An Army veteran, a recent college graduate and a student who once won a poetry contest by condemning prejudice stirred up by the Sept. 11 attacks intervened as a man screamed anti-Muslim insults at two women in Portland, Ore., on Friday.
[...] Two of the men — Taliesin Myrddin Namkai Meche, 23, and Rick Best, 53 — died in the attack, which occurred on a commuter train. The third, Micah David-Cole Fletcher, 21, was treated on Saturday for injuries that the police said were serious but not life-threatening.
Jeremy Christian, 35, of North Portland, Ore., was charged with two counts of aggravated murder in the attack and could face additional charges when he is arraigned on Tuesday. Mr. Christian, who the authorities said had a history of making extremist statements on social media, was ranting at, and talking disparagingly about, the two women, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
Source: The New York Times
President Donald Trump has released his first official statement on the attack in Portland, Oregon, more than 48 hours after the two victims died.
"The violent attacks in Portland on Friday are unacceptable," Mr Trump tweeted. "The victims were standing up to hate and intolerance. Our prayers are w/ them."
Source: The Independent
Portland law enforcement leaders were tightlipped Saturday about the investigation into Friday's attacks that killed two men on a light rail train but a federal official did say it was too early to label the incident a hate crime.
[...] Loren Cannon, special agent in charge of the Portland FBI office, [...]
"It's too early to say whether last night's violence was an act of domestic terrorism or a federal hate crime," he said. "However, in the coming days, the FBI, PPB and the prosecutors will work together to share information, leverage resources and make determinations about future criminal charges."
[...] Leaders of the Muslim community said they were thankful for the men who gave their lives to save the girls from harm. They have raised $50,000 toward a goal of $60,000 to help support the victims and their families.
Source: The Oregonian
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:39AM (23 children)
Jill Stein and other leftists directly blame Donald Trump for the attack:
"Another heartbreaking tragedy in Trump's America, as a white nationalist shouting anti-Islam slurs murders 2 on Portland, OR subway."
--Jill Stein
One problem: A search of Jeremy Christian's online accounts show he's a Stein supporter.
If you're reading about this for the first time here, your media source doesn't trust you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:17AM (3 children)
Who cares what Jill Stein thinks?
There was one and only one presidential candidate that said "Islam hates us." [washingtonpost.com] And no matter what other candidates Jeremy Christian flirted with, he was also a trumpaneze.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:03AM (1 child)
Nobody cares what Jill Stain thinks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:52PM
I care what the good doctor thinks! :(
Oh well, I guess this guy decided ALF and ELF weren't his thing so instead he directed his mental illness at some Muslims. (As opposed to causing property damage in a suburb somewhere to show us evil middle class people how evil we are for struggling to get by in a violently impos-- oh fine moving on.)
I'm assuming somebody else Godwinned the thread below (popcorn is almost done popping now) but if not I'll do the honors. We vilify Hitler, but let's be honest. Hitler would have just been some crazy dude on a street corner selling mediocre paintings and post cards if not for the millions of people in very difficult economic circumstances and the zeitgeist at the time. Hitler may have been the head of the beast, but those millions were the body of the beast.
I mean, like Hitler, at least Trump is clearly incompetent. He gives great speeches, the very best speeches, he's very, very good at... did you see the crowd at his last rally? Fantastic!, er, like Hitler did (seriously, watch some of Hitler's speeches--he was a master of rhetoric and absolutely riveting to listen to). If Trump presides over something terrible, he may well end up yet another one of those leaders we vilify in the history books, but it gives me some measure of hope that we'll get through since he's very clearly not going to be implementing some kind of final solution within a master plan within plans within plans. In fact, also like Hitler, I imagine he'll override good advice to the detriment of whatever his goals would be in that hypothetical.
Personally, I tend not to assign too much blame to individuals like Hitler. I mean certainly they're culpable for the things that happened on their watch. However, my point is that millions of people put them there. They don't win an arbitrary lottery and become leaders overnight. There is one class of people I do tend to blame for the root cause of those millions losing their shirts in a bad economy and turning to hate: international bankers.
(I'm sure somebody will take that the wrong way, but let me at least be clear that international bankers are not all followers of Judaism and/or ethnic Jews. It would be wrong to blame an entire ethnicity or religion for the actions of the 0.01% doing the violent imposition. We need to hold all international bankers accountable when the economy goes sour and sets the stage for horrific things to happen; holding an ethnic or religious demographic accountable would be missing the target and doing a grave disservice to the ideal. There's overlap however small there certainly, but we must not let an international banker go without account because he is not a Jew, and we must not hold a Jew to account who is not an international banker. In fact, I imagine at that level that pretty much everybody is an atheist. At least I can imagine no other avenue for the deleterious greed of the international bankers other than cynical nihilism devoid of an ethical framework such as Dawkins proposes.)
In fact, I think the international bankers would like nothing more than to further break the spirit of the people by setting the table for Trump to go down in history as a monster. I sincerely hope he does not take the bait. Whether I like him or not (and speaking as a Clinton voter), we do need some kind of advocate for the people in Washington. Trump is far from perfect, but he's who we have for the moment.
Trump is careless with his words; let's not let him be any more than that. Just let him be some slick real estate guy. No need to enable him to be a monster.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:05PM
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/noble/sura47.html#3 [thereligionofpeace.com]
3. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus does Allah set forth their parables for mankind.
4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:25AM (4 children)
The moment you used the term "leftist" you lost any credibility you might have had. Nobody credible uses that term.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:43AM
Found the leftist.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:00AM (2 children)
You're such a chump - the whole freaking world uses "left" and "right". Maybe the whole freaking world doesn't mean exactly the same thing when they use the terms, but all of humanity sees "left" and "right". Don't be such a retard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:34PM (1 child)
The moment you used the term "chump" or "freaking" or "retard", you lost any credibility you might have had. Nobody credible uses that term.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:00PM
The moment you used the term "moment," you lost all... ach! I said it too! It is one of the words the Knights Who Say Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoom-boing-mumble-mumble cannot hear!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:42AM
Fake news is fake.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:59AM
Really?
All the reports that I could find appear to reference Buzzfeed, but, Buzzfeed itself doesn't seem to agree: [buzzfeed.com]
At this point, the Jill Stein "connection" appears to be a right-wing slur, promulgated by news outlets that don't have much regard for the truth.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:15AM (5 children)
Reading that article again, I see that he did post support for Sanders and Stein. Nevertheless, as with many things, the situation is not black and white. Clearly, he expressed white supremacist views, which I doubt that Sanders or Stein would endorse.
A confused individual, full of hate, although there is one thing I can agree with him about: his opposition for circumcision.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:25AM (2 children)
He simultaneously expressed both left [gotnews.com] and right [wweek.com] wing views. Almost as if being a psychotic douchebag is not a partisan position? Presumably this is why more was not made of the womans march with Donna Hylton speaking, a girl setting another girls hair on fire and the male Canadian feminist who punched a woman in the face to protest the patriarchy or some shit?
This must be hate speech - Alt-right confirmed.
See how easy it is to label people? If you want to start acting against "political violence" (aka: terrorism), we should really be starting with Antifa.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:34PM (1 child)
> He simultaneously expressed both left [gotnews.com] and right [wweek.com] wing views.
Sometimes people forget that "nazi" was a contraction of the german for national socialist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:16PM
*takes a deep breath*
OMG socialism! Hitler! Stalin! Mao! Pol Pot! Venezeula!!!eleven!1!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:22AM (1 child)
"the situation is not black and white"
Imagine that. Maybe this scumbag down't have any real politics. Just a lunatic, who hates anyone and everyone who isn't the same brand of crazy that he is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:42PM
Runaway1956 spotted!
Sometimes the labeling is just, you know, labeling, as in truth in labeling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:53PM (5 children)
Nice try. When was the last time any leftist assassinated a right-wing nutjob? Now ask yourself about the converse:
Killed:
John Kennedy
Robert Kennedy
MLK
John Lennon
Alan Berg
See a pattern here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:15PM (4 children)
Oh PLEASE. Even overlooking your distraction of dividing politics into a single-dimension spectrum, we have:
LaVoy Finicum [youtube.com]
Vicki Weaver
Sam Weaver
David Koresh (and the 70+ other victims including children)
Carl Drega
Marvin Heemeyer [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:15PM (3 children)
lolwut?
The FBI and police are now "leftists?"
And Marvin Heemeyer shot himself.
The only person who would think what you wrote is applicable is a right wing nutjob.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:39PM (2 children)
Yes, and Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist while JFK was a neocon.
It seems this whole thread is low quality bait.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:19AM (1 child)
Oswald was a terrible marksman. [google.com]
3 shots from him in 5.6 seconds, shooting through foliage, with 2 hitting the mark? Nope.
The shot to the neck came from the Dal-Tex building and the fatal shot was from the Grassy Knoll (a cross-fire done by pros).
The Secret Service spends weeks preparing a city for a presidential visit.
Manhole covers are welded shut.
Windows along a presidential motorcade route are sealed by the Secret Service.
If the presidential limousine can't maintain 44mph, another route is chosen.
The turn from Houston on to Elm required the car to slow to 6mph.
The deviations from routine practices show it wasn't just a lone nut with a surplus WWII bolt-action rifle.
The Warren Commission was a sham.
It concentrated on insignificant things while failing to interview eyewitnesses.
The highest-ranking whistleblower in USA history[1] gave a multi-hour interview in 1989 which was turned into a book.
Having been inside the loop with CIA for over a decade, he points out how it was impossible for the events of November 22, 1963 in Dallas to have occurred without CIA involvement.
Bird Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, USAF Ret. [google.com]
[1] ...if you don't count General Butler. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:53AM
I knew there was something special with the 88 mph! If the president orders his driver to double the speed they get the time to fix any.. mistake.
:-)
source! [youtube.com] :p
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:46AM (44 children)
This is a terrorist act. The purpose was to make a political point.
The only reason it hasn't been labeled as such is that it wasn't someone with brown skin who killed.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:09AM (24 children)
From the description of the event I read, the man got into an argument, and eventually started stabbing. It wasn't premeditated, it wasn't calculated to further a political goal. It doesn't satisfy many definitions of terrorism:
TMB, if you are reading this, I think I have found a small bug with the spoiler tag. You need to add a line break (or probably a space character) between <spoiler> and a URL if you want the URL to be automatically converted to a hyperlink.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:28AM (7 children)
The question of premeditation is kind of a misdirection. The evidence is this guy had been working himself up to a constant state of agitation. It was only a matter of time before he popped off. The exact specifics of attack were probably not planned, but an attack was practically inevitable. Not unlike that guy in Chapel Hill [newyorker.com] who killed three muslim neighbors - the specific argument might have been the spark, but he had been piling up the mental kindling for months if not years.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:56AM (6 children)
"guy in Chapel Hill" doesn't appear to be Christian, or right wing, really.
"On Facebook, Hicks presented himself as a libertarian gun enthusiast and an “anti-theist” who wanted “religion to go away.” "
I did a search for his image. He looks white - a white bullet-head Neanderthal maybe. Alright, alright, he's white. But, you can do away with the "Christian", as well as "right wing".
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/craig-stephen-hicks-guns-anti-theism [talkingpointsmemo.com]
"Hicks declared his support for marriage equality and the LGBT community in general in several posts on his Facebook page over the years.
“I am not gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, pansexual, intersex, or asexual,” one recent post read. “I just support this crazy thought that everyone should have equal rights.”
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:29PM (3 children)
> "guy in Chapel Hill" doesn't appear to be Christian, or right wing, really.
Who said he was?
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
But, since you zeroed in on LGBTQ rights, funny thing, the alt-reich is all about support for teh gays, witness milo pedopolous.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:54PM (1 child)
The link was provided in the course of a discussion about "white, Christian, far right terrorists". This guy only gets one out of three - that was the whole point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:10PM
Well, if talking about white christian terrorists is all that is required to start throwing links around:
Robert Dear [usatoday.com]
Sean Christopher Urbanski [fox2now.com]
Allen Scarsella [atlantablackstar.com]
Mitchell W. Adkins [washingtontimes.com]
James Harris Jackson [washingtonpost.com]
Jerad and Amanda Miller [foxnews.com]
Nah. But no one mentioned them, did they?
That's because the key factor wasn't who they were, but who they attacked.
Only your pussy, triggered mayo ass couldn't see that since you share their animus.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:57PM
Only in the most cynical way possible. They needed to illustrate that they're better than the brown people who worship a differently-branded desert religion somehow.
I'm not holding my breath for the "alt-reich" (as you put it) to come out in opposition of bathroom laws. Making the concession of gay marriage is acceptable to them. (Somebody must have realized that gay marriage does not cause anybody who wants to get straight married to lose anything.) They certainly hate us filthy gays and want us to die, but they just like to let us know they're in no particular hurry and fine if it's AIDS or poverty that does the job. Makes 'em feel like better people than their Moslem bogeyman that way.
And speaking of, Milo was the perfect LGBTQIFAOMGWTFBBQ poster boy for them. Yeah, this Milo guy, isn't he fantastic! Look at all those #salty tears he extracts from those leftist commies! And plus he proves our theory that LGBT identities are the result of childhood sexual abuse and are comorbid with pedophilia! What luck!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:53PM (1 child)
No, we cannot! That is how we spot the right-wing nut-jobs, Runaway! You of all people should know that, since it is what gets you tolerated, until you go on about abortion and women's armpits (or is that Eth?). "White Male (you forgot that part) Christians are the main source of terrorism in the America, so we cannot do away with those categories: they are useful. And useful because they correlate to reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:03PM
so keep running your mouth
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:34AM (9 children)
My understanding was that the attacker was harassing, with hate-filled language and possibly the threat of violence, two teenage girls, both brown, with one wearing a hijab. The three men intervened (as I might, as I despise a bully) and were stabbed for their efforts.
I agree this wasn't a "terrorist" (that term is thrown around with a lot of inaccuracy these days) act, but it was one fueled by hate and intolerance. Certainly heinous and, assuming the facts described are accurate, the attacker deserves to spend a long time in a small cell, alone with his hate.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:05AM (8 children)
security video from the train shows he'd made threats towards the driver (who sits in front in locked cab) as well.
This piece of white trash deserves to be blown from a cannon, his head retrieved, and set on a pike in Pioneer Courthouse Square for the crows to pick clean.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:10AM (7 children)
I disagree. Why give such a worthless piece of garbage the sweet release of death? Let him contemplate the fact that he will never see another free day ever again. Let him sit in his 6x9 cell and contemplate the stupidity and hate that put him where he will be *until he dies*.
I think that would be a much worse punishment. Killing him just lets him off the hook, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:29AM
I am for submitting his lousy ass for medical research, in lieu of those hapless animals who end up there.
He took a life; his is now forfeit. Hate to waste a perfectly good biomechanism. Maybe in his death he can make some repayment for that which he took.
If nothing else... organ donor.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:31AM (4 children)
The problem with that is, some sympathetic judge and/or parole board will set him free. The Lockerby bomber was turned loose eventually for "humanitarian reasons". Here in the states, a "life sentence" may mean as little as five years in prison.
Blow the sumbitch away, and he'll never be a worry to anyone again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:38PM (3 children)
> The Lockerby bomber was turned loose eventually for "humanitarian reasons".
>
> Blow the sumbitch away, and he'll never be a worry to anyone again.
He had cancer and was basically permanently attached to an IV. He wasn't a worry to anyone.
So by your own logic his release was ok.
What, logic isn't really the point of your argument?
Who would have guessed?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:52PM (2 children)
How much intelligence did he possess? Was he capable of passing that intel on to Khadaffy, or any other interested parties? Terminal illness? Let the bastard terminate in a cell block. Don't turn him loose because you suddenly feel sorry for him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:12PM
Again, not an argument that has anything to do with worrying about what he might do.
You are so twisted up you don't even realize when you are confirming the accusations against you.
Kind of like a certain president manbaby.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:58PM
I ask myself this about some people all the time. Some of the time I ask it about Runaway. And it is obvious that we cannot "blow away" Runaway because of his intelligence, but Brenda down at the Dew Drop Inn has no such reservations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:21PM
The problem with such protracted punishment if the matter of payment of the associated costs to keep him 1. alive and 2. in the USA.
If you wish to pay the full bill for such punishment yourself (or can round up enough volunteers), then go right ahead.
Where I object, though, is where you hold a gun to my head to extract funds from me to pay for keeping the person you want to punish fed and housed.
(Where restitution is not possible, I personally favor exile or execution. Yes, I will volunteer to pay for the cost of one bullet.)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:15AM (1 child)
He didn't "get into" an argument. There was not a conversation that got out of hand, or some perceived slight from one of the other passengers leading to an exchange of words, etc. You know, normal things that get one "into" an argument with someone else.
He was already "spun up". He saw the two girls, and was venting his vitriol at them. The other passengers made space for him, 3 of them tried to talk him down. That's not "getting into an argument". He was already well in the argument in his head, and it just broke out for everyone else to hear at that point.
(Score: 1, Troll) by takyon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:32AM
Was it a terrorible argument?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:35AM (2 children)
> It wasn't premeditated, it wasn't calculated to further a political goal.
I wanted to use the Daily Mail as the source for this; they link to a KOIN-TV story in which a woman who had been riding a train with the man the night before said of him:
-- http://koin.com/2017/05/28/video-stabbing-suspect-went-on-rant-night-before-attack/ [koin.com]
Back to the Daily Mail for a transcript of what the man said that previous night (the video may be at the KOIN page; I have not viewed it):
-- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4551550/Man-accused-Portland-attack-history-racist-rants.html [dailymail.co.uk]
They also quote some of what they say were Mr. Christian's Facebook posts (emphasis mine):
Those read, to me, as though he were contemplating physically harming people for political purposes (there's a fair bit more in that vein).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:28PM (1 child)
So where are the people on here that regularly decry religion as the source of all our woe, all our violence, etc.
Methinks that violent people will just use whatever excuse it at hand.
(Score: 2) by rcamera on Wednesday May 31 2017, @05:00PM
from that, we can gather that he's not a fan of christians that he doesn't perceive as "real christians". he probably also thinks he's a "real christian", but apparently doesn't think "christ's teaching of love, [and] charity..." apply to him.
besides, wan't this whole incident literally based on his intolerance for someone else's religion? FTFS, "... as a man screamed anti-Muslim insults..." is a dead giveaway. how was this particular act of violence NOT based on religion, in your opinion?
/* no comment */
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:39AM
Blerg. Who do you think you are, Bytram?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:59AM (9 children)
Terrorism is the use of violence against a civilian population for a political end. This was a solitary asshole who wound up killing a couple of good samaritans that tried to intervene. It happens more often than you might realize. This guy can probably thank Portland's victim disarmament law for the fact he's going to get a fair trial instead of a pine box.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:46AM (8 children)
Check.
Check.
Check.
So, yes, it is. Furthermore, when a muslim makes [theguardian.com] a random attack on an individual using a knife [express.co.uk], that is typically categorized as terrorism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:27AM (2 children)
"random individual" you say?
"It is thought multiple police officers were injured as the knifeman fought to get close to Parliament and inside the fence. "
I'm doing some thinking about the use of the word "terrorist" - and maybe you should do the same. That person didn't just go off, and hurt some random person, at all. He was on a mission, and those "random individual" you cite stood in his way.
(Score: 3, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:56PM (1 child)
I'm with Runaway on this one. This wasn't planned. Once you start muddying the definition of terrorism it starts getting applied to things that aren't terrorism. That's when you get tyranny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @06:07PM
You poor, sad, sad, man.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:48PM (3 children)
No, that's not a check at all. He attacked a handful of people in his immediate vicinity, do you even speak English?
"for a political end. - Check."
Nonsense! Again, I'm left wondering if you even speak English.
"Furthermore, when a muslim makes [theguardian.com] a random attack on an individual using a knife [express.co.uk], that is typically categorized as terrorism. "
And that's why I said normally I'd be the first to agree with you. The term is misused badly by the propaganda complex we call the media. There is a huge and glaring... I want to call it a bias but that's too soft. In fact, it might not be going too far to suggest that the handbag media, and their masters, are hip deep in terrorism themselves. No, I'm not saying they take any direct part in the initial violence, but they sure do try to amplify and shape and control the terror that results and use it for their own political ends.
So there is this pathetic display where any lone nutcase going off is immediately terrorism (as long as it's an Arab, or a muslim) but they resist using the word to describe the actions of the US state or those that are viewed favorably today in DC, even when they clearly and explicitly fit the definition of terrorism.
I said at the time and I stand by it - the elevation of 'terrorism' as a category somehow far more scary and requiring an entirely different response from simple 'crime' was a mistake. Terrorists are a subset of criminals. They should not be made any more glamorous or any more feared than any other subset of criminals. This whole meme that terrorism is a new threat and we have to break our own laws and quit being who we were in response to them is effectively surrendering to them, it's giving them an incredible amount of power, power they shouldn't be given, power NO ONE should be given.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:05PM
Absolutely agree. I should have read your post before writing my own reply.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:47PM (1 child)
You seem to have missed my ultimate point, which is the hypocrisy in whether an act is labeled as "terrorism" or not. In the minds of many people, Muslims commit acts of terror, while Christians commit mere acts of violence.
All I really suggested is equal treatment. If the solution is to downgrade lone wolf attacks that are currently branded as terrorism to ordinary criminal acts, then, yes, I can get behind that. But let's see it happen first.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:49AM
Anytime you see the word 'terrorist' used you should challenge that classification, you should demand justification. You were doing the opposite, misapplying the word then justifying it by the misapplication of others. Two wrongs do not make a right.
(Three lefts sometimes do make a right, but that's a different subject.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:02PM
Yeah, see, I think your argument is backwards here. The problem is NOT that this should be called a "terrorist" attack. The problem is that attacks perpetrated by Muslims are often categorically branded as "terrorism," even when ties to larger political organizations or proof that those were the primary motives are lacking.
To my mind, the entire point of using the term terrorism is, well, to cause terror. That necessarily requires EITHER a series of ongoing attacks from someone still at large OR direct affiliation with an organization that can pose an ongoing threat. Otherwise, such events aren't effective "terrorism." There's no reason to feel unsafe if an isolated lone attacker is behind bars or killed (and thus the threat is removed). Just because a violent act is associated with a political viewpoint shouldn't mean it's "terrorism."
(And yes, I know my viewpoint doesn't necessarily accord with official FBI definitions or whatever. But this seems to accord with the root of where the word comes from.)
This is becoming an increasing problem these days with the rise of more and more "lone wolf" attacks. Many such attacks have tenuous ties to larger political movements (if any at all). Nevertheless, if the attacker is Muslim, ISIS will claim responsibility, the media and politicians will portray any vague ties with any suspicious people around the person as proof of "terrorist links." The implication of such connections is that the larger organization is the one who threatens MORE such attacks. But if the larger organization had no direct control, how can it reliably threaten such attacks? In which case, it seems odd to term it "terrorism," other than terror trumped up by the media and politicians as part of a reaction.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:17AM (5 children)
Terror. I'm thinking about that. Christian is obviously a douchebag, scum of the earth, white supremacist. A "terror" attack requires a few things, it seems to me. A goal, some planning, maybe some logistics support, which indicates collusion and conspiracy. This particular freak appears to be a loose cannon. He doesn't appear to be a member of a terror organization. Just some random violence here, born of his hatred for anything non-white.
I think giving him the title "terrorist" gives him to much dignity, to much credibility.
At most, maybe Christian is an indicator that white supremacist violence MIGHT be on the rise. The last white supremacist we heard from was that Roof asshole. Have I missed anyone in between these two? Lanza, a few years back.
Seriously, how much white supremacist violence is there? They seem few and far between, they lack coordination, and there are no quasi-official groups claiming credit for the acts committed.
I prefer to refer to this as just some nutter, who should have been drowned when he was a puppy. Let me just do a quick search . . .
This guy has to go all the way back to 1984 to compile a list of ten terror attacks committed by - let me get this straight - "radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups." Those three terms include a lot of people, three different groups that may overlap, but the terms are not synonymous. Hell, there are "far right" groups in countries with no white population.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men [alternet.org]
I'm thinking about this, but I'm not inclined to dignify the asshole with any title. He's just a common dirtbag in my mind.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:01AM (4 children)
This should give you a better sense of how this goes. Not just in the US, but worldwide. Oh, and you're welcome.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619 [globalresearch.ca]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:21PM (1 child)
First, the article is rather dated - four years ago, a number of terror attempts had not yet been incubated. Published in January, and the Boston Marathon bombing happend four months later. Ooops - sorry, it has apparently been updated to include the Boston Marathon. But, then, the author(s) go on to discount that bombing as "murders", not terrorism. Do I need to go further to demonstrate that the article is terribly slanted in favor of a political view?
Second: The article attempts to segregate US born Muslims from Arabic Muslims, and further, to segregate Muslim terrorists from Arabia. To what purpose? If a native born white or black American who is Muslim shouts "Allah Akhbar!" during the commission of a terrorist act, he doesn't count as a Muslim? WTF? Again, the article is slanted in favor of a political view.
The article states, "Moreover, different groups have different agendas about how to classify the perpetrators", and then they fall into the trap of pushing an agenda. A Muslim is a Muslim, doesn't matter what color he is, what language he speaks, what kind of costume he wears, or what country he was born in. If a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, as the Tsarnaev brothers did, they are Islamic terrorists. They do not have to belong to some select club within Islam to qualify as an Islamic terrorist.
So, I smell political agenda in this article, and I go to Global Research "About" page. "Global Research Centre for Research on Globalization". Hmmmm. Right there, you have a giveaway. I am no globalist. Globalists are going to paint a rosy picture of a future with one world government (ultimately) with everyone on earth happily singing Kumbaya. I veiw globalization as a dystopia, no better than the world portrayed in the novel, '1984'.
Now, you do realize, I'm not enamored with the government's security theatre. I'm not happy about very much of the government's agendas, overseas. I was very unhappy about the invasion of Iraq, which directly led to the birth and growth of DAESH. There are a lot of things I don't like about the current state of affairs. But, I am adamantly opposed to globalization. And, you'll forgive me for not taking Global Research seriously.
No, Muslims are not responsible for every bad thing that happens in the US. But, Muslims are responsible for more than their fair share. And, Islam is incompatible with our form of government, our form of justice, our way of life. Islam grants liberty to exactly no one. While I am famous (or infamous) for opposing the gay rights movement, you have never heard me calling for gays to be thrown from the top of the Empire State building. Islam is a totalitarian form of government, which Islam wants to impose on you and I.
https://www.politicalislam.com/totalitarian-islam/ [politicalislam.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:22PM
Again the mental black-hole calls the kettle black.
You complain that the center for global research which cites facts from the FBI and Interpol is biased.
And then you justify your bigotry by citing a website authored by a guy with a degree in physics [politicalislam.com] who has been widely identified as a guy who is cashing in on the anti-islam scam. [splcenter.org]
Clearly your citation a much higher alt-quality source.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
The link I gave you was an accident - it's one of several pages I had opened. This one is much better - https://www.politicalislam.com/political-islam-totalitarian-doctrine/ [politicalislam.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @06:10PM
Yeah, that's what she said!
One cannot help but wonder if this is also true for all of Runaway2000's reference material.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:16AM
The only terrorist aspect in this is that it helps the other side. All of other checkboxes do not match. First and foremost, it looks not premeditated.
If you want to find a better parallel, think about the guys who killed Luca Massari, a taxi man who accidentally ran over their dog, which according to how some people react, justifies an eternal ban on all animal rights movements.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:03PM (1 child)
You have that backwards. Its not the skin color of the victim that matters.
When the killer is white, its not terrorism, its due to mental health problems.
When the killer is brown, then its terrorism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:57AM
Because many people from white communities act as individuals. While many from "brown" communities act as a collective. This has consequences when judging the patterns of how people act.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:52AM (11 children)
Even assuming the worst about Islam, it's women who are oppressed by the hijab/burka/etc., so they are the least of whom should be attacked. Why would you attack the oppressed and not the oppressors?
Note that I do not want to get into a debate about whether culturally mandated body coverage is oppressive, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jelizondo on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:10AM (3 children)
I’m feeling quite cynical right now, so take the comment with a grain of salt linkdude.
Always the oppressed are weak, therefore they make an easier target for everyone.
If a guy looks like he can make you swallow your teeth, you won’t get into trouble with him; if it’s a couple of adolescent girls, hey! they are fair game.
I’m feeling cynical because we should know better than to take on the weak to vent our frustrations or beliefs. On the other hand, I’m sorry that two decent men lost they lives to an imbecile that should had shown the superiority of our civilization and religion by not attacking, literally, children.
He could always get himself to Syria and kill as many ISIL bastards as he could.
We might have a future, but it just doesn’t look quite civilized… Sorry
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:11AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:34PM (1 child)
Unless its a muslim ocean.
Then the 99.99% who live good decent lives can't dilute the evil of the remaining assholes.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @05:26AM
Because the ocean of Muslims to a large degree is passively or actively complicit to what a numerical small group of violent fanatics do. A poll taken of Muslims living in America found that 51 percent think sharia law should be enacted as law in America. Point is that they are complicit in systematically undermining any government for their own fanatic ends. Too many think violent means to enforce compliance with religious law is justified. And many will not tell authorities if they find out about violent activities among their community. Many do not respect the inhabitants of the country they reside in, so robbery, looting, rape and murder is alright as long as only infidels are at the receiving end.
Then there's the specific strategy to make many babies as possible to outnumber their host countries population. And exploit a democide by numbers using the popular vote as one tool. These offspring is because of too close relationship often plagued with a significant higher degree of genetic problems nor is there a culture to respect education or other people.
Key findings [pewresearch.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:22AM (6 children)
Because, like all the other members of the alt-reich, he doesn't give a damn about anyone else's liberty. Any arguments they make along those lines are just superficial arguments of convenience to rationalize their tribalism.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:40AM (5 children)
Fun fact: the murderer wasn't alt-right, he was a Stein supporter, but don't let facts get in your way of screaming at shadows :)
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:41AM (4 children)
The Daily Mail paints him as a supporter of Mr. Trump:
-- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4551550/Man-accused-Portland-attack-history-racist-rants.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Perhaps he also supported Ms. Stein. Who told you that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:49AM (3 children)
And he was kicked out for trying to start that nonsense in a Pro-Trump Murika fuckyeah rally.
I guess try again until it is Trump?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:54AM (2 children)
> And he was kicked out for trying to start that nonsense in a Pro-Trump Murika fuckyeah rally.
I was responding to the poster who stated Mr. Christian "wasn't alt-right" and was a supporter of Ms. Stein. Are you saying that if someone expresses his support for a candidate, and goes to a rally for that candidate, but is shunned by the people at the rally, that shows he isn't a true supporter?
> I guess try again until it is Trump?
Are you saying the Daily Mail is biased against Mr. Trump? That could be. I invited the previous Anonymous Coward poster to tell us from whom he/she learned that Mr. Christian was a supporter of Ms. Stein, but I didn't see an answer. Looking on my own, I see that Fox News is saying that
-- http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/05/29/jill-stein-weighs-portland-stabbing-trumps-america-doesnt-mention-attacker-was-supporter [foxnews.com]
I wasn't aware of that, but I did acknowledge the possibility that he could have favoured both. I found Buzzfeed's story, but the screenshots aren't displaying in my browser:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/portland-suspect [buzzfeed.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:15AM (1 child)
Just thought it was funny to see accusations of tribalism while pointing out how evil the other is.
As far as I can see, the murderer holds views that is everywhere and is unhinged.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:34PM
> Just thought it was funny to see accusations of tribalism while pointing out how evil the other is.
You are the one who made it about stein and trump.
The guy was an avowed white supremacist. He made it about a tribe of loser whites versus everyone else.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:07AM (12 children)
The terrorist in the tragedy seems to have been an advocate of alt-right racist free speech, kind of like what we hear on SoylentNews all the time. This is why we don't need to censor them, we need to identify and incarcerate them before they commit terrorist acts.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:36AM (7 children)
I'm waiting for the mighty bueller to make his statement condemning this, the ultimate failure of a fellow traveler to respect these people's freedom of expression.
Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:45AM (6 children)
to threaten someone with violence is a felony.
I don't know if that right chap said anything that could be specifically considered a felony, but certainly those two young women had cause to feel threatened.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:07AM
uh, threatening to kill the driver and anyone else coming close to him was felonious. (vids were in the PDX news tonight).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:15AM (1 child)
Don't make me come over there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:14AM
Lighten up, Francis. [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:46AM (2 children)
As far as the first amendment is concerned, the legal standard is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Brandenburg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org].
That's generally why you don't see hate speech and such as charges in these types of cases. That being said, harassment and such have a much lower bar and deal with the actions of an individual and not the specific words they say.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:24PM (1 child)
That is *a* legal standard for *one* of the exceptions to the first amendment. But I don't think it's necessarily the only relevant one to this thread. GP suggested that threats are illegal, and that is true in many circumstances. So-called true threats [wikipedia.org] of illegal activity are not covered by first amendment protection, even if they do not "incite imminent lawless action."
The question in such cases is generally whether the individual making the speech makes a clear and specific threat of some sort, as well as appearing willing to carry out such threats. Without such legal doctrine, we'd rarely be able to convict people for extortion, for example. Similarly, purely verbal harassment CAN constitute a crime, if it involves, say, a credible threat of violence.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Saturday June 10 2017, @04:44AM
We're getting caught up in technicalities here, but I'll try and be more specific.
Specifically, there's the act of saying something, and the words themselves. In the cases of harassment, the definition varies state by state, but if I keep bothering you by singing off-key and following you to your workplace and doing it non-stop after being asked to stop, that's harassment. Specifically, its not the words (or idea) themselves that cause criminal penalties to apply, its using them (regardless of content) to harass an individual.
In other cases, the words themselves can be "illegal" (for want of a better word). Specifically, words that would let a reasonable person believe they would incite imminent lawless action, or constitute a true threat. I actually wasn't aware of Watts v. United States prior to this comment, so thanks for the education case, but I don't think it defeats my point. Hate speech, for better or worse, is not illegal in the United States. Once it becomes violent, or becomes a true threat, then a crime has occurred.
Still always moving
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:03AM
Like... the department of pre-crime?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:26AM (2 children)
> The terrorist in the tragedy seems to have been an advocate of alt-right racist free speech, kind of like what we hear on SoylentNews all the time. This is why we don't need to censor them, we need to identify and incarcerate them before they commit terrorist acts.
Cool, so all I need to criminalize any social movement of any kind is to set up one useful idiot and then call for the unlawful move of incarcerating all the others.
Nazi collective punishment at its best.
You should be identified and incarcerated before you commit fascist acts. Or trolling which is more probable.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:38PM (1 child)
I see you feel all the decent people breathing down your neck.
The more people like Jeremy Christian who get spun up by the kind of rhetoric you endorse, the more your freedom is in danger.
You disclaim collective responsibility, but Christian was part of your community. As long as you are willing to put collective responsibility for islamist terrorists on all muslims, you invite collective responsibility for guys like Christian on your head.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday June 01 2017, @10:31AM
Sorry, Christian is as Christian does (Matt 21:31, John 14:21). The guy was not following much the instructions (Matt 5:22).
Second, I don't put collective responsibility on anybody. In fact most militant Muslims can rightfully invoke the "I was following orders" defense, which we will hear a lot if that final judgement is a thing. Your personal responsibility is irrelevant when you are following orders, that does not stop the right of your enemy to get a bullet in your head.
What I would be wary of, as a Muslim, is that the act of violence against the society who opened borders and hosted you is so shameful that you can no longer claim any moral superiority to any bomb happy yankee. When you have become worse than your enemy, you have lost.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:44AM (35 children)
The paranoia of society has always got me down. A recorded voice incessantly says "Stay alert and stay safe. Report suspicious objects or persons to TriMet personnel, or dial 9-1-1."
There are lots of Muslims in and around Portland. Whenever I meet a new one I make a point of apologizing for my countrymen.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:54AM
I don't mean to condescend, but you are one of the saner ones among us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:31AM (7 children)
What the fuck do you expect from a fucked up country that elected Bush twice? Terrorists fucking won. "See something, say something" was the inevitable fucking result.
The terrorism never fucking stops. It only fucking gets worse. After Obama was elected (twice!) the same fuckers who posted "see something say something" signs put up more fucking signs reminding everybody not to be racist. Civil rights and equitable service to all, they say. Give your seat to black bitches who are your betters because your dear fucking leader was a fucking black man.
After Trump was elected, the fuckers literally began distributing literal pamphlets containing a code of conduct for public transit. I haven't read the fucking pamphlet. I'll jump in front of a fucking train before I read about the fucking cock of conduct.
Fuck America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:30AM (1 child)
Will you at least take your meds?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:39AM
Trump 2020!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:06AM (2 children)
I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
(Score: 3, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:01PM (1 child)
"I find your fucking ideas fucking interesting and would like to fucking subscribe to your fucking newsletter."
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday June 01 2017, @10:34AM
> FTFY
*FFTFY
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:01PM (1 child)
Well, I do generally give up my seat to ladies. I thought that was simply the courteous thing to do. I'm a man, and I can handle standing.
But I'm a millennial. What do I know.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday June 01 2017, @10:36AM
You should first ask them whether they identify as a woman, mr. millennial.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:37AM (1 child)
Do you get off to apologizing or something?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:41AM
MDC gets off to apologizing, talking to strangers, the sound of his own voice, and oh yes seeing his words in print on the internet.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:43AM (17 children)
Hey, you're right. All Muslims don't want to kill you, only 98% of them do. 1 additional percent of Muslims ("moderate Muslims") will stand by and cheer your killers on and the remaining 1 percent will stay silent so that they can lie in wait to import their sons to kill your sons at a later date.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:51AM
I was so hoping Ethanol-fueled and Jeremy Christian were the same person. I am disappoint.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:56AM
Do you ever stop drinking? Seriously man, give it a break!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:44AM (14 children)
You're being just a little silly, and exaggerating.
Let's take prohibition. Do you really think that an entire generation of Americans decided that alcohol is evil, so they unanimously passed a law against alcohol? No way. A bunch of holier-than-thou assholes decided that America needed to be saved from the scourge of alcohol. Shrill, whiny, twits, who made more and more noise, until they got their way.
Our national fight against slavery. Do you actually believe that every white person in the North was convinced that black people needed to be saved, and that every white soldier who went off to war was on some kind of personal crusade? Pffft. At least half didn't give a damn. It was the vocal minority that moved things along, until finally there was a war. At least half, and myabe two thirds of the soldiers didn't give a damn about much of anything, except maybe the preservation of the union.
Muslims. The left is right. Most Muslims really don't want to do you any harm. It's the vocal minority that causes the harm. Unfortunately, Islam has no mechanism with which to keep that vocal minority in check. Sure, Mohammed taught that infidels are to die, but most Muslims can't be bothered to kill an infidel. Jihad is such a pain in the ass, after all. You have to buy a sword, you have to leave your wife(s) and girlfriends behind, you may or may not get good food away from home. And, you're not making filthy lucre at war, unless you capture some slaves.
Islam's problem is that only 1% or so are violent assholes, and that no one is interested in controlling them. Allah akhbar, if Allah be willing, then Ahmed will kill a few infidels, then come home to be a good citizen.
Of course, that 1% amounts to about 200,000,000 individuals who want to kill an infidel, with Islam's blessing. Just think what a real nation could accomplish with an army of two hundred million. China can't even boast an army that size.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:15AM
Actually, the history that led up to Prohibition is much more complex and nuanced than that. I think alcohol (and the current ones on some druge) prohibition was a poor idea. However, there were large social and religious movements which pushed the idea forward for more than a century before Prohibition became a reality.
You can find a brief overview here:
http://www.axisresidentialtreatment.com/alcohol-addiction/history-in-america/ [axisresidentialtreatment.com]
For a more in depth look, Susan Cheever's book [goodreads.com] is a good place to start.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:18AM (3 children)
1% is 200,000,000? That would mean there are 20 billion muslims. There are muslims than people on earth?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:56PM (2 children)
You got me - too many zero's. 20,000,000 is plenty enough though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:33PM (1 child)
Your innumeracy goes way beyond not understanding percentages.
Get back to us with a comparison of the number of violent assholes in islamic nations versus non-islamic nations.
Ah, here I'll do it for you:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:13PM
Ah, I love the sound of Runaway being corrected in the morning! It's like the smell, of Chinese population figures.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:37PM (3 children)
Infidels, to Mohammed, were the atheists and polytheists, not the Christians and Jews, whom Mohammed considered brothers, not infidels.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:44PM (2 children)
You need to look at that again. A Christian is an infidel. He can, however, be permitted to live, if he pays the jizya. The Christian and the Jew is tolerated because they are monotheistic, and the recognize the prophets that Mohammed claimed to succeed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:22PM (1 child)
Runaway, guess what? You are wrong! Wrong again! Still wrong! You know nothing whereof you speak! Let me help a little. You know that American Marine corps slogan? Yeah, that one! What was it? Right! Semper Fi. What language is that? Ok, it is Latin, and shortened at that.
The full phrase should be "semper fidelis". "Fidelity" means faith, allegience, things like that. So an "infidel" is someone who has broken trust, someone of "bad faith". Now "infidels" in Islam refers to those who convert to Islam, but then either reject it, or attempt to mess with the faith out of base motives. Christians, and even atheists, are not infidels, since they never pretended to convert, well at least all Christians other than Southern Baptist and Pentecostals and Dominionists and the Branch Dravidians and . . . ok, never pretended to owe faith to Islam. So not infidels, no mandated killing in the Koran. You are wrong. Sometimes, I think you are stupid wrong, on purpose.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:36PM
Even if you are correct, you are merely making the case that Islam is a totalitarian system. You don't get to choose anything. Everything is already decided for you, and you are expected to conform - or die.
But, back to the word "infidel". We use infidel, Muslims use kafir. It means "unbeliever". That is, if you don't believe in Allah, you are a kafir, or an infidel. Unbelievers must die.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kafir [dictionary.com]
Kafir
[kaf-er, key-fer, kah-]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun, plural Kafirs (especially collectively) Kafir.
1.
Also called Nuristani. a member of an Indo-European people of Nuristan.
2.
(lowercase) Islam. an infidel or unbeliever.
3.
Kaffir (def 1).
4.
(lowercase). Also, kaffir. Also called kafir corn. a grain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor caffrorum, having stout, short-jointed, leafy stalks, introduced into the U.S. from southern Africa.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:32PM (4 children)
> Sure, Mohammed taught that infidels are to die
The rest of the wikipedia article meticulously demolishes all of the typical ignorant arguments that Mo didn't really mean what he said.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:10PM (3 children)
Wikipedia. So, you have a bunch of Muslims who jealously guard that wikipedia article, and you believe it. Or, have you never heard of wikipedia wars before?
No compulsion, you say. Are you going to believe some wikipedia article, or will you believe the words of a real imam?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vDXRwIGB0c [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:25PM (1 child)
Truer words, etc., etc.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:37PM
Molon labe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @03:18AM
Is that all you've got? Really derp, is that the best you can do? To cite hannity, the guy whose own network shut him down for selling conspiracy theories?
Meanwhile that may be the single most comprehensively cited wikipedia article in existence.
It isn't about trusting wikipedia. Its about all of the sources that the wikipedia article synthesizes into an overwhelming deconstruction of your ignorant bigotry.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by garrulus on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:28AM (1 child)
You're a traitor and a fool who will not survive
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:03PM
He's a traitor for apologizing on behalf of the Deplorables, his "countrymen"?
Hardly. You're not a traitor just because you point out that the "Emperor has no clothes". Two wrongs don't make a right, and the U.S has shit to apologize for. Like bombing women and children, or taking out entire weddings, and I dunno.... does toppling foreign governments and covertly influencing their politics for decades count? Nothing justifies terrorism, but don't act like we haven't been "poking the bear" at the same time. We share some responsibility in cultivating the environment in the Middle East that engenders terrorism, and we absolutely have contributed to the creation of that crucible.
Just because he apologizes for what he believes the U.S did wrong, does not make him a traitor. In fact, I find it a form of patriotism to care about the honor and soul of the United States of America, blackened as it is. The worst of it? I guess from a White Nationalist point of view, he is indeed a traitor. He befriended and was kind to a brown person. You may as well call him a "nigger lover" then.
What struck me more than anything about this piece of shit, that seemingly holds your views, is that he was in TWO white supremacy bands called End Empathy and Definite Hate. Yeah, I guess when you have no empathy and embrace hate, that any one that has empathy and offers friendship would be a traitor.
I bet in your world most of America are traitors ;)
MDC, you traitorous son of a bitch! Gimme a hug :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:48AM
I remember them rolling out those notices when I lived in PDX. Reminds me of home, we've had those type of announcements since the 9-11 attack everywhere. They still feel very 1984-ish to me.
Still always moving
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:22AM
> apologizing for my countrymen
I have bad news for you. You are falling into the trap of collective responsibility. What kind of power you have over your countrymen to be able to take responsibility for them?
Believing in collective responsibility enables evil men to commit atrocities. The color of the flags they hide under is irrelevant.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:12PM
According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage. “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).
They’re just meat to them. Slaves. The less resistant, the less able to resist, the better.
“Croydon teenagers ‘raped vulnerable girls including trusting 17-year-old with Down’s syndrome,’” by Gareth Davies, Croydon Advertiser, March 23, 2015 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):
THREE teenagers accused of raping two “vulnerable” girls with learning difficulties “took advantage” of them to “satisfy their own sexual urges”, a court has heard.
Nasir Huq, 18, is accused of raping a 17-year-old with Down’s syndrome who jurors were told was a “very trusting” girl who did not have the “capacity” to consent to sex.
Ameen Noori and his cousin Ahmad Faiq, both 18, are accused of raping another girl with acute special educational needs.
The three boys deny sexually assaulting the two girls at a flat in Croydon in April 2013.
Jonathan Polnay, prosecuting, told a jury at Croydon Crown Court today (Monday) the defendants “outrageously took advantage of vulnerable girls with learning difficulties to satisfy their own sexual urges”.
Both girls are in mainstream schooling but attend a supported learning unit at a college in west London, the court heard.
The first girl, who was 16 at the time of the alleged incidents, has learning difficulties caused by global developmental delay, a condition which means she has lower intellectual functioning and struggles to communicate.
Mr Polnay said she had been assessed by forensic psychologist Jennifer Cutler who found she had an IQ of 75.
The second alleged victim, who has Down’s syndrome, was 17 in April 2013. Dr Cutler found she had an IQ of 57 and demonstrated “significant confusion” about sexual matters, the court heard.
“The prosecution’s case in relation to [this girl] is her disabilities are such that she is simply not able to consent to sex,” said Mr Polnay.
“Because she has Down’s syndrome she is not able to process what is appropriate in terms of sex or its implications, for example pregnancy or diseases.”
The first incidents, relating to four of the six charges on the indictment, allegedly occurred on the evening of April 5.
Mr Polnay told the court the two girls left college with a friend and got the bus from Hounslow to Hatton Cross where they met Faiq, who the third girl knew, and Noori.
From Hatton Cross they took a bus to Croydon and went to a shopping centre. While in McDonald’s Faiq told the first girl that Noori, his cousin, liked her.
“She told him she wasn’t interested and that she didn’t like him in that way,” said Mr Polnay.
Later that afternoon they went back to a flat in Croydon town centre where Huq lived, though he was not at home. When they got there, Faiq and the third girl went into a bedroom together.
Jurors were told the first girl went into another room with Noori, who pulled her on top of him so she could not get up. The girl shouted for her friend but when she entered the room Noori told her to go away.
He then pulled down the girl’s trousers and tried to rape her, the court heard.
“The Crown’s case, which I hope is clear, is that she did not consent to sex,” said Mr Polnay.
“Given the circumstances – she was struggling, trying to get away – there is no way he could believe she consented. He did not care.”…
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:17PM
Originally there were seven Arab men arrested for kidnapping a woman at gunpoint and raped her in the basement of a cafe in Helsingborg. Now sentenced two of them, both stateless. One of them already had a deportation order – but still allowed to stay in Sweden as “paperless refugee”.
28-year-old Khaled Azez Hegrs and 23-year-old Tareq Bakkar, who both have an interpreter needs in Arabic, convicted of gross rape of a woman in the cafe basement water pipe in Helsingborg. The woman was kept in the basement for several hours during the night.
The woman was forced into a car by four men in Malmö and was then driven to the café on South Street in Helsingborg where more waiting to rape her.
When the car arrived the woman was taken to the basement of violence. There ripped Khaled woman by the hair, pulled her down on a couch and held her arms and legs with her body weight before he pulled off her clothes. By also threaten that he or others would hurt her with a weapon like objects, he forced her to oral, vaginal and anal intercourse.
He then explained the woman to the six other Arabs would also rape her, the victim said in interrogation.
Then they raped although Tareq woman by grabbing her arms, pulling her down on her back and pushing her legs apart.
The woman told that six of the seven men in turn raped her. On one occasion she was raped by two people simultaneously.
But according to the prosecutor lacked “sufficient supporting evidence that the correct application requires for a conviction” for five of the men who originally were in custody in the case of detainees were prosecuted by only the other two: Khaled and Tareq.