Rob's House Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Funny you claim you don't deserve that ****, then in the very next sentence demonstrate that you do. You're better than that. If you're going to throw that out there then back it up. What's your case for Islam as "the religion of peace?"
FireChan Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Anyone who sarcastically posts "the religion of peace" anytime a Muslim commits a crime. Anyone who whines that the entire Islamic world doesn't condemn each and every single action of violence committed by a Muslim. Any !@#$ that can't make a distinction between "Arab" and "Muslim." Any (*^*&%^$^#that feeds the ridiculous "They're animals compared to us" rhetoric. Any idiot that selectively misquotes the Koran to prove their preconceived notion that Islam is out to kill and enslave everyone. Anyone too stupid to realize that driving a wedge between the West and the liberal and moderate Islamic world and pushing everyone towards one of two extremes is exactly what the extremists Islamists want to do, and they're succeeding because we're doing exactly what they want. Basically, most of America. The truly sad part is that kids growing up in this generation are only going to remember being "at war" with Muslim groups their entire lives. It's easy to paint a group with a broad brush if you grow up with it all around you.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Mea culpa wasn't offered, you pretentious ass. "All" meant all. The blatant hypocrisy is a societal problem, evident in ANY discourse on the subject, and has been getting visibly more vitrolic and hypocritical since it became obvious a decade ago. And last I checked, we're all part of that society. So yes, all meant all. Well, you should have offered mea culpa then, you idiot. Stop posting drunk.
B-Man Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Why We Worry about Islamist Violence and Not Progressive Atheist Violence :When does the ideology of a killer matter? By Charles C. W. Cooke Three Muslims have been murdered by a white atheist — ostensibly over a parking dispute. The shooter, if his Facebook page is to be believed, was what one might term an “anti-theist progressive.” Among the public figures he admired were Rachel Maddow, Bill Nye the engineer, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Among the groups with which he identified were the Southern Poverty Law center, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the Huffington Post. Among those people he disliked were political conservatives, the devoutly religious, and fans of country music. This was not a man, let’s say, who is likely to have been friends with Ted Nugent. And here’s the thing: None of this matters at all. Zip. Nada. Zilch. There is no doubt that the press calculates its interest in killers’ backgrounds in a peculiarly inconsistent manner. Had the shooter been a Christian, a Republican, and a member of the NRA, we would today be hearing about the evident rise in “right-wing hatred.” Had he been an admirer of any of the many personae non gratae on whom America’s civil strife is typically blamed, MSNBC would by now have written an opera, and Markos Moulitsas would have begun work on a second volume of his preposterous little book. But two wrongs do not make a right, and there really is no need for those who are vexed by this double standard to inflict it upon innocent people on the other side. Atheism is not to blame; the killer is. Progressivism is not to blame; the killer is. Hopefully, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye will sleep well tonight. {snip} Islam draws attention in our era not because its adherents tend to be brown-skinned or because it is easier to fear those who live abroad than those who live down the street, but because it is used so frequently as the justification for attacks around the world that its critics have begun to notice a pattern. In most cases, it is reasonable to acknowledge simultaneously that representatives of every philosophy will occasionally do something evil — maybe in the name of their philosophy; maybe not — and to contend that it is silly to blame that philosophy for the individual’s behavior. As far as we know, there is no more evidence that today’s killer is representative of atheism per se than that the man who opened fire at the Family Research Council was representative of the Southern Poverty Law Center or that Scott Roeder was representative of the pro-life cause. Further, there are no evident superstructures within atheism or the SPLC or the right-to-life movement that routinely condone mass murder, and nor are there many friends of those groups who would be willing to justify or to indulge the maniacs they have attracted. It seems reasonably clear that any lunatic can appropriate a cause or provide a name as his inspiration, and that, when he does, we should neither regard that lunatic’s behavior as indicative of the whole nor worry too much about repeat attacks. As I have written before — in defense of Right and Left — words do not pull triggers More at the link: . Edited February 12, 2015 by B-Man
IDBillzFan Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Why We Worry about Islamist Violence and Not Progressive Atheist Violence :When does the ideology of a killer matter? By Charles C. W. Cooke Funny (and predictable) how fast this story dropped from the headlines once the MSM realized it was an atheist progressive who executed three Muslims. If that guy so much as had a radio preset for Mark Levin, it would be running 24.7.
/dev/null Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/muslim-student-at-ut-arlington-says-man-with-gun-followed-her-to-campus-threatened-her.html/ Cops have yet to charge her with filing a false police report. They should also charge her with a hate crime
Recommended Posts