problem onto another country? "We have decided that these people are dangerous, they're your problem now. See ya!"

4. Who's next? Once the Muslims are all gone, who do you deport next? How many others have to go for you to create your perfect country?

josevolution said:

goldrush said:

Godfather. said:

the only thing we can do is rid ourselves of these people in our country.

Godfather.

As this was missed last time, and as you keep bringing this 'solution' up, I'd genuinely be interested to see how you would answer these questions...

goldrush said:

Godfather. said:

how else would we get a handle on the terrorism committed by "home grown muslims" ?

Godfather.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second... Suppose that the US gave in to all the hate-filled propaganda being thrown around about deporting Muslims:

1. Where do you suggest 3 million people should go? Before you say "back to where they came from", remember you are also including American-born Muslims in this

2. How do you propose they get there? Will the US foot the bill for mass migration?

3. If (again, devil's advocate), all 3 million people are a danger to the rest of us, what gives the US the right to force that problem onto another country? "We have decided that these people are dangerous, they're your problem now. See ya!"

4. Who's next? Once the Muslims are all gone, who do you deport next? How many others have to go for you to create your perfect country?

The Hispanics all of'em ..