The Non-Muslim Terrorists Are Going To Get You If You Don't Watch Out!

[AlpsStranger]

From a marginal utility perspective, my suspicion based on what I know is that mass shootings are overblown, and that if I'm shot it's more likely that someone was robbing me than a crazy person decided to shoot some place up.

Yeah, I've gotten a lot of from friends/family for saying this, but I tend to agree. I don't want to be shot *either way,* and there's nothing wrong with talking about how to prevent mass shootings ( and the recent one had nasty political overtones too, ) but good old fashioned mugger/robber/husband who comes home early/etc. is still more than likely who is going to shoot you if you get shot. I don't know why people insist on "living in fear" when, the way I see it, you either live somewhere where people tend to get shot, in which case your danger level hasn't increased, or you live somewhere safer and your danger level, you guessed it, probably hasn't increased.

If I have a kid he might get shot by the crazy, quiet kid in the corner one day at kindergarten. Or he might get cancer. Or hit by a bus. There's no reason to be as scared as the media wants us to be.

I don't know. Just don't go around killing people. Is that too much to ask? How hard can it be to not kill someone? Why, even today I didn't kill one solitary person and I found it quite easy to not do it.

I came close a few times today, managed not to do it though

 

[Funky]

Citation accepted, although "virtually every other day" might have been more accurate. Either way, it doesn't seem that your initial statement was sensationalist, which is what it seemed to me initially.

It is good to see someone actually looking at the facts and altering his opinion. Respect, sir.

The sheer lack of them in Western countries shows that there is something going on rather than mere religion.

Said on a day on which a Muslim in France cut off a man's head and stuck it on a pole. What about Charlie Hebdo? What about London, Madrid, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Stockholm?

Religion is being wielded as a tool, evidence for it as a root cause is far more shaky.

I don't know how much more evidence you want. Their behaviour matches what their holy book says. They are telling us that they do these things for religion. Their crimes have theological purposes, like avenging the prophet or punishing blasphemy. The fact that they regularly blow themselves up is on its own a rather convincing argument that they believe in martyrdom and paradise.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't know how much more evidence you want. Their behaviour matches what their holy book says. They are telling us that they do these things for religion. Their crimes have theological purposes, like avenging the prophet or punishing blasphemy. The fact that they regularly blow themselves up is on its own a rather convincing argument that they believe in martyrdom and paradise.

That's evidence of a tool, not a root cause, and history is rife with examples of that tool being wielded to kill in droves (both for Islam and others). I posit that if you indoctrinate a group of people with butt-plugism or supreme-cult-of-killingyouguy from the time they're children and structure their belief system such that they perceive that theirs is the best/most justifiable way to live, that you could elicit similar behavior.

If you look at the origins of Islamic terror strikes and where the majority happen, there is a lot more common theme there than the existence of Islam. We see a ton in Pakistan, Middle East, and parts of Africa, with a marked decline elsewhere that, as far as I can tell, is not proportionate with the lower Islamic populations elsewhere. For example, compare the frequency of terror attacks in and around Malaysia with those in the Middle East or northern Africa.

 

[JollyRoger]

Said on a day on which a Muslim in France cut off a man's head and stuck it on a pole. What about Charlie Hebdo? What about London, Madrid, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Stockholm?

Still a drop in the bucket in religiously motivated killings. Plus, then you've got to consider women in Texas who kill their children because Jesus told them to.

 

[Funky]

I posit that if you indoctrinate a group of people with butt-plugism or supreme-cult-of-killingyouguy from the time they're children and structure their belief system such that they perceive that theirs is the best/most justifiable way to live, that you could elicit similar behavior.

Well that is exactly what I am saying. This is what is happening in Islam. Children are indeed indoctrinated at earliest ages. The degree to which the hate, violence and barbarism in Islamic scripture are taught varies somewhat from country to country. But the topic of the Koran is to spread Islam through Jihad. The terror attacks we see around the globe are not done for political gains or for money. They are done purely for religious reasons. And if you really believe in martyrdom and paradise, blowing yourself up in a crowd of infidels becomes a totally rational thing to do.

Still a drop in the bucket in religiously motivated killings.

Perhaps it has something to do with Muslims being 4 percent of the European population as opposed to 99 percent in the Muslim world.

 

[JollyRoger]

I thought Muslims were taking over Europe. That's the alarm bell being sounded by the anti-Muslim crowd. My most reasonable clients are Muslim - less likely to be violent than many of my non-Muslim clients.

 

[Funky]

I thought Muslims were taking over Europe. That's the alarm bell being sounded by the anti-Muslim crowd. My most reasonable clients are Muslim - less likely to be violent than many of my non-Muslim clients.

And for a moment I thought one could actually argue with you.

 

[JollyRoger]

Some aren't up to the task for sure.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Why are we taking so many measures to protect ourselves from one group while largely ignoring the other?...

1% of the population (Muslims) caused 35% of the death toll?

I wouldn't worry about measures being too lopsided.
Last year the DOJ revived the Domestic Terror Task Force
http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-relaunches-domestic-terror-task-force-1401820635

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday he will reconstitute a long-defunct task force on domestic terrorism to try to expand efforts to stop violent attacks inside the U.S.

The task force the Justice Department is reviving was originally launched in the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It was scheduled to meet on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, but given the terror attacks of that day it didn't meet, and the group's work was quickly eclipsed by the response to those attacks and the effort to defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere.

Now, Mr. Holder said in a statement, "we also must concern ourselves with the continued danger we face from individuals within our own borders who may be motivated by a variety of other causes, from antigovernment animus to racial prejudice.''

In April, a white supremacist was charged with shooting dead three people at Kansas City-area Jewish centers. Incidents like that one and a shooting that killed six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in 2012 have led officials to consider expanding efforts to detect and prevent hate-based violence, a Justice Department official said.

Should the TSA have a no-fly list of known white supremacists, Christian extremists, and members of anti-government groups?

Bad news there.
The TSA has a 95% failure rate
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topo...-airport-security-charade-20150608-story.html

A report leaked out of the Transportation Security Administration reveals that a team of investigators from the Department of Homeland Security managed to sneak weapons and fake bombs past airport screeners in 95% of their attempts to beat the system. That means what many of us suspected all along has now been confirmed. All those expensive body and baggage scanning machines, all that intrusive rummaging through luggage, all those intimate pat-downs of little kids and grannies, all those nail clippers confiscated, all those bottles of liquids seized, all those shoes and belts taken off, all those laptops pulled out and all those thousands of frustrating hours wasted in line have been mostly for show.

The TSA has a 100% success rate in preventing airlines from being sued into oblivion when the next terrorist attack occurs (i.e. their true purpose)

Should the police be harassing them as they so frequently do Muslims?

Got some more bad news there.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm

Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.

If only they were allowed to continue, perhaps the many victims of the Boston Marathon bombings would not have lost their lives and limbs. The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks, and it did not check out the radical Boston mosque where the Muslim bombers worshipped.

The bureau didn't even contact mosque leaders for help in identifying their images after those images were captured on closed-circuit TV cameras and cellphones.

One of the Muslim bombers made extremist outbursts during worship, yet because the mosque wasn't monitored, red flags didn't go off inside the FBI about his increasing radicalization before the attacks.

This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.

80%

 

[Funky]

@Kaitzilla:

Stop mentioning facts. Only white bigoted racist Muslim-haters do that!

 

[classical_hero]

Apparently Islamophobia is worse than what Muslims do.

 

[NovaKart]

Still a drop in the bucket in religiously motivated killings. Plus, then you've got to consider women in Texas who kill their children because Jesus told them to.

Are you talking about Andrea Yates?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The media exposed Tim McVeigh's associations with right wing Christians and the anti-abortion bombers are almost always identified as Christians.

Tim McVeigh's feelings about how the Branch Davidians were treated was the reason why he committed this heinous act. Of course it had to be mentioned.

It is no secret that abortion clinic bombings are conducted by Christian extremists. But that fact is hardly ever actually mentioned in the media. Here is one such example.

I have yet to see anybody claim even one abortion clinic bombing, or even the murder of an abortionist, was an act of terrorism. Have you?

Even the Charleston shooter's religious affiliations, if any, have not been stated.

Religious affiliation of mass killers are rarely mentioned in the news unless the perp is a Muslim. There is an extensive Wiki article with 125 citations about the Aurora theater mass killer who took 12 lives and injured 70 others. There is no mention at all what his religious beliefs are. But he did serve as a counselor at a summer camp that may have had religious affiliations, as many do.

I dont have to presume, they aint shy about letting everyone know their motives, but if they dont have a stated motive then I'd wait for more information.

Many of them die without saying a word. Yet they are still labeled as being terrorists merely because they are Muslims.

Are you saying they weren't motivated by their religion? Of course they committed their crimes in the name of Allah, the kid repeatedly referenced his deity while apologizing in court.

That hardly means that he had to have been "motivated by his religion" or they "committed their crimes in the name of Allah" no matter how falsely motivated they may have actually done so against the very tenets of the religion.

If a Christian mentioned that he had prayed to Jesus for killing people during sentencing, does that make him a terrorist?

How would you know?

Are there any statements at all in the media claiming that is true? Don't you think the wackos still trying to persecute Hillary Clinton in Congress would have at least mentioned it?

The rest of your post is a rambling laundry list of events unrelated to what I said.

It obviously wasn't strictly addressed at your own comments. It was meant to show how arbitrary such decisions of who is a "terrorist" and who isn't frequently are.

“The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is a matter of perspective: it all depends on the observer and the verdict of history.” Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Don't engage, he's writing his manifesto.

1% of the population (Muslims) caused 35% of the death toll?

So that means we should simply ignore 65% of the deaths, as many Republican congressmen wish us to do because they think it gives them a bad image?

This also sounds suspiciously like the argument why so many police persecute and harass innocent black men.

I wouldn't worry about measures being too lopsided.
Last year the DOJ revived the Domestic Terror Task Force
http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-relaunches-domestic-terror-task-force-1401820635
Bad news there.

Did you decide to forget that many Republicans in Congress continue to derail their efforts in that regard?

Has there been any word at all about this task force since the announcement? I can't find any mention of them.

Are you claiming that the efforts of this single task force of unknown size and budget is in any way comparable to the way Muslims continue to be mistreated in their own country by their own government agencies? That untold billions of dollars are being spent watching Muslims, while perhaps a few million dollars are being spent by the FBI to revive a long dead task force? That it still isn't quite obviously "lopsided"?

Why would that possibly be "bad news" to me?

Bad news there.
The TSA has a 95% failure rate
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topo...-airport-security-charade-20150608-story.html

That people who know the vulnerabilities can continue to exploit them is hardly an excuse for not treating violent white supremacists and anti-government extremists the same way. Now is it?

Got some more bad news there.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm

That is hardly "bad news" if this reprehensible practice has finally been stopped by at least one governmental agency, apparently due largely to the efforts of the ACLU. That is extremely good news instead!

But I'd hardly rely on a blogger who doesn't even provide citations for my facts.

Nor does it change any of the facts which I posted earlier. I didn't refer to the FBI at all. I referred to the nonsensical NYPD program.

From February 2014:

A Judge Just Ruled the NYPD Can Legally Monitor Muslims and Infiltrate Mosques

It looks like the ACLU has a lot more work to do to protect all our rights; to stop persecution, intimidation, and harassment by our own government.

 

[JollyRoger]

Are you talking about Andrea Yates?

And at least a half dozen others.

 

[NovaKart]

And at least a half dozen others.

That doesn't really help your argument then, I mean if you're comparing a psychotic woman who literally heard voices talking to her with people who commit religiously inspired acts of terrorism.

 

[JollyRoger]

Terrorism - an act by a Muslim that would be considered mental illness if done by a non-Muslim.

 

[NovaKart]

Terrorism - an act by a Muslim that would be considered mental illness if done by a non-Muslim.

Ummm, no. Your comparison here is deeply flawed and whatever witty one liner you come up with or quote from a tweet doesn't fix that.

 

[JollyRoger]

So was Abraham mentally ill?

 

[NovaKart]

So was Abraham mentally ill?

OK I'm going to ignore the above question because it's just a silly distraction and I can't really be expected to make a judgement about the mental state of a religious figure who may or may not have lived thousands of years ago.

Let's go back to the original comparison. Would Andrea Yates be considered a terrorist for killing her own children if she were a Muslim?

Let's say for the sake of argument that she would be. This doesn't change the fact that she was definitely mentally ill. Just because A is true doesn't mean B is not also true. Besides that, it's not like she got off easy, many people were arguing that she should have been charged with the death penalty.

Besides that, I'm not so convinced that a murder within the family like that would have been considered terrorism if the family were Muslim. Honor crimes for example are not normally considered terrorism.