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.

Or, it might be following a particularly bad argument with this group. The motive is far from clear, but the eagerness to turn an incident like this into a religion-fueled hate crime by the family members and Muslim communities at large is a sign that religion is a very central element of their thinking, and they probably tend to look at everything through "religion tinted glasses".

 

What you fail to realize is that Atheism is not a religious institution, there are no imams or priests telling the "faithful" what the "correct" interpretation of certain issues are, it's more like an invitation for critical thinking, which "hard Atheism" is not - It's quite clearly spelled out by so-called "prominent" atheists such as Dawkins and Dennett.

 

But even as such, as far as "extremist Atheism" goes I'm having difficulty even understanding what you mean by that. I still believe you you need a very strong magnifying glass to find instances where Atheism was at the core of violence and not something else like the lust for power or a shaky mental state of mind.

 

 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.  

 

Good point. I'm sure the Boston Tea Party was considered an act of terrorism by the English, and I'm sure the Boston Massacre was considered an act of oppression by the Colonists. It all led to acts of war, and there was one. Dealing with Islamic terrorism is something everyone has been dancing around for a long time. There is no organized government willing to openly sanction Islamic terrorists. Here is where the problem starts. How do you declare war on a portion of a religion? Others will say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Okay that's cool, but if you're going to call them freedom fighters then you are supporting their actions and should be treated as such. The U.S. can, and should, destroy ISIS. Just go in and wipe them out. Then leave. I also would not be playing around with Iran. That mess should have been resolved when Saddam Hussein was taken down.

 

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.

Or, it might be following a particularly bad argument with this group. The motive is far from clear, but the eagerness to turn an incident like this into a religion-fueled hate crime by the family members and Muslim communities at large is a sign that religion is a very central element of their thinking, and they probably tend to look at everything through "religion tinted glasses".

 

What you fail to realize is that Atheism is not a religious institution, there are no imams or priests telling the "faithful" what the "correct" interpretation of certain issues are, it's more like an invitation for critical thinking, which "hard Atheism" is not - It's quite clearly spelled out by so-called "prominent" atheists such as Dawkins and Dennett.

 

But even as such, as far as "extremist Atheism" goes I'm having difficulty even understanding what you mean by that. I still believe you you need a very strong magnifying glass to find instances where Atheism was at the core of violence and not something else like the lust for power or a shaky mental state of mind.

 

I don't know if you have watched any of the interviews, but the uproar is more about why did no one give a shit and double standards. They would have been called terrorist if the situation were reversed. Because they were not white Americans being executed by a Muslim (If that were the case ISIS would have been plastered all over the television screens.) nobody gave a fuck until the internet chastised the reporting agencies and government for the gross double standards they hold. This, by  the very definition of unjust, is an immoral act. The news, and the majority of the country are largely bias against muslims, and as a result the media ostracizes a group of people and does not care about them unless they kill or hurt someone.  Then they called them terrorist. If a white person does it "He had Family issues" or "He was insane."/

 

Are you telling me the Fort Hood shoot in 2009 was not insane? Or the Muslim US soldier who tossed a grenade in to a tent in Iraq back in 2003 was not insane? Yes they were, but they were immediately branded terrorist. A muslim shoots one person and is called a Terrorist more liberally than Timothy McVay who blew up an entire building.

 

 

 

 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.  

 

Good point. I'm sure the Boston Tea Party was considered an act of terrorism by the English, and I'm sure the Boston Massacre was considered an act of oppression by the Colonists. It all led to acts of war, and there was one. Dealing with Islamic terrorism is something everyone has been dancing around for a long time. There is no organized government willing to openly sanction Islamic terrorists. Here is where the problem starts. How do you declare war on a portion of a religion? Others will say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Okay that's cool, but if you're going to call them freedom fighters then you are supporting their actions and should be treated as such. The U.S. can, and should, destroy ISIS. Just go in and wipe them out. Then leave. I also would not be playing around with Iran. That mess should have been resolved when Saddam Hussein was taken down.

 

The US can not destroy ISIS, any further US intervention will cause this to blow up more than it already has. I'll have you recall that ISIS was formed as a result of the US invading a stable country. Iran should be destroyed? And you call them the terrorist. Ironic.

Are you telling me the Fort Hood shoot in 2009 was not insane? Or the Muslim US soldier who tossed a grenade in to a tent in Iraq back in 2003 was not insane? Yes they were, but they were immediately branded terrorist. A muslim shoots one person and is called a Terrorist more liberally than Timothy McVay who blew up an entire building.

I don't agree with branding Muslim-committed acts of violence terrorism by default. It should only be Muslim terrorism when religion is the core mover behind the act. But nevertheless, I hope we're not denying here that Islamic terrorism does exist.

 

 

 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.  

 

Good point. I'm sure the Boston Tea Party was considered an act of terrorism by the English, and I'm sure the Boston Massacre was considered an act of oppression by the Colonists. It all led to acts of war, and there was one. Dealing with Islamic terrorism is something everyone has been dancing around for a long time. There is no organized government willing to openly sanction Islamic terrorists. Here is where the problem starts. How do you declare war on a portion of a religion? Others will say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Okay that's cool, but if you're going to call them freedom fighters then you are supporting their actions and should be treated as such. The U.S. can, and should, destroy ISIS. Just go in and wipe them out. Then leave. I also would not be playing around with Iran. That mess should have been resolved when Saddam Hussein was taken down.

 

 

Pretty sure no one here is arguing ISIS is anybody's freedom fighters. Murder falls into terrorism, that is my point, simple as that, tho, killing a murderer isnt terrorism IMO, I fully support wiping out of ISIS. Tho, in future, dont send weapons and support to  every tom dick and harry rag tag group of rebels, thought Taliban episodes from 80s-to-date served a good lesson. Also, didnt you guys prop up Saddam for a good decade or so while he gassed Iranians and Kurds? 

 

http://cdn0.walkerartcenter.org/static/cache/05/056224568d83ad7a514e2b8f0c0d3f3d.jpg

Edited February 14, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

 

Are you telling me the Fort Hood shoot in 2009 was not insane? Or the Muslim US soldier who tossed a grenade in to a tent in Iraq back in 2003 was not insane? Yes they were, but they were immediately branded terrorist. A muslim shoots one person and is called a Terrorist more liberally than Timothy McVay who blew up an entire building.

I don't agree with branding Muslim-committed acts of violence terrorism by default. It should only be Muslim terrorism when religion is the core mover behind the act. But nevertheless, I hope we're not denying here that Islamic terrorism does exist.

 

 

Bingo, You've hit the nail on the head.

 

Are you telling me the Fort Hood shoot in 2009 was not insane? Or the Muslim US soldier who tossed a grenade in to a tent in Iraq back in 2003 was not insane? Yes they were, but they were immediately branded terrorist. A muslim shoots one person and is called a Terrorist more liberally than Timothy McVay who blew up an entire building.

I don't agree with branding Muslim-committed acts of violence terrorism by default. It should only be Muslim terrorism when religion is the core mover behind the act. But nevertheless, I hope we're not denying here that Islamic terrorism does exist.

 

I don't care what you call it. As long as you hold every one to the same standard. Which no one does. That's the whole point of the argument. 

 

White supremacist terrorism. THere was hardly more than a days worth of fuss over the bombing of an NAACP chapter building.

I was never aware that Muslims were called to apologize for anything they did not personally do. Muslims are a pretty diverse lot, even in the Arab countries which actually are a minority of the Muslim population. Unless you are referring to some pundits and wackos that nobody should pay attention to.

 

Was this a hate crime? Possibly, if the guy had a prior history of anti-Islamic sentiment. Was this murder much different from the gangland or even road rage shootings that happen in my city every day. Sadly, no. Bodies show up every day.

 

As for the news media, they grow more irrelevant every day. Like any other form of entertainment (because that is what they are, no different than the WWE or Jersey Shore), they exist solely to get views from their targeted demographic. If it's the white middle-class, then they focus on a white middle-class narrative. Al Jezeera opened an American branch because there was a noticable gap in coverage.

 

Like any murder victims, I am sad about their loss and hope their loved ones can move on from this tragedy.

Murder is murder, there is no justification for the killing of innocents.  No matter what their background happens to be.

I was never aware that Muslims were called to apologize for anything they did not personally do.

 

It is usually less about apologizing and more about denouncing the acts.

 

something only politicians do, with no meaningfull backing to it

A few congressman and 'Journalist' say they believe Muslims are responsible for the 'radical muslims' or in my opinion Cults.

All religions are cults, some are just more widely accepted than others.