Interesting how it was the social media outburst that forced the mainstream media to report that three students were shot dead, execution style.

 

I saw the news in social media, I checked mainstream sites, nothing was there, only until the noise became too loud did it get picked...why?

 

Because the three students who were shot dead were Muslims.

 

Had it been other way around, it would have been exactly opposite, households would have had running headline commentaries and terrorism experts plastering the screens. No, but since its a white male, the guy needed access to "mental facilities"... Yea, you think terrorists don't need access to one? I don't think you pursue paralegal studies if you have mental problems.

 

The guy isnt a terrorist because he had parking disputes? Bs. He had issues with multiple neighbors, he shot those he could easily identify as to be Muslims.

 

 

 

The guys social media posts make clear what his motive was. He was an athiest and hated religion. He picked on those he could easily identify.

 

 

I also don't see our athiest friends here and else where apologising for the actions of this terrorist and bigot, just as they expected us to apologize for Paris shooting, I fully expect the notable ahiests to issue an apology for an act they condemn and did not commit.

 

Same goes for my passionate-about-guns friend.

Edited February 12, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

Sucks that stuff like this happens, no one no matter what religion they follow should be murdered in cold blood.

  Did this happen in the US?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/muslim-student-shootings-north-carolina.html?_r=0

It was quite funny as the social media was erupting and all mainstream sites hadn't reported it, and I'm not reporting about just one site. Its as if suddenly everyone decided on their own to not run with it.

 

The silence was so defeaning that once my friend showed it to me I thought its probably some bs rumor making the rounds on the internet.

 

Only when I woke up the next day, and with so much noise did they report, because the hypocracy was getting all too blatant and obvious even for the good citizens of free socities. Can't risk the plebs doubting balanced and free media :-)

Edited February 12, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

I dont have social medias.... Any link to this?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/muslim-student-shootings-north-carolina.html?_r=0

NVMD...

*Reads*

Hmm. I'm not sure if this was hate crime. There have been numerous accounts of minorities being killed at odd times for reasons completely unrelated to what's going on the world (in regards to race/religion).

 

Based on the evidence, I want to say this was not a hate crime and just coincidence that it happened to be during a time of dispute between Muslims and non-muslims. But IDK. And nobody in this thread knows. The only person who does know is Mr. Hicks.

 

Shame that people are using such inconclusive violence as a means to divide communities though. Why does everyone have to generalize? Why can't we just settle with "this person was bad" instead of "these people are bad?"

 

The global religious tension is building. And I don't think it's going to end well.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/02/chapel-hill-shooting-western-media-bigotry-150211083909613.html

 

A must read.

 

Fox, don't miss out on the obvious satire in my original post just to point out silliness in the previous thread.

Edited February 12, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

Th satire was the atheist part right, how do we know they were Muslims?

They could have being atheists, unless they all share the same foreign traits that make them obvious Muslims. 

 

If there is a reason I had to hate Muslims is that all people who look like a Muslim are probably a Muslim which is something terrible wrong with the Islam. 

"Muslims only newsworthy when behind a gun. Not in front [of] it,"

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-31421363

 

It can't really be that surprising to anyone that the media is biased.

silly shah, those 3 people were clearly not americans so why would he american media report on it? >_>

I don't buy into the hate crime campaign. Nobody murders anyone without hate, and the punishment for murder should be the same no matter what. This man murdered 3 human beings, and should be put to death as far as I'm concerned. You can't hang the dude twice because he hated muslims. This is not an act of terrorism. Terrorism is killing, or destroying property, for the purpose of changing government policy or making a political statement. This was straight up murder because the guy hated muslims. The way things are in the world today, I'm surprised it is not happening every day. I fear that because we have a President that refuses to stand up for the people he was elected to protect, the people will do whatever they feel they must do to protect themselves. This is awful, but I'm not shocked that it happened.

An event that confirms what many of us knew already; that Western media do not care about consistency of fair reporting, only about the goals of those who invest in them. No problems about generalizing against islam, but when events give opportunity to do the same with their favorite belief.. (Yes, atheism IS a belief, in God's non-existance), nu-uuh. The only fair thing that can be said about it is:

 

Why can't we just settle with "this person was bad" instead of "these people are bad?"

 

You can ostracize Islam for the deeds of violent few, but do remember this hurts ordinary Muslims as much as the rest and they need our support in combatting radicalism, not being pushed right into its embrace.

So the misanthrope guy, who also happens to be an Atheist finally becomes unhinged and shoots his neighbors who happen to be Muslims over a parking dispute is now labeled terrorism and a hate crime.

 

By this very logic, the actions of a misanthrope teenager who also happens to play CS and later becomes unhinged and shoots up his school over a girl turning him down should be labeled terrorism and gamer crime.

 

I think what's really telling here just how desperately some people are trying to paint a religious aspect to this story.

So the misanthrope guy, who also happens to be an Atheist finally becomes unhinged and shoots his neighbors who happen to be Muslims over a parking dispute is now labeled terrorism and a hate crime.

 

By this very logic, the actions of a misanthrope teenager who also happens to play CS and later becomes unhinged and shoots up his school over a girl turning him down should be labeled terrorism and gamer crime.

 

I think what's really telling here just how desperately some people are trying to paint a religious aspect to this story.

The question I'd ask is: Would he have been as hostile if they were not muslim, or did not have a middle eastern appearance? 

 

The offender was clearly anti-religion to a sever degree. Naturally, he would be more hostile towards a group of people he knew were religous; evident by the hijab and other physical features.

 

So I would say no, he wouldn't have been as hostile towards them if they were not muslim. So Yes I do believe it is a hate crime.

 

So the misanthrope guy, who also happens to be an Atheist finally becomes unhinged and shoots his neighbors who happen to be Muslims over a parking dispute is now labeled terrorism and a hate crime.

 

By this very logic, the actions of a misanthrope teenager who also happens to play CS and later becomes unhinged and shoots up his school over a girl turning him down should be labeled terrorism and gamer crime.

 

I think what's really telling here just how desperately some people are trying to paint a religious aspect to this story.

The question I'd ask is: Would he have been as hostile if they were not muslim, or did not have a middle eastern appearance? 

 

The offender was clearly anti-religion to a sever degree. Naturally, he would be more hostile towards a group of people he knew were religous; evident by the hijab and other physical features.

 

So I would say no, he wouldn't have been as hostile towards them if they were not muslim. So Yes I do believe it is a hate crime.

 

Alright, so we know two things.

 

1- Sane person does not kill people over a parking dispute

2- Sane person does not kill people over their religion.

 

In other words, this would never happen if the perpetrator would not be unhinged. Unknown to me if his clearly militant atheism was a cause or a result of his lack of sanity.

This is not about hate crime, or a parking dispute. The primary reason behind this attack, was the insanity of one person.

 

I think what's really telling here just how desperately some people are trying to paint a religious aspect to this story.

Just look at Al-Jazeera, they do that hard.

 

The moment we stop blaming the whole religions/communities for wrongdoings of the insane few, the moment we support them in thwarting the growth of such element, is the moment we will be on a good way.

The question I'd ask is: Would he have been as hostile if they were not muslim, or did not have a middle eastern appearance? 

 

The offender was clearly anti-religion to a sever degree. Naturally, he would be more hostile towards a group of people he knew were religous; evident by the hijab and other physical features.

 

So I would say no, he wouldn't have been as hostile towards them if they were not muslim. So Yes I do believe it is a hate crime.

 

You don't really know that though. While it probably didn't help in this case, I really doubt his Atheism was at the core of his motives. In fact, I'd wager if he had been a seeply religious person, he probably wold have snapped sooner.

 

You don't really know that though. While it probably didn't help in this case, I really doubt his Atheism was at the core of his motives. In fact, I'd wager if he had been a seeply religious person, he probably wold have snapped sooner.

Atheism is a belief, just as any religion is. The only diffrence is, it is belief in God's non-existance. So why would he snap sooner? PC, not atheism, is the master race.

 

I do not want to blame the general atheism itself, for atrocities of that killer, Mao Zedong, or Stalin. Just as no religion should be blamed for things like ISIS or 9/11.

Atheism is a belief, just as any religion is. The only diffrence is, it is belief in God's non-existance. So why would he snap sooner? PC, not atheism, is the master race.

 

I do not want to blame the general atheism itself, for atrocities of that killer, Mao Zedong, or Stalin. Just as no religion should be blamed for things like ISIS, 9/11 or crusades that happened nearly thousand years ago.

That depends whether you are talking about Hard or Soft Atheism. Hard atheism is indeed just as dogmatic as any other religion and therefore not a bit better.

 

For the problem is really with dogma, not religion itself, but by its very nature religion is dogmatic. Stalin and Mao Zedong were just as dogmatic as any religious fanatic, except that their "god" was radical Marxism and communism. And of course they loved power, and have formed a - dogmatic - personality cult around themselves. It is only natural they were so hostile towards religions, as they saw them as rival dogmas.

 

The question I'd ask is: Would he have been as hostile if they were not muslim, or did not have a middle eastern appearance? 

 

The offender was clearly anti-religion to a sever degree. Naturally, he would be more hostile towards a group of people he knew were religous; evident by the hijab and other physical features.

 

So I would say no, he wouldn't have been as hostile towards them if they were not muslim. So Yes I do believe it is a hate crime.

I don't understand what anyone means by "hate crime". The guy shot 3 people dead. He should be charged with 3 counts of first degree murder. The prosecution will then present the motive, and the defense will state their case. Are you telling me that if a video comes out that shows that the dude said "I love you" before he shot them he should then get a lighter sentence? You punish the crime, not the emotion. It's so stupid to go down that road. I don't want to judge this guy before his day in court, but if he can't prove he was in fear for his life, he's toast. I think he shot them because he utterly hated their presence in his country. Plain and simple.

 

That depends whether you are talking about Hard or Soft Atheism. Hard atheism is indeed just as dogmatic as any other religion and therefore not a bit better.

 

For the problem is really with dogma, not religion itself, but by its very nature religion is dogmatic. Stalin and Mao Zedong were just as dogmatic as any religious fanatic, except that their "god" was radical Marxism and communism. And of course they loved power, and have formed a - dogmatic - personality cult around themselves. It is only natural they were so hostile towards religions, as they saw them as rival dogmas.

 

Of course hard. And really, dogma is just like power. It can be used for both right and wrong.

Of course hard. And really, dogma is just like power. It can be used for both right and wrong.

I disagree there. The moment somebody says "I believe in the absolute truth of something even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary" you know that at some point it's bound to lead to trouble.

So the misanthrope guy, who also happens to be an Atheist finally becomes unhinged and shoots his neighbors who happen to be Muslims over a parking dispute is now labeled terrorism and a hate crime.

 

By this very logic, the actions of a misanthrope teenager who also happens to play CS and later becomes unhinged and shoots up his school over a girl turning him down should be labeled terrorism and gamer crime.

 

I think what's really telling here just how desperately some people are trying to paint a religious aspect to this story.

 

He had disputes with majority of his neighbors, he singled out a particular group. 

 

No one is desperate, but just pointing out how quick everything is judged and settled if it's the other way around and giving you bit of a dose of your own medicine via bit of satire. I'll throw some more of it you way..Had you guys spoken out against hard and extremist atheism, they may not have happened, where is the apology from notables in that field? What have they done to stand up and put a stop to this form of extremism instead of playing a role of apologist, herp derp. 

Edited February 14, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

 Terrorism is killing, or destroying property, for the purpose of changing government policy or making a political statement. 

 

All the tyrants, dictators and apartheid of the world absolutely love that definition. You're intelligent enough to know exactly why. All revolutions would then also be classified as terror movements if that was the case, including your own independence revolution and pretty much a huge chunk of history would then be full of terror. There's so much wrong with that definition. Your invasion of war is also then classified as a terror invasion if we go by that definition, so does your countless interventions in various countries around the globe. Do you see why this definition is wrong?

 

I agree with you, first degree murder is murder and should be punished equally. I also say terror is terror, every murder is a bloody terror attack, simple as that.  

Edited February 14, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

An event that confirms what many of us knew already; that Western media do not care about consistency of fair reporting, only about the goals of those who invest in them. No problems about generalizing against islam, but when events give opportunity to do the same with their favorite belief.. (Yes, atheism IS a belief, in God's non-existance), nu-uuh. The only fair thing that can be said about it is:

 

Why can't we just settle with "this person was bad" instead of "these people are bad?"

 

You can ostracize Islam for the deeds of violent few, but do remember this hurts ordinary Muslims as much as the rest and they need our support in combatting radicalism, not being pushed right into its embrace.

 

Surprisingly, a lot of people still believe in the whole freedom, justice, equity, moralist story line.