Shooting in Munich, let me guess who is responsoible

[laughing dog]

Unless the terrorist is captured alive and is questioned, or if the terrorist leaves a clearcut trail, we really cannot know what motivates a terrorist. For example, the shooter in Munich - was he motivated by Islamic philosophy? Was the terrorist in Nice motivated by Islamic philosophy or was it simply a convenient excuse for his rage? In both instances, people jumped to the "Islam is evil" without any shred of actual evidence. Even now, it is not clear what motivated either killer.

ISIS is killing an awful lot of people and they're being very open and straightforward about what their motivations for doing so are. While each individual member of the organization and lone wolf inspired by the organization have their own particular set of rationales in addition to this, the Islamic aspect is not some kind of tertiary motivation which only merits half a sentence worth of mention in an appendix to their manifesto. It's kind of the main thing for the vast majority of the group.

Ignoring that is sort of like ignoring the whole "Animal lives matter" aspect of PETA membership and focusing on how some people join because they figure it's a good way to pick up chicks.

Congratulation again on ignoring the actual content of the post to which you responded.

 

[laughing dog]

The thing is the Islamists use Islam as a tool to get these people to act in a violent fashion.

That reflects on those "Islamists" not Islam. Those "Islamists" also use the existence of Israel and the actions of the gov't of Israel to get these people to act in a violent fashion, does that make the existence of Israel or the actions of the gov't of Israel "evil"as well?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Unless the terrorist is captured alive and is questioned, or if the terrorist leaves a clearcut trail, we really cannot know what motivates a terrorist. For example, the shooter in Munich - was he motivated by Islamic philosophy? Was the terrorist in Nice motivated by Islamic philosophy or was it simply a convenient excuse for his rage? In both instances, people jumped to the "Islam is evil" without any shred of actual evidence. Even now, it is not clear what motivated either killer.

ISIS is killing an awful lot of people and they're being very open and straightforward about what their motivations for doing so are. While each individual member of the organization and lone wolf inspired by the organization have their own particular set of rationales in addition to this, the Islamic aspect is not some kind of tertiary motivation which only merits half a sentence worth of mention in an appendix to their manifesto. It's kind of the main thing for the vast majority of the group.

Ignoring that is sort of like ignoring the whole "Animal lives matter" aspect of PETA membership and focusing on how some people join because they figure it's a good way to pick up chicks.

Was the Munich killer an ISIS member? Was his primary motivation Islam?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

At what point was I talking about the Munich killer specifically as opposed to terrorists in general? I think I missed the post where I did that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

At what point was I talking about the Munich killer specifically as opposed to terrorists in general? I think I missed the post where I did that.

#1 You are in a thread specifically about the Munich killer.
#2 You responded to laughing dog's post specifically about the Munich killer and the Nice killer.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

At what point was I talking about the Munich killer specifically as opposed to terrorists in general? I think I missed the post where I did that.

#1 You are in a thread specifically about the Munich killer.
#2 You responded to laughing dog's post specifically about the Munich killer and the Nice killer.

Well, I'm talking about terrorists in general.

 

[Bomb#20]

Or, maybe his belief is a symptom of his desire to control ananhurt others, particularly in the absence of any way of looking at the world and understanding his future which would proscribe such behavior.

In other words, his ignorance of why harming others is bad allows him to pick up an Islamic text and use that to justify his awfulness in the same way that Adolf Hitler and many Germans picked up Darwin's Origin of the Species and used it to justify eugenics and genocide.

"Fight those who are not the fittest, until they pay the unfitness tax with willing submission and are subdued." - Charles Darwin​

You're right, they both use their respective texts to justify their respective awfulness in the same way.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or, maybe his belief is a symptom of his desire to control ananhurt others, particularly in the absence of any way of looking at the world and understanding his future which would proscribe such behavior.

In other words, his ignorance of why harming others is bad allows him to pick up an Islamic text and use that to justify his awfulness in the same way that Adolf Hitler and many Germans picked up Darwin's Origin of the Species and used it to justify eugenics and genocide.

"Fight those who are not the fittest, until they pay the unfitness tax with willing submission and are subdued." - Charles Darwin​

You're right, they both use their respective texts to justify their respective awfulness in the same way.

Which is a dishonest straw man and you should feel bad for making it.

Hitler used the theories presented by Darwin, true statements about the state of nature and the origins of the complexities of life, and used that as a means to justify his culture's war against all other ethnicities. If you have ever actually read the book, there's a lot in there about striving, violence, and extinction. That the struggle for existence is going to be at the expense of something else, always. As much as I dislike it, even something entirely true can be and often WILL be twisted by people with the desire to be solipsistic or darwinistic.

 

[iolo]

"Fight those who are not the fittest, until they pay the unfitness tax with willing submission and are subdued." - Charles Darwin​

You're right, they both use their respective texts to justify their respective awfulness in the same way.

Which is a dishonest straw man and you should feel bad for making it.

Hitler used the theories presented by Darwin, true statements about the state of nature and the origins of the complexities of life, and used that as a means to justify his culture's war against all other ethnicities. If you have ever actually read the book, there's a lot in there about striving, violence, and extinction. That the struggle for existence is going to be at the expense of something else, always. As much as I dislike it, even something entirely true can be and often WILL be twisted by people with the desire to be solipsistic or darwinistic.

Quite - and the inadequate of all beliefs and none inevitably project their inadequacies on others, and waste away their lives on hating them. I am getting very bored with American rants about a half-(at best) understood 'Islam'.

 

[Trausti]

I still cannot grasp why so many on this atheist board are protective of Islam. Do you white knight for other religions, too? Or just for ones founded by homicidal pedophiles?

 

[dismal]

I still cannot grasp why so many on this atheist board are protective of Islam. Do you white knight for other religions, too? Or just for ones founded by homicidal pedophiles?

Well, obviously they aren't just atheists, they're leftists so they are beguiled by Islamist's tolerant views on women's rights, equal treatment of gays, liberal education, and secular government.

 

[KeepTalking]

I still cannot grasp why so many on this atheist board are protective of Islam. Do you white knight for other religions, too? Or just for ones founded by homicidal pedophiles?

Who is being protective of Islam?

Are you being protective of Christianity by giving that religion a pass while you encourage fascism and intolerance toward Islam?

 

[Trausti]

I still cannot grasp why so many on this atheist board are protective of Islam. Do you white knight for other religions, too? Or just for ones founded by homicidal pedophiles?

Who is being protective of Islam?

Are you being protective of Christianity by giving that religion a pass while you encourage fascism and intolerance toward Islam?

Yes I am. When those Christian terrorists in France broke into that Mosque and beheaded that Iman, while they shouted "praise Jesus," I was all for giving them a pass.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I still cannot grasp why so many on this atheist board are protective of Islam.

They're not "protective of Islam," but instead interested in objectivity and in not making hasty generalizations about people. How do you personally try to discount your own biases due to birth, nationality, and religion of family and friends, when you analyze something?

 

[KeepTalking]

Who is being protective of Islam?

Are you being protective of Christianity by giving that religion a pass while you encourage fascism and intolerance toward Islam?

Yes I am.

Why, as an atheist, are you protective of Christianity?

When those Christian terrorists in France broke into that Mosque and beheaded that Iman, while they shouted "praise Jesus," I was all for giving them a pass.

How about the Christian terrorist who shot up Planned Parenthood?

 

[abaddon]

Why, as an atheist, are you protective of Christianity?

Cuz the dividing line isn’t Atheism/Religion, it’s European “enlightenment” civilization against the barbarian hordes. The “enemy of my enemies is my friend” and all that.

The foreign hordes, and you too if you're a leftwing traitor willing to "surrender" America's greatness to the invaders, are a threat to his nation and way of life.

 

[Trausti]

I still cannot grasp why so many on this atheist board are protective of Islam.

They're not "protective of Islam," but instead interested in objectivity and in not making hasty generalizations about people. How do you personally try to discount your own biases due to birth, nationality, and religion of family and friends, when you analyze something?

Does that extend to followers of other religions, like Scientology, Westboro Baptist Church, Mormons, etc., or are those religions not high enough on the progressive stack?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They're not "protective of Islam," but instead interested in objectivity and in not making hasty generalizations about people. How do you personally try to discount your own biases due to birth, nationality, and religion of family and friends, when you analyze something?

Does that extend to followers of other religions, like Scientology, Westboro Baptist Church, Mormons, etc., or are those religions not high enough on the progressive stack?

Hasty generalization is a fallacy so it applies whenever it is supposed to. Now could you answer the question?

 

[KeepTalking]

Why, as an atheist, are you protective of Christianity?

Cuz the dividing line isn’t Atheism/Religion, it’s European “enlightenment” civilization against the barbarian hordes. The “enemy of my enemies is my friend” and all that.

The foreign hordes, and you too if you're a leftwing traitor willing to "surrender" America's greatness to the invaders, are a threat to his nation and way of life.

I'm not willing to "surrender" anything to Donald Trump, and I wholeheartedly agree that Trump and the fascists who support him are a threat our nation and way of life, but I fail to see what this has to do with protecting any religion.

 

[Trausti]

Does that extend to followers of other religions, like Scientology, Westboro Baptist Church, Mormons, etc., or are those religions not high enough on the progressive stack?

Hasty generalization is a fallacy so it applies whenever it is supposed to. Now could you answer the question?

By acknowledging the commonality of events, even if I don't like the conclusion. We should all be doing that.

Brussels’ Africans have no patience for narrative that discrimination spawned jihadists

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/matthew-fisher-brussels-africans-have-no-patience-for-narrative-that-discrimination-spawned-jihadists

So Islam.