Who's to Blame? Guns or Muslims, take your pick!

Most Democrats "respect" that.

 

So you blame Christianity based on a person's delusions? What a nice guy you think you are. He did not follow the tenets of Christianity and his acts were NOT CONDONED BY HIS CHURCH.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he was a delusional many not practicing any religion.

- - - Updated - - -

Baloney! Your take is irrational.

 

Yes, I do see a pattern. Non religious people commit evil claiming falsely the are religious, and then SOME stupid people take that as "religion" causing evil

 

THAT Eric, is a lot of hoakum, an shows your lack of understanding of religion. If you take literally that the old testament STORIES, were meant to be read literally further proves you do not understand Christianity.

Already showed you don't understand the difference between those who claim and those who believe.

Correct!

It is YOUR fallacy which raise its ugly head.

 

Here is a novel idea, blame the shooter. Does not matter if that shooter is black, white, brown, Christian, Muslim, etc. Trying to do policy statement immediately after the shooting to propose banning Muslims is not a good idea. Neither is banning firearms as a response to said first statement immediately after the shooting.

Not allowing those who are on terrorist watch lists to be prevented from obtaining firearms legally is common sense whether the Orlando shooting happened or not. This should have been a bipartisan issue where a compromise to challenge the placement on the list could be allowed under law. But then again, we are back to party over country, ideology over country, instead of the other way around.

 

Oh no! Let's not talk about FASCIST SOCIALISM.

Let us instead recognize that about 50 Million + Christians are Democrats. I am a Democrat, and I won't have anything to do with the GOP, I believe in the 2nd amendment as written and discussed by the founding fathers, AND helping the needy, eliminating racism, educating all of our people and giving the all justice.

 

Those of us who know Muslims, lived among them, went to school with them know that your allegation is totally false.

 

I too have been around many peaceful Muslims but I am under no self delusion like some are about Islam.

 

I agree. I lived in a country which had the 2nd most Muslims. We had 2 Muslims carrying for us and one Christian. (Cook, Bearer, and Sweeper. As Americans living in India, we felt the necessity to go along with their custom, if you can afford it you are obligated.

 

The data speaks clearly. From your own sources, almost 100% of terrorism in the USA since 9/11 are the product of Islamic terrorists.

And the data - your own sources - beats your opinion.

 

Really now?

Four of the ten terror related incidents in my link that were not Islamic in nature were committed after 9/11.

For the short bus kids, that's 40%.

But you go ahead and twist yourself in to a pretzel trying desperately to prove that Muslims are responsible for "almost 100% of terrorism in the USA".

LOL!

 

You should be thinking WORLD WIDE. I'll bet you are one of those border liberals who want to help our only relatively poor, before helping the truly poor off shore.

 

I have no idea what that means, and I'm apt to believe that the Lower Alabama school system has failed you.

Are you drinking?

 

So you are changing it to world wide obviously because you "lost" the argument. Unfortunately, you have also lost the argument world wide. The major definition of terrorism is the installation of fear in a community. Every time a drone is seen flying near "you" instills fear that this time "you" might be part of the collateral damage - this happens hourly by US controlled drones in the villages and towns of Pakistan and Afghanistan and Yemen. The drone attacks have increased significantly this century

 

Nothing like being insulting, why? I am not from Alabama, moved here after retiring on a very comfortable income. You should be so lucky. I graduated from a school in the first range of the Himalayas, considered to be one of the best schools in the world, and that did me very well too. Went on to earn 2 graduate degrees. Now, if you did well enough in 2nd grade, go on to 3rd, you MIGHT learn something about how to talk to decent people.

Now that you have fallen off your high horse, there are people who call themselves liberals, who are only liberal for Americans, without regard those multitudes much more poor (less wealthy if you wish) than just about every poor family in the US. Consider that having your ears boxed, along with your brain.

 

1. I have not lost any argument, and 2. I did not CHANGE anything I have said. I pointed out the idiocy of placing one group of lives onto a pedestal while ignoring the rest.

Thank you for your less than useful response. Why would you ever consider the reaction to an evil as if it was itself an evil? They do terrorism, we send drones after them. If the evilness was not hiding among good people who can hear the drone, instead of like a coward with human shields, THEN it would be nothing but just desserts.

BTW, you come to comment on hypocrisy? Yet you exude hypocrisy, that of a withing borders false liberal.

Pssst, the day the likes of you can best me with facts, logic and reason, the world will end.

 

Of course there are more than Islamic ideology who do terrorism. And I, at 80, have never seen or heard of one which is perpetrated by anyone who follows any religion.

 

Whose "major" definition? I had started a thread that touched on this subject a few weeks back. In light of you twisting the definition of terrorism, I figured this would be apropos.......

It was not very long ago that we all knew precisely what constitutes terrorism. It was always some derivation of the killing of civilians, for the express purpose of making a political statement, to achieve a political aim, that was directed by an organized group and not part of achieving a legitimate military objective. We never talked about its precise definition, but EVERYONE knew what it meant. Obvious examples were the PLO bombings in Israel and the IRA bombings in Ireland. These were attacks planned and directed by an organized group trying to make a political statement. You could even throw in bombings by the Weather Underground and maybe abortion clinic bombings into the mix, because these were organized activities supported and encouraged by centralized groups. Nobody EVER questioned the meaning of terrorist attack.

When the first post office shootings occurred in the mid 80s and the term "going postal" was coined, NOBODY confused this with terrorism. It was suicidal lunatics deciding to go out in a blaze of glory, without a political aim, and lacking in having support and encouragement from a centralized group. When Timothy McVeigh bombed the OKC Federal building, the line began to get blurred. Yes he created violence to make a political statement, and had tangential ties to militia groups, but those militia groups did not explicitly condone or encourage precisely what he did. At any rate, while the line was slightly blurred, I think we could all legitimately acknowledge that what he did could also be called a terrorist attack. We all could also acknowledge that the Cole bombing and 9/11 were textbook examples of terrorism.

Somewhere after 9/11, after the left and right took divergent positions relative to Islam, the definition of terrorism was disingenuously expanded to something along the lines of "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." All of a sudden, according to this definition, some lunatic going postal now can be counted as a terrorist, as can any mass shooting by a mentally deranged individual. Spiking trees counts as terrorism, and so does bank robbery. Now all of a sudden we have hundreds of "terrorist attacks" that have happened on our soil since 1980.

What do we have to gain by blurring this line?.....absolutely nothing. This was done expressly for the purpose of providing political cover for the left for their inexplicable defense of radical Islam. Now they can make misleading statements like "94% of terrorism in this country comes from non Muslims". When faced with an undeniably growing world problem with Radical Islamic Terrorism, it makes absolutely ZERO sense to broaden the definition so that Islamic based terrorism is hidden in the shadows. This would be akin to there being an increase in Rape, and instead of highlighting the growing problem with Rape, we decided to lump all violent acts into one category that includes assault and battery, murder etc. By lumping them all into one group, the increase in rape would be hidden, and by doing so, we would be hindering our ability to point out and address that specific growing problem. Nobody would do that when faced with a marked increase in Rape. For political reasons however, that is PRECISELY what the left is doing in regards to the marked increase in Radical Islamic Terrorism. In order to hide/deny the problem relative to Radical Islamic Terrorism, they are purposefully blurring the lines.

While I know that some of you may be tempted to argue that the nightclub shooting was a lone suicidal gunman wanting to go out in a blaze of glory, it is undeniable that Radical Islam is actively seeking Lone Wolf attacks, and that fact alone makes it part of an organized plot and clearly a legitimate terrorist act by any definition.

 

quote : "It was always some derivation of the killing of civilians"

Every day during the IRA terrorism on mainland Britain, a town somewhere on mainland Britain received a call from the IRA saying that a bomb has been placed at location "*****". We did not know if there was 2 minutes or two hours before the bomb goes off. You get out quickly! 99.99% of these bomb threats turned out to be hoaxes. The fact is just 0.01% of the IRA calls about a bomb being planted turned out to be a true bomb; 99.99% hoax, 0.01% true - that is terrorism. No one got killed from hoax bombs.. The US has never lived through a period of terrorism.

I was a child in the 1970's and have experience of being in a bomb threat event as an 8 year old. I live in an inconsequential town in England. At one time I was in the town guildhall at a lego competition. Families were all there, I was with just a friend. Within an hour of being there, a bomb threat call was received. There was panic and all had to leave. Turned out it was a hoax. Another time, I was in a department store, another bomb threat which turned out to be a hoax. No one was killed. Hoax bomb threats were so common that none were ever reported to newspapers etc. In fact no one was ever killed by the IRA in my town. We were still being terrorized. That is terrorism.

Should the authorities ignore those calls from the IRA?. The following photos shows some of those 0.01% of actual bombs going off:

 

Arxael should have also mentioned Boeing 767 and 757 aircraft.

If Obama were POTUS on 9-11-01 he would have blamed Boeing.

Didn't President Clinton blamed bull (*)(*)(*)(*) ?

 

Mateen did it. And in his own words, he did it for ISIS, which has been calling on Muslims worldwide to do just such a thing. Mateen is dead. So now we should go after ISIS in whichever way our leaders think best or wise.

 

Of course it includes the killing of innocents. It does NOT include however the collateral damage that happens as part of military actions by a legitimate government representing a legitimate country with a legitimate military aim. To shorten terrorism to " instilling fear in a community" is a preposterous abbreviation, and in no way is that the "major" definition of terrorism. If we were going to use that definition to define terrorism, we would have to label a tornado or a hurricane as terrorism. You are trying to use that preposterous/ incorrect definition for the express purpose of being able to then label any military action as terrorism.

We need to be able to differentiate between military actions, tornadoes, hurricanes and actual terrorism. Conflating them into one thing accomplishes nothing, other than to muddy the water and hide the actual problem that people are discussing, which is legitimate, centrally organized terrorism.

 

As an American in the South I believe, seeing how conservative cultural influence is on the decline whether I like that or not, that the future of America is likely, whether Liberals or Conservatives like it, one of gun control where rural, non urban regions are allowed to have different laws on guns but outside of those regional rural zones there will likely be mass gun control achieved via buyback programs and bans.

I do not see any other realistic, non-idealistic BS alternative. The country is going more culturally liberal and or progressive. To think the days of mass school shootings and the like will be tolerated into the future is pure naivety.

 

I only have to things to say to you, one being a question. Why are the British still occupying Northern Ireland? And why do you expect an oppressed people to stand by and accept their oppression? I expose the Hypocrisy of maintaining one colonization when most if not all other colonizations have been vacated? You Brits messed up India by partition and the ME by not following the mandate to create a Jewish Homeland at the same time as you created the Arab/Muslim homeland. So now you continue to oppress the Irish.

 

Because the people in Northern Ireland voted to stay as part of the UK!

Secondly, perhaps you can point out some of this oppression?