Not a single post on Wednesday's tragedy?
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
LOL. No I know who he is. He's a Freebie/OTF troll. We jut banned his backup handle the other day. He doesn't like me for some reason. Never expected him to show up on the WC, though.
Well Hassan he was yelling
"Allahu Akbar" as he was killing people. Hassan is and was a Muslim. During the trial he announced he was carrying out Jihad and claimed no mental impairment. But on the record he was mute. He may or may not also be nuts. As far as I know, no professional has made a public opinion about that. After conviction the victims received purple hearts. Is it unreasonable to call Hassan a Muslim and he was motivated to an act of war by a twisted view of his faith? That appears to be the sate of the record.
I dunno, was Roof yelling "I hate n!ggers" as he was killing people? That would be an important part of any answer Rerun would make, but so far he hasn't addressed why he is so sure Roof was being ideological instead of simply being crazy.
Roof said he did it because he hated blacks and wanted to start a civil war. What more do you need?
But you STILL don't get it, do you? You didn't equate "white" with "Muslim" or "white supremacist" with "Islamist." You equated "white supremacist" with "Muslim."
Are you really not even understanding the problem here?
Actually he was. In addition to all the previous information, like he had to get rid of the people taking over the country and raping their women, he also was yelling racial epithets after he killed them and ran out the door. So yeah, he pretty much was saying that.
You're reaching
And you have no idea what you are talking about. Once again you made the discussion about me. I'm flattered, but bored.
Because your bigotry and inability/unwillingness to own up to it is worthy of discussion.
I know that.
My question had to do with what he said while he was killing people. Maybe you know that, but I haven't seen it discussed.
So if I were to admit to being a bigot
You'd take my words at face value and believe me when I say not all Muslims are the same?
Good point.
The only thing that matters is what he said while he pulled the trigger.
Same reason comments during the commission if a crime are admissible, but anything said by the defendant before or after isn't.
I saw a funny tweet making fun if the media, something like this:
"If only we knew why Roof did it."
"I did it because I hate black people."
"I guess we'll never know."
If only that were actually a joke.
Well I don't know exactly when he was calling them the n word. Not sure if it was while he was shooting, before , or after. And why does that matter again? The timing of when he called them names?
I never accused you of thinking all Muslims are the same. I'm guessing you recognize there is a variety of Muslim in this world, just as there is a variety of white supremacist.
I think it matters to his state of mind during the act
and whether an isanity plea might fly. There is a lot of what we already know that suggests he knew what he was doing, and he acted with deliberation, but we don't know if he was able to separate right from wrong while he was pulling the trigger. Hinkley made his insanity plea stick because he thought his love interest, Jody Foster, would approve killing Regan. Roof's obvous racism and hatred of blacks together his wanting to start a new civil war, all to the point of irrationality, would be important to an isantity defense. I can see a shrink saying he was so derranged about black people that he didn't know right from wrong.
Now I don't know what you are talking about.
I think I'd rather have you believe I'm a bigot when it comes to Islam. That makes things easier to understand.
Could it possibly be any clearer?
You compared Rerun using the fact he is a WHITE SUPREMACIST to his disdain for you using the fact Hassan was a MUSLIM.
How can you not grasp this? You didn't equate the worst of the whites with the worst of the Muslims. You equated the worst of the whites with Muslims generally.
You cannot possibly be so dense as to misunderstand this criticism.
Seriously?
I was talking about Roof in the context of one other particular mass murderer who was a Muslim, and that Muslim suggested he proudly acted from his Muslim faith. Now you are aying I was talking about "Muslims generally"? Your CO.HDS has reached a crisis, goat. Is there a hotline in Fort Wayne you can use before you hurt yourself?
I'm not surprised you don't even understand the words coming out of my... fingers? Whatever.
The point was merely that you compared his calling Roof a "White Supremacist" to your own calling Hassan a "Muslim."
I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed, that you don't understand the problem.
I'll ask you again. Do you have something to add to this topic or are you just here to troll?
The original poster introduced a straw man into the discussion, then disingenuously ran away from it when he /she couldn't support it. He/she then chose to personalize his/her criticism of two posters in particular who rightly challenged the unsupported assertion. That's far from trolling. It's just calling out a flimsy job of posting disguised as faux intellect.
All is clear now
You are so tied into racism and prejudice against Musims that you thereby filter my question. Here I thought I was asking about the state of mind of two mass murderers who themselves opened windows into their states of mind with their comments. You are much more into identities than me. That's life.
Well, in fairness to me, I didn't say it was hijacking. Rockfish did.
He says that I hijacked the thread with AA. I don't really think it amounts to hijacking myself. I'm just trying to keep straight who did what in what order.
And, yes, I'm also trying to get out of you when it's noble for politicians to foment victimization and when it's a dangerous thing.
If you want to throw something like that out on the table, you should be prepared to demonstrate logical consistency. Otherwise, it's pretty easily dispensed, innit?
C'mon goat. You knew when you said the statement about whites feeling like victims and politicians playing to that (paraphrasing) that you were gonna get this started. It's the same thing when as Obama is mentioned critically in any post....all his supporters run to his defense.
Using guns is using guns. Our unwillingness to recognize this -- and to instead insist on recognizing "good" gun use and "bad" gun use -- is a stumbling block to getting to where we (say, anyway) we want to be.
Your post posited two explanations for Hasan to have engaged in his mass murder: (1) being crazy, or (2) being a Muslim (note you did not say being an Islamic extremist). That makes no more sense that positing that Roof might have engaged in his mass murder because (1) he was crazy, or (2) he is white -- as opposed to being a racist white supremacist.
This should not be difficult for a person of reasonable intelligence to understand. If you didn't mean to suggest what you did, it's easy enough to say that your wording was imprecise. Instead, you've good grief'd your way through a dozen more posts in which you pretend not to understand -- or perhaps, do not actually understand -- a pretty obvious point.
Logical fallacies abound in this thread, as posters struggle to evade the obvious.
No, using guns is not using guns. Are we to arrest all skeet shooters? Using knives is not using knives. Are we to arrest all chefs? Using baseball bats is not using baseball bats. Are we to arrest all little leaguers?
But racial discrimination is racial discrimination. And I, for one, do not think there's such a thing as "good" racial discrimination. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
You're still wrong, because none of those who disagree with you are trampling on any laws. It's just another of the absurd poses you adopt in defense of the indefensible.
In your first paragraph you can distinguish between means and ends, but by your second paragraph the distinction has escaped you.
Um, it was sarcasm, that's the point.
Yeah, we heard you the first two times . You keep stating your position, but you haven't offered a substantive argument. Just labeling affirmative action policies as "racial discrimination" and acting righteous about the obvious wrongness of racial discrimination. Reminds me of this cartoon.
But, sarcasm or not, you used a really bad analogy. If you want to defend (what you see as) "good" racial discrimination, then defend it...instead of trying to compare it to gun use.
Yeah, we heard you the first two times . You keep stating your position, but you haven't offered a substantive argument. Just labeling affirmative action policies as "racial discrimination" and acting righteous about the obvious wrongness of racial discrimination. Reminds me of this cartoon.
So, in your view, two wrongs actually do make a right?
John Roberts is right. The way to end racial discrimination in this country is to end racial discrimination -- and stop trying to justify certain kinds of it as "corrective", and therefore, necessary and justified.
Either we believe in the 14th amendment or we don't. It's not the kind of thing where we can be selective.
What we're seeing here is the worldview of well-to-do conservatives: "We deserve what We have, and They deserve what They don't have." If this strikes you as self-regarded, you would be correct.Um, it was sarcasm, that's the point.
Yeah, we heard you the first two times . You keep stating your position, but you haven't offered a substantive argument. Just labeling affirmative action policies as "racial discrimination" and acting righteous about the obvious wrongness of racial discrimination. Reminds me of this cartoon.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza- Latest: Marvin the Martian
-
-
-