# Sikhs killed in shooting at Temple in Wisconson



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19143281

"This is something we have been fearing since 9/11, that this kind of incident will take place," said Rajwant Singh, chairman of the Washington-based Sikh Council on Religion and Education. 
"It was a matter of time because there's so much ignorance and people confuse us [as] being members of Taliban or belonging to [Osama] bin Laden," he told Associated Press.
"We never thought this could happen to our community," Devendar Nagra, 48, told Associated Press, "we never did anything wrong to anyone."


Deeply shocking that anyone could walk into a place of worship and just gun people down whatever their religion.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Deeply shocking that anyone could walk into a place of worship and just gun people down whatever their religion.



It truly is an obscene atrocity, but I don't find it shocking at all........it's what we've done all along, after all, in spite of what our religions tell us.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2012)

I refuse not to be shocked by things like this, the day we start thinking it's normal will be a very sad day indeed.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 6, 2012)

Terribly tragic, yet not surprising.  We already know "why" and we already know "how".  The biggest shame of all is how this kind of thing has and will continue to find a certain degree of acceptability in our society.

My thoughts and prayers to the shooting victims (including the police officer) and all of their families.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 6, 2012)

There is a somewhat large Sikh community here. As a group, the friendliest people I've met.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2012)

Sikhs here have been part of our community since the early 19th century, they have served bravely in all our wars and contribute a huge amount to our country. So very sad for them.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I refuse not to be shocked by things like this, the day we start thinking it's normal will be a very sad day indeed.



Too bad. Whether it's the genocide of Mohawk children, perpetrated by the Anglican church with the support of the Vatican, in the name of the Queen of England, or the massacre of Palestinian Muslims praying at the Cave of the Patriarchs, perpetrated by an extremist Israeli, or the slaughter of the Albignesian crusade, 1209-1255, when Arnaud-Amaury, asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, answered: "_Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius_" &#8211; "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his"-creating an all-American catchphrase that predated "TAPOUT" for T-shirt asshattery, human beings have been killing the each other in mass-quantities over religion, or perception of religion since.....well, almost since we've been on the planet-basically since "religion" moved away from being personal, and became a poltical force for the control of individuals and society. 

Nope. Perfectly normal, 'cause us humans are pretty much perfectly ****ed up.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 6, 2012)

Sikhs have been mis-identified as Muslims by racist knuckleheads since 9/11.  The first person murdered by someone seeking revenge was an Arizonan Sikh gas station owner, mistaken for a Muslim by the aircraft mechanic who shot him five times.

It is extremely unfortunate that people hate others based on their religion.  But the long-running 'all Muslims is bad' rhetoric has had an effect on borderline personalities.  And since these morons are in fact morons in addition to being murderous, they see a turban and make an assumption about the person wearing it.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sikhs have been mis-identified as Muslims by racist knuckleheads since 9/11. The first person murdered by someone seeking revenge was an Arizonan Sikh gas station owner, mistaken for a Muslim by the aircraft mechanic who shot him five times.
> 
> It is extremely unfortunate that people hate others based on their religion. But the long-running 'all Muslims is bad' rhetoric has had an effect on borderline personalities. And since these morons are in fact morons in addition to being murderous, they see a turban and make an assumption about the person wearing it.



Oh, yes, and Bill is quite correct in pointing out the susceptibility and downright idiocy of the species, _Americanus redneckus boogereatin' greentoothed moronicus_, but they've never really needed much of an "excuse" to kill someone. I say "excuse,"  because there usually isn't anythin _reasonable_ about it, nor, however, is it in anyway "excusable." 

"Motivation" perhaps? They need little in the way of motivation to lay waste to their fellow human beings. Sad.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 6, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Nope. Perfectly normal, 'cause us humans are pretty much perfectly ****ed up.


That is a big ol statement!


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Too bad. Whether it's the genocide of Mohawk children, perpetrated by the Anglican church with the support of the Vatican, in the name of the Queen of England, or the massacre of Palestinian Muslims praying at the Cave of the Patriarchs, perpetrated by an extremist Israeli, or the slaughter of the Albignesian crusade, 1209-1255, when Arnaud-Amaury, asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, answered: "_Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius_" &#8211; "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his"-creating an all-American catchphrase that predated "TAPOUT" for T-shirt asshattery, human beings have been killing the each other in mass-quantities over religion, or perception of religion since.....well, almost since we've been on the planet-basically since "religion" moved away from being personal, and became a poltical force for the control of individuals and society.
> 
> Nope. Perfectly normal, 'cause us humans are pretty much perfectly ****ed up.



Actually massacres due to religion institutions are rare, the murder of American Natives has always been down to wanting the land they 'own', the Cathars weren't just murdered because of their religion but more that their free thinking threatening the status quo that and the land they held. What causes wars is the lust for power, land and wealth, religion may be the guise that wars are perpetrated but the real reasons are human nature indeed but not religious fervour.  
Individuals however often feel the need to kill because of their religious feeling.


----------



## granfire (Aug 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Actually massacres due to religion institutions are rare, the murder of American Natives has always been down to wanting the land they 'own', the Cathars weren't just murdered because of their religion but more that their free thinking threatening the status quo that and the land they held. What causes wars is the lust for power, land and wealth, religion may be the guise that wars are perpetrated but the real reasons are human nature indeed but not religious fervour.
> Individuals however often feel the need to kill because of their religious feeling.



Ongoing problem.
some believe the bad Muslims (many if not most stem from Saudi, an 'Allie' of ours) are encouraged to seek enemies outside their country an eventually faith by repressive regimes in order to give the pinned up dissatisfaction an outlet: the Mufti points fingers, the unhappy, angry people blow themselves up, peace and faith is safe...and of course the power. 

And in turn it works the same way...make a villain out of dark faced people with turbans, the odd Sikh here and there is collateral damage. Money keep rolling into the right pockets because we need to be protected, jobs are safe, influence continues.


We have always had reason to kill, religious fervor makes it easy and clean to do so. After all, what can be better than doing it in the name of G-d?
And in most cases, when you have no identifying marks on 'them' you need something to distinguish your target group....


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2012)

Much easier to kill people who's land/wealth you want or because you want the power, if they are 'heathens' ie don't believe the same as you do, much easier to kill people who aren't 'you'. Religion puts the gloss of respectability on behaviour that would otherwise be seen for what it is, despicable. 

then there's those who just enjoying killing....

I will always be shocked at incidents like this, I will never accept that we should believe this is how we have to be.


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

And killing to create the perfect society as per Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba...without the need for religious motivation...

And of course you have the killings on 9/11, the killings in Mumbai India and the killings at Fort Hood and the recent theater shooting.


----------



## granfire (Aug 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Much easier to kill people who's land/wealth you want or because you want the power, if they are 'heathens' ie don't believe the same as you do, much easier to kill people who aren't 'you'. Religion puts the gloss of respectability on behaviour that would otherwise be seen for what it is, despicable.
> 
> then there's those who just enjoying killing....
> 
> I will always be shocked at incidents like this, I will never accept that we should believe this is how we have to be.




I am not shocked.

I look at it and try to analyse the mechanisms at work. Not like I could change them, because they have ruled mankind since they discovered that smashing two rocks together creates a wonderful weapon to easier bash a skull in. 

i can easily put myself in a lot of situations and view things from a different perspective. but some things I just have to scratch my head and wonder wtf was he/she thinking.

hate is one of those things, especially grounded in prejudice: Give people time and they will give you real reasons to dislike them, other than religion and skin color.
but to me, lazy as I am, even strong dislike takes too much effort. It seems liking people is more beneficial for my energy balance....


(and then of course there is billie, not realizing that the very nonsense he chooses to spread is the very fuel for such senseless killings. his very own 'bad old Muslim' propaganda is at the root of this latest shooting)


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

What nonsense would that be granfire?  And technically, we don't know "why" although it might be easy to assume mistaken Identity and a desire to target muslims, however, the criminal may have been in "psychological operations," before he may have been kicked out of the military so you would think he might know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims.  Also, he wasn't from the area, why did he move there to do his attack?  He may have been from the Chicago land area.  Things that will be interesting to find out. 

Also, it is good that the murderer was killed at the scene by the police.


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

So far...



> CBS News reports that Page enlisted in the Army in April 1992 and was given a less-than-honorable discharge in October 1998. He was last stationed in Fort Bragg, N.C., serving in the psychological operations unit.


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

On hate crimes in the U.S....

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/FBI-sees-leap-in-anti-Muslim-hate-crimes-9-11-2750152.php



> After African Americans, the most victimized groups included Jews (1,196 victims), gay men (1,152 victims), whites (1,065 victims) and persons of ethnic and national origins who are not white, black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander or Native American (1,822 victims).
> The report also showed that 68 percent of hate crimes were committed against people and 32 percent against property.
> 10 HATE-CRIME MURDERS
> Ten of the hate crime victims in 2001 were murdered, according to the report. Nine of the murders were motivated by racial or ethnic hate -- three victims were African American, two were Latino, one was categorized as Asian or Pacific Islander, and the other three were listed as "other." One murder was motivated by anti-gay bias, the report said.
> There were no slayings of Muslims reported. The report listed intimidation as the most common hate crime against Muslims last year, with 296 incidents. There also were 27 incidents of aggravated assault and 66 incidents of simple assault against Muslims, the report said.





> HATE CRIMES REPORTED TO THE FBI IN 2001 The FBI's annual account showed that reports of U.S. hate crimes increased 21 percent last year. . -- Hate crimes blamed on religious bias 2001 2000 Anti-Jewish 1,043 1,109 Anti-Muslim 481 28 Anti-Catholic 38 56 Anti-Protestant 35 59 Other (x) 231 220 1,828 1,472



There is also this look at hate crimes in the U.S.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/27/99767/hate-crimes-against-muslims-rare.html



> WASHINGTON &#8212; Hate crimes directed against Muslims remain relatively rare, notwithstanding the notoriety gained by incidents such as recent vandalism at the Madera Islamic Center.
> Jews, lesbians, gay men and Caucasians, among others, are all more frequently the target of hate crimes, FBI records show. Reported anti-Muslim crimes have declined over recent years, though they still exceed what occurred prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
> "We see hate crimes generally go in spurts, and are often in relation to international or domestic events," Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Friday.
> In 2008, 105 hate crime "incidents" against Muslims were reported nationwide. There were 10 times more incidents recorded as anti-Jewish during the same year, the most recent for which figures are available.
> ...


press conference on the killings is about to start...


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 6, 2012)

billcihak said:


> And killing to create the perfect society as per Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba...without the need for religious motivation...
> 
> And of course you have the killings on 9/11, the killings in Mumbai India and the killings at Fort Hood and the recent theater shooting.



Conspicuously absent from those regimes is the old Confederacy whose legacy lives on through this very day (just spend a day here in Georgia and observe all manner of celebration through license plates, flags, bumper stickers, etc.).  It's being reported that this particular terrorist espoused supremacist views consistent with the Confederacy that many still feel the need to celebrate today.

Again ... no surprise that when people "celebrate" the right to hate, eventually someone is going to act on it.


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

Huh?  And the supporters of the other ideologies march openly in movements here in the U.S. including OWS and rallies for democrats.


----------



## Steve (Aug 6, 2012)

This morning, last I heard, they hadn't determined motive.  Are you guys sure it was as clear cut as this guy thought they were muslim?


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

That is what I am wondering, especially with his job in the military.  Not saying it isn't possible he targeted them because he thought they were muslims, but his military experience might argue against it, though not strongly, since he could have just been handling supply requests in the Psy ops job...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 6, 2012)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...scene-civil-rights-watchdog-article-1.1129814


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2012)

Steve said:


> This morning, last I heard, they hadn't determined motive. Are you guys sure it was as clear cut as this guy thought they were muslim?



I don't think it's known or clear cut in this case however what is true is that the Sikhs have been fearing attacks from people mistaking them for Moslems.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 6, 2012)

So what if the guy was "mistaken".  So what if he confused Sikhs for Muslims.  He was a white supremacist intent on killing.  Whether he was confused as to which non-white people to kill is irrelevant.


----------



## granfire (Aug 6, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> So what if the guy was "mistaken".  So what if he confused Sikhs for Muslims.  He was a white supremacist intent on killing.  Whether he was confused as to which non-white people to kill is irrelevant.



well, it's not relevant for the victims, for sure, but it really points out that if you are that ignorant or stupid, you should not play vigilante.

but seriously, we have in the last decade cultivated a climate of non acceptance toward Islam and in extension of that toward Middle Eastern looking people. 

And considering the sheer numbers of people who do not know that Canada shares a border with the US or that New Mexico is not a separate country, let alone where all the countries are that house those evil Muslims....

maybe having an IQ test administered when buying a gun would help...you have to be at least as smart as Ernest T. Bass...


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

What climate of non acceptance of Americans who practice Islam?


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 6, 2012)

billcihak said:


> What climate of non acceptance of Americans who practice Islam?



Well it goes back decades, but if one tends to ignore it then it doesn't matter.  Suffice it to say that, within the last several months, former presidential candidate Herman Cain is on record as saying he would not hire a Muslim into his administration.  A man who received sizeable support from a major political party is on record with that kind of anti-Muslim bigotry.  What more does one need to see that there is a climate of non-acceptance of Muslim Americans?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 6, 2012)

Here is the BBC's report on this - I don't think it adds any pertinent details that BillM's link didn't cover already to be honest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19151869


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 6, 2012)

billcihak said:


> What climate of non acceptance of Americans who practice Islam?




Just off the top of my head without looking up anything, A Sihk killed because it was thought he was Muslim, flack about Muslim opening a mosque in NYC,  Muslims in TN(?) having to go through court system to worship in a mosque already built and approved by the city they built in, a presidential canidate saying Muslims need not apply to his administration, profiling Middle Eastern people because they might be Muslim, Obama called Muslim as a negative attack, and now more Sihks killed by a white supremecist thought they were Muslim.  Okay the last one is not proved, but seriously, you can honestly say there isn'y a current climate against Muslims in this country?


----------



## granfire (Aug 6, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Just off the top of my head without looking up anything, A Sihk killed because it was thought he was Muslim, flack about Muslim opening a mosque in NYC,  Muslims in TN(?) having to go through court system to worship in a mosque already built and approved by the city they built in, a presidential canidate saying Muslims need not apply to his administration, profiling Middle Eastern people because they might be Muslim, Obama called Muslim as a negative attack, and now more Sihks killed by a white supremecist thought they were Muslim.  Okay the last one is not proved, but seriously, you can honestly say there isn'y a current climate against Muslims in this country?



Well, it's billie...not to mention that he has himself linked to many anti Islam articles in the past couple of years....maybe he does not actually read what he links when he does not see it...

But yeah, the almost violent opposition to the 'Ground Zero Mosque' In NYC ('they can see the crater' which is stupid because there are two blocks of 13 and 14 story buildings in the way) and the nasty opposition to the Mosque planned in Murfreesboro, Tn....and that is only the most visible one, out of many.


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

One Sikh killed over 12 years ago, the candidate was forced to back track from that statement, the mosque, which everyone agreed had a right to be built but was pointed out what bad taste that would have been, and it is still going forward, isn't it, just trying to get someone to pay for it, obama who used his muslim background as a plus for having the U.S. more "respected" in the world and was elected president even with his muslim backgroune ( no I don't think he himself is a muslim, I think he isn't religious at all ) and if this guy did target these Sikhs because he thought they were muslims, once again, close to 13 years after 19 muslims murdered over 3000 U.S. and foriegn citizens, and after a "soldier of Jihad," major Hassan murdered close to 13 people and injured many more at fort hood  and only one attack of this nature, compared to the riots and murder in the Muslim countries at the thought the Koran was disrepected in our prison holding Radical Muslim Extremist, terrorist killers.  Do you mean the country where school football teams will adjust their training schedules to practice after midnight so their "muslim" players can respect Ramadan. 
    Where known terrorist affiliated and sympathizing groups have been welcomed into the White House, even during the Bush Administration?   The Fort Hood shooting, where a Muslim, who had contacted radical muslim terrorists, gave a presentation to medical doctors on the validity of Jihad and the beheading of non-believers whose attack on innocent men, women and children as an act of Jihad, was defined as workplace violence.  Where the first thoughts by the administration were about tolerance toward Muslim Americans and the militaries first response was to admonish people not to jump to conclusions about the Jihadi sympathies of the attacker?  Do you mean that country and those acts of tolerance. 

Do you mean the disrespect shown to the radical muslim extremist killers where they recieve advanced medical care, three great, nutritional meals, where they recieve U.S. provided copies of the Koran, and are allowed to prey to Mecca 5 times a day?  That disrespect?   Do you mean in comparison to how muslims rioted when cartoons of Mohammed were put into a newspaper, and deaths were caused over it?  

Compared to the tolerance anywhere in the Muslim controlled world toward Sikhs, christians, Jews, Bhudists or any other religion?  Where in Muslim countries you can't even bring bibles into their countries while here in the U.S. you have thriving populations of practising Muslims,  two such communities near where I live who go day to day unmolested by anyone?  

Anyone in their worst dreams can in no way describe the United States as a dangerous or intolerant country for Muslims, citizens or not.  The evidence just isn't there.  Muslims are safer and allowed to peacefully practice their religion, as are all the other religions, including Satanists, than just about anywhere else in the world, and are safer here in the U.S. than they are in Muslim dominated countries.  So again, please tell me about the "culture" of intolerance toward Islam here in the U.S.  because that is truly a myth.

Please explain the "almost" violent opposition to the ground zero mosque because...there wasn't any violence at all.  People responded peacefully as to why they thought building a mosque so near ground zero was disrespectful on the part of the builder, and at the same time acknowledged not only his right but his ability to build it if he insisted on being rude to the families of the victims.  Once again not "almost" violent, but completely unviolent.  Murfrees boro, once again, no violence and one out of 300 million people in the country, I have a mosque and an Islamic school near where I live, there are dozens of mosques in the area of ground zero already so once again, where is the "culture" of intolerance?

How many catholic churches are there in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and how safe are practitioners of any religion other than Islam in muslim countries?


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 6, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, it's not relevant for the victims, for sure, but it really points out that if you are that ignorant or stupid, you should not play vigilante.



Being ignorant or stupid is pretty much a requirement for playing vigilante.


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

Here you go...

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18663.xml



> *New Study on Hate Crimes Debunks the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization*
> 
> _Center for Security Policy | Mar 09, 2011_
> By Clare M. Lopez, Christine Brim, Roland Peer
> [





> The Center for Security Policy today released a revised edition of their groundbreaking longitudinal study, _*Religious Bias Crimes 2000-2009: Muslim, Jewish and Christian Victims -  Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization*,_ based on FBI statistics reported annually in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The Center's study contradicts the assertions that religious bias crimes against Muslims have increased, and that the alleged cause is widespread &#8220;Islamophobia&#8221; in America.  In fact, the study shows that religious bias crimes - also known as hate crimes - against Muslim Americans, measured by the categories of incidents, offenses or victims, have remained relatively low with a downward trend since 2001, and are significantly less than the numbers of bias crimes against Jewish victims.
> The Center's study also contradicts the assumption of increased hate crimes against Muslims which has been asserted by Senator Richard Durbin's (D-IL) Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, and is the topic of hearings being held today.  Printed copies of the study were delivered to each member of the U.S. Senate early this morning.
> According to the Center's analysis, in 2009, Jewish victims of hate crimes outnumbered Muslim victims by more than 8 to 1 (1,132 Jewish victims to 132 Muslim victims). From 2000 through 2009, for every one hate crime incident against a Muslim, there were six hate crime incidents against Jewish victims (1,580 Muslim incidents versus 9,692 Jewish incidents).  Even in 2001 when religious bias crimes against Muslims increased briefly for a nine-week period, total anti-Muslim incidents, offenses and victims remained approximately half of the corresponding anti-Jewish totals.



And more on the myth of intolerance toward Muslims...

http://www.danielpipes.org/358/are-muslim-americans-victimized



> According to one member of the CAIR board, "Islamophobia," or the fear and hatred of Islam, is "at epidemic levels."
> Is this true?
> Ironically, evidence largely provided by the Musli*m organizations themselves suggests a very different picture of Muslim-American life.
> In socioeconomic terms, certainly, Muslims can find little fault with America. They boast among the highest rates of education of any group in the country&#8212;a whopping 52 percent appear to hold graduate degrees&#8212;and this translates into a pattern of prestigious and remunerative employment. Immigrant Muslims tend to concentrate in the professions (especially medicine and engineering) or in entrepreneurship, and their income appears to be higher than the U.S. national average; this year, median household income was said to be $69,000. Muslim magazines are replete with advertisements for luxurious mansions, stately cars, and fine jewelry, and more than a few Muslims have lived out the classic immigrant success story of rags to riches.
> ...





> _Holidays_. The Islamic festivals present two challenges. Based as they are on a lunar calendar, they move forward each (solar) year by about ten days, making it impossible to schedule a regular annual time for them. And while there are only a few main holidays, one of them, Ramadan, lasts a month, during which pious Muslims fast during the day and party at night.
> These customs are not easily compatible with American work habits. And yet several corporations permit their Muslim staff to work a shortened day during Ramadan, and some also allow Muslim employees to take off the several weeks or even months required to make the full-scale pilgrimage to Mecca. Employers have proved somewhat less willing to give time off during the two Eids&#8212;the other ma*jor holidays in addition to Ramadan&#8212;but a number have acquiesced here, too. Several school districts, including New York City's, permit Muslim students to be absent on five Islamic holidays (New York also suspends its alternate-side-of-the-street parking rules); Paterson, New Jersey actually closes its schools for the Eids.
> _Prayers_. Muslims are required to pray at five designated (but changing) times throughout the day. Although it is permissible to make up for one's devotions at a later hour, many Muslims insist on praying exactly on schedule. At the office or at school, this involves being excused for a period of time and finding a suitable venue. Considering that there are millions of Muslim Americans, remarkably few problems have arisen in this connection, and many of those involve factories where it is difficult to let employees be absent at times of their choosing.
> Muslim plaintiffs have won substantial settlements against employers for prayer-related disputes. In Lincolnshire, Illinois, Mohammad Abdullah was fired for leaving his job at about noon on Fridays for prayer, even though he regularly arrived early to work or stayed late to compensate. After taking his case to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he won a $49,000 settlement. In Jacksonville, Florida, Fareed Ansari won $105,216 from Ray's Plumbing Contractors, his former employer, on similar grounds.





> Thus, public figures who issue statements perceived as inimical to Islam are usually induced to make amends right away, sometimes under pressure from non-Muslims as well as Muslims. This can go to extreme lengths: when, earlier this year, Republican Congressman James Rogan refused to meet with one Muslim leader, Salam Al-Marayati, on the altogether correct grounds that Al-Marayati "seem[ed] to be an apologist for Muslim terrorists," Jewish and Christian organizations rushed to Al-Marayati's defense and were instrumental in prompting Rogan to express his regrets.
> The same readiness to recant obtains when the media offend Muslims or commit factual errors. Jay Leno of NBC's _Tonight_ retracted a seemingly inoffensive comedy sketch about an imaginary amusement park in Iran and promised to be "more diligent in the future." Martin Goldsmith, host of National Public Radio's _Performance Today_, offered "sincere apologies" for having related a legend about the sexual powers of the prophet Mu*hammad, and thanked his listeners for making their concerns known. Paul Harvey, possibly the most listened-to radio broadcaster in America, called Islam a religion" but quickly retracted this "unintentional slur" and apologized on air for having "understandably offended" Muslims.





So, please tell how this is an intolerant country...


----------



## elder999 (Aug 6, 2012)

Meanwhile, in other news:




> JOPLIN, Mo. (AP)  Investigators say it will take a few days to determine if the fire that destroyed a southwest Missouri mosque was arson.
> Michael Kaste, special agent in charge of the FBI's Kansas City office, said Monday that the agency is taking the investigation into the fire at the Islamic Society of Joplin very seriously. He says the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms together have about 30 investigators working to determine the cause.
> No injuries were reported.
> Jasper County officials say patrols at the mosque had been stepped up since a July 4 fire at the mosque was determined to be arson. The FBI has released a video of a man appearing to set the July 4 fire and is offering a $15,000 reward in that case




And, repeated, _for *emphasis*_ (which always sounds like, "for you *lazy* readers who are clearly less intelligent than I am for not just swallowing the same swill as I....:lfao: ):



> *a July 4 fire at the mosque was determined to be arson.*



For added *emphasis*:



> *at the mosque*


----------



## granfire (Aug 6, 2012)

CoryKS said:


> Being ignorant or stupid is pretty much a requirement for playing vigilante.



lol, you do have a point there.


----------



## granfire (Aug 6, 2012)

billcihak said:


> One Sikh killed over 12 years ago, the candidate was forced to back track from that statement, the mosque, which everyone agreed had a right to be built but was pointed out what bad taste that would have been, and it is still going forward, isn't it, just trying to get someone to pay for it, obama who used his muslim background as a plus for having the U.S. more "respected" in the world and was elected president even with his muslim backgroune ( no I don't think he himself is a muslim, I think he isn't religious at all ) and if this guy did target these Sikhs because he thought they were muslims, once again, close to 13 years after 19 muslims murdered over 3000 U.S. and foriegn citizens, and after a "soldier of Jihad," major Hassan murdered close to 13 people and injured many more at fort hood  and only one attack of this nature, compared to the riots and murder in the Muslim countries at the thought the Koran was disrepected in our prison holding Radical Muslim Extremist, terrorist killers.  Do you mean the country where school football teams will adjust their training schedules to practice after midnight so their "muslim" players can respect Ramadan.
> Where known terrorist affiliated and sympathizing groups have been welcomed into the White House, even during the Bush Administration?   The Fort Hood shooting, where a Muslim, who had contacted radical muslim terrorists, gave a presentation to medical doctors on the validity of Jihad and the beheading of non-believers whose attack on innocent men, women and children as an act of Jihad, was defined as workplace violence.  Where the first thoughts by the administration were about tolerance toward Muslim Americans and the militaries first response was to admonish people not to jump to conclusions about the Jihadi sympathies of the attacker?  Do you mean that country and those acts of tolerance.
> 
> Do you mean the disrespect shown to the radical muslim extremist killers where they recieve advanced medical care, three great, nutritional meals, where they recieve U.S. provided copies of the Koran, and are allowed to prey to Mecca 5 times a day?  That disrespect?   Do you mean in comparison to how muslims rioted when cartoons of Mohammed were put into a newspaper, and deaths were caused over it?
> ...




Other countries are not our concern. Our neighbors are our concern. 
it should not matter if the dump around the corner is turned into a christian church or a Jewish Temple or a Muslim Mosque. 

But I do thank you, you do prove my point, down to the T


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 6, 2012)

billcihak said:


> One Sikh killed over 12 years ago, the candidate was forced to back track from that statement, the mosque, which everyone agreed had a right to be built but was pointed out what bad taste that would have been, and it is still going forward, isn't it, just trying to get someone to pay for it, obama who used his muslim background as a plus for having the U.S. more "respected" in the world and was elected president even with his muslim backgroune ( no I don't think he himself is a muslim, I think he isn't religious at all ) and if this guy did target these Sikhs because he thought they were muslims, once again, close to 13 years after 19 muslims murdered over 3000 U.S. and foriegn citizens, and after a "soldier of Jihad," major Hassan murdered close to 13 people and injured many more at fort hood  and only one attack of this nature, compared to the riots and murder in the Muslim countries at the thought the Koran was disrepected in our prison holding Radical Muslim Extremist, terrorist killers.  Do you mean the country where school football teams will adjust their training schedules to practice after midnight so their "muslim" players can respect Ramadan.
> Where known terrorist affiliated and sympathizing groups have been welcomed into the White House, even during the Bush Administration?   The Fort Hood shooting, where a Muslim, who had contacted radical muslim terrorists, gave a presentation to medical doctors on the validity of Jihad and the beheading of non-believers whose attack on innocent men, women and children as an act of Jihad, was defined as workplace violence.  Where the first thoughts by the administration were about tolerance toward Muslim Americans and the militaries first response was to admonish people not to jump to conclusions about the Jihadi sympathies of the attacker?  Do you mean that country and those acts of tolerance.
> 
> Do you mean the disrespect shown to the radical muslim extremist killers where they recieve advanced medical care, three great, nutritional meals, where they recieve U.S. provided copies of the Koran, and are allowed to prey to Mecca 5 times a day?  That disrespect?   Do you mean in comparison to how muslims rioted when cartoons of Mohammed were put into a newspaper, and deaths were caused over it?
> ...



So now we hold ourselves to the same standard that other countries hold themselves to?  So now its okay to persecute minorities because other countries do it?  I guess it is okay to limit other religions here now, huh?  I really don't know how many times this can be said without it sinking in, just because someone else does it, doesn't mean we should do it.  You should have learned this as a child.  We are supposed to hold ourselves to a standard here.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 6, 2012)

> And more on the myth of intolerance toward Muslims...



Suffice it to say that those particular Americans who reduce their ethnic/racial hatred to violence will have their silent supporters.  Those silent supporters--the people who make excuse after excuse for this kind of ethnic/racial violence--are nothing more than enablers.  

Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## blindsage (Aug 6, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Here you go...
> 
> http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18663.xml
> 
> ...


So your "proof" is a conservative think tank that was militantly against the Ground Zero Mosque, and a scholar that is very well known for his biased views against Muslims?  Your biased use of biased resources to "prove" you point just supports the point others have made about your views and posts.

Now for opposing evidence:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125312/religious-prejudice-stronger-against-muslims.aspx



> More than 4 in 10 Americans (43%) admit to feeling at least "a little" prejudice toward Muslims -- more than twice the number who say the same about Christians (18%), Jews (15%) and Buddhists (14%). The findings are based on a new Gallup Center for Muslim Studies report, "Religious Perceptions in America: With an In-Depth Analysis of U.S. Attitudes Toward Muslims and Islam," released Thursday.





> In a separate question asking Americans to express their overall view about each of the four religions evaluated, Islam is the most negatively viewed. Nearly one-third of Americans (31%) say their opinion of Islam is "not favorable at all" versus 9% who say their opinion is "very favorable." This stands in contrast to Americans' views of Christianity and Judaism, which are far more likely to be "very favorable" than "not favorable at all," while Buddhism draws almost equally positive and negative opinions at the extremes. Gallup conducted the nationwide U.S. survey between Oct. 31 and Nov. 13, 2009, spanning the Fort Hood shooting in which a U.S.-born Muslim military doctor killed 13 people on the Army base on Nov. 5.



http://www.people-press.org/2009/09/09/muslims-widely-seen-as-facing-discrimination/

http://www.aclu.org/protecting-religious-freedom-muslims


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

Arson, sure, someone set the fire, but who?  Remember the fires in the Black churches in the 90's...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011...he_great_church_fire_propaganda_campaign.html



> Fifteen summers ago, America's news media informed us that black churches throughout the South were being torched by white racists.  The purported wave of arsons dominated the airwaves and generated thousands of newspaper articles.  Pundits, politicians and preachers decried the terrorism and the hate it represented.
> In fact, it never happened.
> Here is the little-known story of how an obscure radical group teamed up with a leftist national church organization, an unprincipled President and a legion of compliant news outlets to create a media firestorm -- one based entirely on lies.





> *Conclusions*
> Before the propaganda campaign, the number of racially motivated church arsons in the South, a region with a population of over 90 million, was probably less than 10 per year.  By comparison, more than 620 buildings were burned and more than 50 people were killed in Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King riots.  Afterwards, many on the political left avoided placing any blame on the rioters.  The Rev. Jesse Jackson went so far as to suggest that America "must invest in hope, or pay the price of despair."  In contrast, the supposed church arson outbreak was condemned without qualifications or excuses across the political spectrum.
> Viewed fifteen years later, the church fires campaign was a great success for its leftist creators.  The CDR and NCC raked in huge financial rewards, effectively slandered white Southerners and conservatives, and duped the media into repeating their "white supremacist" fantasies.  President Clinton benefitted as well.
> And their disinformation is largely remembered today as if it was a real event.




If it was a crime against muslims I hope they catch the guy, if it was arson for insurance, I hope they catch them as well.



> So now its okay to persecute minorities because other countries do it?



Why yes, that is exactly what I said, of course we should persecute minorities, and everyone else but especially vegetarians, and circus clowns, they aren't persecuted nearly enough.  Why is it that when we show that America is definitely not the hot bed of hate that fuels the dreams of some people in this country we are accused of condoning hate not only in other countries but wanting that same hate here.  The obvious point being that America is a great country to live in if you are a Muslim and want to be left alone in peace.  You can't find a better country for religious tolerance, and I am proud of that fact and am defending that fact.   The need to paint America as something that it isn't is always strange.  Does it come from deep seated feelings of guilt on the part of some here on the study, or just not realizing the truth of what this country actually is as opposed to how you think it is.


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

Yeah, you'll accuse me of excusing violence when I show that violence against Jewish people is much worse than against Muslims in this country and it doesn't get half the attention...

http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/ny_synagogue_plot_arrests.htm



> Four New York residents have been convicted of plotting to attack two synagogues in the Bronx and to shoot down planes at a military base inNewburgh, New York.
> 
> American citizens James Cromitie (aka Abdul Rahman), David Williams (aka Daoud and DL) and Onta Williams (aka Hamza) and Haitian native Laguerre Payen (aka Amin and Almondo) were convicted of planting what they believed to be bombs in cars outside of the Riverdale Temple and the nearby Riverdale Jewish Center. They also plotted to destroy military aircraft at the New York Air National Guard Base located at Stewart Airportin Newburgh, New York.
> 
> All four of the men, who were fueled by their hatred of America and the Jews, were arrested on May 20, 2009, immediately after planting the inert explosives and charged in an eight-count indictment for conspiring and attempting to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States, conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles, and conspiracy and attempt to kill U.S. officers and employees.  "These were people who were eager to bring death to Jews," Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Snyder said at a court hearing the day after the arrests.  "These are extremely violent men."



Violence against anyone for any reason other than self-defense is wrong, and the thing is, it is never condoned or allowed to go unpunished.  Remember, a police officer died defending the people in that temple, the rest of the police waded in to help, the paramedics treated the Sikhs without regard for what their religion was.  

For Emphasis...

America is a great country and if you like freedom of religion, it is a hard place to beat to practice your religion in peace.  Any incidents of intolerance are random and are pursued.  They are not condoned by the majority of the population or the government, which cannot be said for any muslim controlled country or many other countries that are secular in nature. So let's be real about the United States.

And to this sillyness...


> In a separate question asking Americans to express their overall view about each of the four religions evaluated, Islam is the most negatively viewed. Nearly one-third of Americans (31%) say their opinion of Islam is "not favorable at all" versus 9% who say their opinion is "very favorable." This stands in contrast to Americans' views of Christianity and Judaism, which are far more likely to be "very favorable" than "not favorable at all," while Buddhism draws almost equally positive and negative opinions at the extremes. Gallup conducted the nationwide U.S. survey between Oct. 31 and Nov. 13, 2009, spanning the Fort Hood shooting in which a U.S.-born Muslim military doctor killed 13 people on the Army base on Nov. 5.




Considering how the people of muslim nations behaved when 9/11 happened, and when the cartoons of Mohammed were published, or when theo van goh made his movie about the abuse of muslim women, I would say that the response of your average American was exemplary.  No riots or mass protests against muslims occurred after any of those events, considering 3000 citizens and them more at fort hood were killed.  I am proud that the people of my country did not overreact, as they do overseas to the slightest provocation, and that we have not done what others have done under lesser circumstances.

Hmmm...how about some polling of the muslim community here in the states about their feelings for Jews and Christians or about Israel....I'm sure those results would be far more interesting...and yet, we all get along together without the level of violence seen in the rest of the world.  This is a great country...


----------



## elder999 (Aug 6, 2012)

Well, since the gunman has been called a white supremacist by law enforcement, it may be that he wasn't out to shoot what he thought were Muslims-he may have just been out to kill some brown people.

Which seems soooo much better. somehow....


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2012)

As to church burnings, it happens to all races and religions...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-10-church-fires-texas_N.htm



> 10 Texas church fires under investigation



 Notice the date...





> Updated 2/11/2010 12:37 PM





> "It doesn't have to be a hate crime," Crowley said, noting that a variety of denominations and non-denominational churches were targets. Most, but not all, have predominantly white congregations.​



Just for perspective...


----------



## granfire (Aug 6, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Well, since the gunman has been called a white supremacist by law enforcement, it may be that he wasn't out to shoot what he thought were Muslims-he may have just been out to kill some brown people.
> 
> Which seems soooo much better. somehow....



Makes it alright, don't you think....

</sarcasm>


----------



## elder999 (Aug 7, 2012)

View attachment $292956_212296258898844_848293710_n.jpg


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 7, 2012)

I say we treat these white supremacists/terrorists like an American version of Al Qaeda.  Hunt them down and either kill them or lock them up in prisons here in the Deep South.  And then proceed to integrate the prisons.


----------



## granfire (Aug 7, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> I say we treat these white supremacists/terrorists like an American version of Al Qaeda.  Hunt them down and either kill them or lock them up in prisons here in the Deep South.  And then proceed to integrate the prisons.



Well, the first part was pretty sensical, the rest was just silly....


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 7, 2012)

granfire said:


> Well, the first part was pretty sensical, the rest was just silly....


Which part is silly?  The part about hunting them down and killing them or the part about locking them up in integrated prison populations?

Our leaders are consistently talking about capturing/killing Al Qaeda.  If we are to treat these aryan-type terrorists the same as we would Al Qaeda, then the seek-and-destroy goal is pretty consistent.  No?

OK, maybe the integrated prisons part is a but much.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 7, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> OK, maybe the integrated prisons part is a but much.



If only because prisons are pretty much integrated, and there's a lot more of us "mud people" than there are white guys......


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 7, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Which part is silly?  The part about hunting them down and killing them or the part about locking them up in integrated prison populations?
> 
> Our leaders are consistently talking about capturing/killing Al Qaeda.  If we are to treat these aryan-type terrorists the same as we would Al Qaeda, then the seek-and-destroy goal is pretty consistent.  No?
> 
> OK, maybe the integrated prisons part is a but much.



Because they are US Citizens and are protected by the Constitution Al Qaeda is not.  We are free in this country to hate anyone for any reason.


----------



## granfire (Aug 7, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Because they are US Citizens and are protected by the Constitution Al Qaeda is not.  We are free in this country to hate anyone for any reason.



well, they are terrorists, as such subject to prosecution.

Alas, prison populations, how they are made up...they are pretty much integrated, and as such a fertile breeding ground for gangs and extremism....a moderate goes in a fanatic comes out.

And while we can hate anybody for any reason - or no reason, just because, our rights stop where the well being of the other person is concerned...inflicting lead poisoning on them is pretty much well past our rights to strongly dislike them.....


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 7, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, they are terrorists, as such subject to prosecution.
> 
> Alas, prison populations, how they are made up...they are pretty much integrated, and as such a fertile breeding ground for gangs and extremism....a moderate goes in a fanatic comes out.
> 
> And while we can hate anybody for any reason - or no reason, just because, our rights stop where the well being of the other person is concerned...inflicting lead poisoning on them is pretty much well past our rights to strongly dislike them.....



Who's a terrorist some one that's just a white supremest?  That's protected free speech.  If they commit a crime then I agree but until then your free to hate anyone you want.  You can't force tolerance by law people don't work that way.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 7, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Considering how the people of muslim nations behaved when 9/11 happened, and when the cartoons of Mohammed were published, or when theo van goh made his movie about the abuse of muslim women, I would say that the response of your average American was exemplary.  No riots or mass protests against muslims occurred after any of those events, considering 3000 citizens and them more at fort hood were killed.  I am proud that the people of my country did not overreact, as they do overseas to the slightest provocation, and that we have not done what others have done under lesser circumstances.
> 
> Hmmm...how about some polling of the muslim community here in the states about their feelings for Jews and Christians or about Israel....I'm sure those results would be far more interesting...and yet, we all get along together without the level of violence seen in the rest of the world.  This is a great country...



Again, doesn't matter what other places do when it comes to right and wrong.  

Saw an interview with the son of the head of the Temple, then talked to a friend about his experiences since 911. He is brown skinned.  Granted its the experience of only two people, but it seems racism is alive and well in the States.  While most people are not racist, enough people are that it is still an issue.  Ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exsist will lead to a road that increases the likleyhood of these type of occurances.

Seems there is information out now that indicates the white supremecist that did this disgusting thing thought it would be a catalyst for other white supremecist to do the same thing.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 7, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Because they are US Citizens and are protected by the Constitution Al Qaeda is not.  We are free in this country to hate anyone for any reason.



Nah.  The white supremacist-turned-terrorist is as much an Enemy Combatant as the Muslim American radical-turned-terrorist.  Zero sympathy for either.  

The "freedom to hate" BS is little more than benign sympathy.  What's more it's moot.  We're talking about people whose violence is predicated on their hatred.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 7, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Who's a terrorist some one that's just a white supremest?  That's protected free speech.  If they commit a crime then I agree but until then your free to hate anyone you want.  You can't force tolerance by law people don't work that way.



There are plenty more terrorists who have yet to commit their first act of terrorism.  Be they white, Muslim, Black, Asian, Latino, whatever.  Can't be sympathetic to the white ones, while being ever-vigilant about the Muslim ones.  American history proves it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 7, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Nah.  The white supremacist-turned-terrorist is as much an Enemy Combatant as the Muslim American radical-turned-terrorist.  Zero sympathy for either.
> 
> The "freedom to hate" BS is little more than benign sympathy.  What's more it's moot.  We're talking about people whose violence is predicated on their hatred.



Has nothing to do with sympathy.  Its has everything to do with the constitution.  You are free to hate anyone you want until you commit a criminal act against that person or group.  Foreign terrorist captured in foreign lands are not subject to our constitution.  So I can hate y group of people I want as long as I don't commit a crime against them its fine.  So just like I'm free to hate whoever I want (Steelers fans) your free to hate who you want


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 7, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Has nothing to do with sympathy.  Its has everything to do with the constitution.  You are free to hate anyone you want until you commit a criminal act against that person or group.  Foreign terrorist captured in foreign lands are not subject to our constitution.  So I can hate y group of people I want as long as I don't commit a crime against them its fine.  So just like I'm free to hate whoever I want (Steelers fans) your free to hate who you want



Nice try, but white supremacists'--i.e., Wade Page--very beliefs include inevitable violence.  I'm unclear as to why this isn't evident to you.


----------



## granfire (Aug 7, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Who's a terrorist some one that's just a white supremest?  That's protected free speech.  If they commit a crime then I agree but until then your free to hate anyone you want.  You can't force tolerance by law people don't work that way.



well, anybody who seeks to strike terror and fear is, no?
or who seek to interfere with legal activities by using violent and illegal methods and intimidation.

Shooting up a place is certainly a step up from sending hate mail...

(BTW, I feel the same way about PETA and their chronies, like ALF and ELF..)


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 7, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Nice try, but white supremacists'--i.e., Wade Page--very beliefs include inevitable violence.  I'm unclear as to why this isn't evident to you.



And I'm unclear why you think its OK to round up American citizens because they might do something.  Regardless of race until they break the law they are free to believe and think what they want.  White or black supremacy groups an it or pro abortion people.  I'm more fearful of sovereign citizens movement because they activity target police but they still have the right to feel that way.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 7, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, anybody who seeks to strike terror and fear is, no?
> or who seek to interfere with legal activities by using violent and illegal methods and intimidation.
> 
> Shooting up a place is certainly a step up from sending hate mail...
> ...



And shooting is a crime sending mail may or may not be depending on what was sent once they cross the line do what you can to lock them up but not before.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 7, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Nice try, but white supremacists'--i.e., Wade Page--very beliefs include inevitable violence.  I'm unclear as to why this isn't evident to you.



Actually, they don't.  The White Supremacist movement is pretty big, and not all of it espouses violence to bring about change.  A lot of the movement certainly does believe in an inevitable "racial holy war", and prepares for it -- but they aren't necessarily planning to go out and cause it; they simply believe that it will happen.  Then you've got things like SHARPs -- Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice.  They're simply indiscriminately violent; they don't care about your race or ethnicity... they'll just fight!


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 7, 2012)

Ballen is right, you cannot arrest someone because you find thier beliefs distasteful.  I think these white supremecist bigots are ignorant morons who fear anything different than they are.  However, thier belief isn't illegal, no more than the last sentence in this post.  Niether is grounds for arrest.  Now the second an action is taken that steps on someone else's rights then I got no problem locking them up.  You can call an idiot an idiot, but you can't lock them up just for being an idiot.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 7, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Actually, they don't.  The White Supremacist movement is pretty big, and not all of it espouses violence to bring about change.  A lot of the movement certainly does believe in an inevitable "racial holy war", and prepares for it -- but they aren't necessarily planning to go out and cause it; they simply believe that it will happen.  Then you've got things like SHARPs -- Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice.  They're simply indiscriminately violent; they don't care about your race or ethnicity... they'll just fight!



Actually they do.  White supremacy--certainly in this country--was not and certainly could not be achieved _without_ violence.  White supremacy has always been and will always be a cause to be advanced; not some romantic notion or philosophical musing.

White supremacy today exists on a continuum.  It's tenets are the same today as they were when Nathan Bedford Forest conceived of the Klan; or when Natives were not fit to inhabit their own land or speak their own language; or any number of violent acts were carried out in support of that way of life over the past few centuries.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 7, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Ballen is right, you cannot arrest someone because you find thier beliefs distasteful.  I think these white supremecist bigots are ignorant morons who fear anything different than they are.  However, thier belief isn't illegal, no more than the last sentence in this post.  Niether is grounds for arrest.  Now the second an action is taken that steps on someone else's rights then I got no problem locking them up.  You can call an idiot an idiot, but you can't lock them up just for being an idiot.



So if "Mohammed" believes in terrorist attacks toward the U.S., and it's known that he does, but he hasn't actually committed a terrorist act then law enforcement should do what?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 7, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> So if "Mohammed" believes in terrorist attacks toward the U.S., and it's known that he does, but he hasn't actually committed a terrorist act then law enforcement should do what?




What they do: keep him under surveillance. Short of making threats, this is still the United States, and-while we may not like what people think or say, or even may feel threatened by it, people still have a right to think and say what they want to.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 7, 2012)

elder999 said:


> What they do: keep him under surveillance. Short of making threats, this is still the United States, and-while we may not like what people think or say, or even may feel threatened by it, people still have a right to think and say what they want to.



Now we're getting somewhere.  Yes, we monitor people who are potential terrorists.  We put them on no-fly lists.  We watch their money.  We watch their movements.  And before they get a chance to attack, we often foil their plot.  

So why aren't we doing that--to the same degree we would with Mohammed--with potential terrorists who are white (that's an open question, not necessarily directed to you elder999)?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 7, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, we monitor people who are potential terrorists. We put them on no-fly lists. We watch their money. We watch their movements. And before they get a chance to attack, we often foil their plot.
> 
> So why aren't we doing that--to the same degree we would with Mohammed--with potential terrorists who are white (that's an open question, not necessarily directed to you elder999)?




How do you know that we don't? We have in the past. On several ocassions, both the FBI and the BATF have penetrated white supremacist groups with informers and undercover agents, and those penetrations led to arrests and convictions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 7, 2012)

elder999 said:


> How do you know that we don't? We have in the past. On several ocassions, both the FBI and the BATF have penetrated white supremacist groups with informers and undercover agents, and those penetrations led to arrests and convictions.



Your correct we do keep watch on these groups as much as we do any other groups I've been to several classes on white gangs and sovereign citizens and militia groups.  They are not reported on as much because the news can't make a race issue out of it.  Its better news to report how a Muslim man was searched at an airport then.it is 20 white power gang members were arrested for selling meth and stockpile weapons charges.


----------



## blindsage (Aug 8, 2012)

billcihak said:


> And to this sillyness...
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how the people of muslim nations behaved when 9/11 happened, and when the cartoons of Mohammed were published, or when theo van goh made his movie about the abuse of muslim women, I would say that the response of your average American was exemplary. No riots or mass protests against muslims occurred after any of those events, considering 3000 citizens and them more at fort hood were killed. I am proud that the people of my country did not overreact, as they do overseas to the slightest provocation, and that we have not done what others have done under lesser circumstances.



Yup, we reacted real well.  We invaded a country that had absolutely nothing whatesoever to do with 9/11, and the majority supported it.  Nope no violent reaction there.  We routinely bomb and kill people that are not directly involved in any attacks on Americans, civilian or otherwise and the majority of Americans tacitly support it.  Nope, no violent reaction there.  Yeah, when you have the most powerful military in the history of the planet to do your violence for you then you don't feel a need to express it in your neighborhood or to lash out in the streets.  Don't worry, your taxes pay for your violence, you can just keep going to Starbucks and someone will kill somebody for you.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2012)

In World War 2 the nation of Japan bombed our naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  Germany then declared war on the United States and in reaction...we invaded Africa.  I know, memory is a short range thing for a lot of people, and 9/11 was a long time ago...a whole 11 years ago, but having low hanging fruit like saddam, with everyone believing he had weapons of mass destruction, and now everyone concerned about those same weapons and the fall of the Syrian government, and his continued violations of the ceasefire, and his strategic position next to Iran, a country that whole heartedly supports terrorism and the forces killing American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places around the world, yeah, he needed to be dealt with before people once again forgot the dangers of ignoring threats that led up to 9/11.  It's okay now, everyone can go back to sleep, nothing to worry about anymore, were all safe from bad guys...


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 8, 2012)

elder999 said:


> How do you know that we don't? We have in the past. On several ocassions, both the FBI and the BATF have penetrated white supremacist groups with informers and undercover agents, and those penetrations led to arrests and convictions.



True ... to an extent.  White supremacist groups have been infiltrated successfully over the past couple of decades.  Ballen is also right about cops popping these guys on meth and possession charges.  But here's my concern:

We still are not willing to see the aryan in the same light as the Jihadist.  Right now, the *most wanted terrorists*--according to the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center--*are all men with Arab/Muslim names*.  The only "domestic" terrorists that  seem to be worthy of placing on that list, are people who committed crimes twenty to thirty years ago, and mainly involving arson and property destruction.  Where are the aryans on these lists?  To be more specific, was Wade Page's name on that list?  If not, should it have been?

Buford Furrow--the aryan nation member who shot up a Los Angeles Jewish Community Center as well as shooting and killing a Filipino American postal employee--was an engineer employed by Northrop Grumman to work on the B-2 stealth bomber.  Now tell me honestly: in a post 9/11 day, if a Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah was also employed as an engineer working on fighter planes at Northrop or Lockheed, would their background checks have been the same?  Would Furrow have been monitored the same as Abdullah?  

There will be exponentially more Pages and Furrows committing their terrorist killings if we don't start seeing them in the same light as the jihadists.


----------



## granfire (Aug 8, 2012)

billcihak said:


> In World War 2 the nation of Japan bombed our naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  Germany then declared war on the United States and in reaction...we invaded Africa.  I know, memory is a short range thing for a lot of people, and 9/11 was a long time ago...a whole 11 years ago, but having low hanging fruit like saddam, with everyone believing he had weapons of mass destruction, and now everyone concerned about those same weapons and the fall of the Syrian government, and his continued violations of the ceasefire, and his strategic position next to Iran, a country that whole heartedly supports terrorism and the forces killing American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places around the world, yeah, he needed to be dealt with before people once again forgot the dangers of ignoring threats that led up to 9/11.  It's okay now, everyone can go back to sleep, nothing to worry about anymore, were all safe from bad guys...



Why don't you throw in the crusades for good measure?

WWII had nothing to do with terrorism, unless you count dropping atomic bombs on civilians and then not telling them what happened....


----------



## granfire (Aug 8, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> True ... to an extent.  White supremacist groups have been infiltrated successfully over the past couple of decades.  Ballen is also right about cops popping these guys on meth and possession charges.  But here's my concern:
> 
> We still are not willing to see the aryan in the same light as the Jihadist.  Right now, the *most wanted terrorists*--according to the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center--*are all men with Arab/Muslim names*.  The only "domestic" terrorists that  seem to be worthy of placing on that list, are people who committed crimes twenty to thirty years ago, and mainly involving arson and property destruction.  Where are the aryans on these lists?  To be more specific, was Wade Page's name on that list?  If not, should it have been?
> 
> ...



well, the week of Bin Laden's death, No. 3 was actually an ALF guy...white as the newly fallen snow...forgot the name....but I found it interesting. So yeah, domestic terrorism is alive and well (and it is really a joke putting people on the 10 most wanted list you won't ever encounter shopping at walmart...)


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 8, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, the week of Bin Laden's death, No. 3 was actually an ALF guy...white as the newly fallen snow...forgot the name....but I found it interesting. So yeah, domestic terrorism is alive and well (and it is really a joke putting people on the 10 most wanted list you won't ever encounter shopping at walmart...)



Daniel San Diego was his name.  He bombed a part of the Chiron (now Novartis) headquarters in the SF Bay Area.  One of those environmental/animal terrorists.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 8, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Daniel San Diego was his name.  He bombed a part of the Chiron (now Novartis) headquarters in the SF Bay Area.  One of those environmental/animal terrorists.



Let's not forget the Earth First!ers who committed arson in various places and have spiked trees, resulting in the deaths of lumbermen.  I'd love to catch me one of those scum-sucking bastiches.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's not forget the Earth First!ers who committed arson in various places and have spiked trees, resulting in the deaths of lumbermen.  I'd love to catch me one of those scum-sucking bastiches.



Not sure if you ever had a chance to see Two Elk Lodge and Restaurant.  A thing of beauty on Vail Mountain in Colorado.  Those Earth First terrorist/bast*rds burned it to the ground.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 8, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Not sure if you ever had a chance to see Two Elk Lodge and Restaurant.  A thing of beauty on Vail Mountain in Colorado.  Those Earth First terrorist/bast*rds burned it to the ground.



No, I did not.  However, I remember when I first boycotted a business.  Whole Earth Foods in NC was selling Earth First!'s magazine at their checkout lanes.  I spoke to the manager and asked if she knew it was run by an identified eco-terrorist organization.  She said that violence in defense of the planet was no crime.  OK, then.  No more Whole Foods for me.  They make their choices, I make mine.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 8, 2012)

So your upset there are no white people on the FBI most wanted list?  You do understand that list means nothing its basically for the media and has.nothing to do with actual law enforcement.  There are entire divisions in the FBI and US Marshalls devoted to domestic terrorist.  Like o said before sovereign citizens are near the top of the list right now.  Again its all about the news Americans don't care about the white power groups because its not as good of a news story as a Muslim terrorist.  That does not mean law enforcement isn't working on it its just not reported on as much.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> *So your upset there are no white people on the FBI most wanted list? * You do understand that list means nothing its basically for the media and has.nothing to do with actual law enforcement.  There are entire divisions in the FBI and US Marshalls devoted to domestic terrorist.  Like o said before sovereign citizens are near the top of the list right now.  Again its all about the news Americans don't care about the white power groups because its not as good of a news story as a Muslim terrorist.  That does not mean law enforcement isn't working on it its just not reported on as much.



No.  But I could see how the Sikh's of Wisconsin would be upset because the aryan terrorist (and those who are sure to follow) who killed and terrorized their loved ones wasn't on such a list.  And they would be upset exactly for the reasons you stated.  That our media are so hyperfocused on the Middle Eastern jihadist, that they have all but ignored the RaHoWa jihadist.

I agree with you in that respect.  I do, however, question how much of a priority our government has placed on domestic aryan terrorists, in comparison to domestic or foreign jihadists.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2012)

9/11 changed the priorities on who was a bigger threat here in the U.S.  In one attack, with foriegn attackers and sponsorhip, 3000 people were murdered.  You also have foriegn countries supplying training, equipment and other support to radical muslim attackers.  This guy was, at this point, a solo actor with a 9mm handgun.  He may have been part of a belief system but it isn't on the same activity scale that Radical islam is right now.  Even hassan, the fort hood killer was in contact with foreign terrorists before he killed all those people.  Also, you had the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on our two African embassies, the blowing up of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the first attack on the Twin Towers led by the blind sheik, and even before all of this the take over of our embassy by the Iranians.  It comes down to who the current biggest threat is.  Memories are very short it seems.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 8, 2012)

billcihak said:


> 9/11 changed the priorities on who was a bigger threat here in the U.S.  In one attack, with foriegn attackers and sponsorhip, 3000 people were murdered.  You also have foriegn countries supplying training, equipment and other support to radical muslim attackers.  This guy was, at this point, a solo actor with a 9mm handgun.  He may have been part of a belief system but it isn't on the same activity scale that Radical islam is right now.  Even hassan, the fort hood killer was in contact with foreign terrorists before he killed all those people.  Also, you had the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on our two African embassies, the blowing up of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the first attack on the Twin Towers led by the blind sheik, and even before all of this the take over of our embassy by the Iranians.  It comes down to who the current biggest threat is.  Memories are very short it seems.



I don't see anyone disagreeing with you.  Before 9/11, we did have a big focus on domestic terror groups, from ecoterrorists to anti-abortion extremists to white supremacists to the militia movement.  The assassination of Alan Berg,  Ruby Ridge, Waco, the various abortion clinic bombings and assassinations, the Olympic Park bombing, Mark from Michigan, and so on, all culminating in OKC, the burning of many black churches in the south, attacks on synagogues, That's all pretty much gone by the wayside now, as we've concentrated on foreign terror threats.  However, it's still around to some extent.  The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL helps to keep track of some of these jokers.

But there have always been domestic terrorists in the USA.  Since the beginning, there have been people willing to murder others in the name of their cause and to frighten others into behaving in a way the terrorists prefer.  From John Brown onwards.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 8, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> No. But I could see how the Sikh's of Wisconsin would be upset because the aryan terrorist (and those who are sure to follow) who killed and terrorized their loved ones wasn't on such a list. And they would be upset exactly for the reasons you stated. That our media are so hyperfocused on the Middle Eastern jihadist, that they have all but ignored the RaHoWa jihadist.
> 
> I agree with you in that respect. I do, however, question how much of a priority our government has placed on domestic aryan terrorists, in comparison to domestic or foreign jihadists.



Well, I can tell you that the government places a pretty high priority on domestic terrorists of all stripes-it's likely that the next really big, 9/11 type event will come from one of our internal threats-more likely than another foreign sponsored attack, though that possibility is monitored as well. 

Domestic terrorism is something that has many man hours and resources devoted to it since Timothy McVeigh. Fact is, though, that the Timothy McVeigh's of the world are much like anyone else who wants to kill someone: they can stay pretty well hidden until they strike. They can think what they want, and say what they want, and there aren't the resources to monitor everyone like that. Wade was kicked out of the Army for drinking, and was known for his white supremacist contacts and ideology, but that wasn't enough to keep him from obtaining weapons and doing what he did-nor should it have been. Until the shootings in Wisconsin, he hadn't committed any crimes-at least, none worthy of excluding him from gun ownership.

The bigger, unspoken piece of all this, though, is that he was hidden by virtue of his whiteness as well-that, in our society, we can see a guy who looks like this:




or this:

View attachment $thumbnailCA6Q0B5T.jpg


as far less menacing-less of a_threat_-than someone who looks like this:

View attachment $thumbnailCAQ1R10Z.jpg
(and, yes, the woman on the far-right is a Sikh.)

or this:

View attachment $thumbnailCAA0IC4C.jpg

and that this guy:



looks an awful lot like some cops, never mind a guy who would shoot up a bunch of people while they were praying.

James Holmes can shoot dozens of people during _Batman the Dark Knight Rises_ and he is not a reflection on pathological white masculinity. Instead Holmes is a less than ideal-typical case because he is "crazy" or "insane." Wade Michael Page can kill six Sikh-Americans during their worship service and he is just a "crazy" white supremacist who is automatically an outlier, one that is excluded from any conversation about what his behavior tells us about white racial identity, masculinity, violence, and hostility to the Other in the Age of Obama.

Ultimately, white people who commit wanton acts of murder and violence are individuals who _just happen to be white _and commit crime; people of color--especially African-Americans--who commit crime are representative of both their whole community, as well as a subculture and community in "crisis." As such, Americans tend to speak naturally and with great ease about "black crime." By comparison, and despite a white near monopoly on whole categories of criminality, the language of "white crime" does not even exist in the public discourse or collective consciousness.

On the other hand, the propaganda-fest that is the "Ten most wanted list," has been entirely white for most of its history. Just sayin'



billcihak said:


> 9/11 changed the priorities on who was a bigger threat here in the U.S. In one attack, with foriegn attackers and sponsorhip, 3000 people were murdered. You also have foriegn countries supplying training, equipment and other support to radical muslim attackers. This guy was, at this point, a solo actor with a 9mm handgun. He may have been part of a belief system but it isn't on the same activity scale that Radical islam is right now. Even hassan, the fort hood killer was in contact with foreign terrorists before he killed all those people. Also, you had the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on our two African embassies, the blowing up of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the first attack on the Twin Towers led by the blind sheik, and even before all of this the take over of our embassy by the Iranians. It comes down to who the current biggest threat is. Memories are very short it seems.



The next attack on U.S. soil by foreign terrorists will probbably not be committed by Arabs, Yemenis, or Pakistanis. They'll probably be Chechens, or Serbs, or Croats. They'll be as white as you are-hell, they may even resemble Slovaks, like you billi. They'll speak english with near American accents, and be able to pass among all of us just as unnoticed as a McVeigh, a Wade, a Laughner or a Holmes-even with, _especially_ with, orange hair.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2012)

What part of this...



> radical muslim attackers.



Disqualifies any of this...



> They'll probably be Chechens, or Serbs, or Croats.



They could be African, Filipino, French, British, American...anyone can be a radicalized muslim extremist.

Don't worry elder, whites have the serial killer category of crime almost to themselves.

And then you have guys like hassan at fort hood who advertised his jihadi beliefs in front of other responsible people, who were afraid to take action as well.

Hmmm...and as to killing, have you seen the shooting gallery that Chicago has become, a lot of that is African American and Latino gang violence.  It seems different groups take up different kinds of killing.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 8, 2012)

billcihak said:


> What part of this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ya wouldn't know it for all the focus on Arabs, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranis (who can look pretty "caucasian," sometimes) and Palestinians, would ya? :lfao:


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2012)

Well, the first attacks on the U.S. from radical muslim terrorists were Saudis, and various other middle eastern countries.  We need to adapt as they do or they will get past our security measures.



> 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia, one of Egypt, two of the United Arab Emirates, and one of Lebanon.


The first attack on the Twin Towers was by an Egyptian...for those who have completely forgotten the first attempt on the Towers...



> Sheikh *Omar Abdel-Rahman* (Arabic: &#1593;&#1605;&#1585; &#1593;&#1576;&#1583; &#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1581;&#1605;&#1606;&#8206;, _&#8216;Umar &#8216;Abd ar-Ra&#7717;man_; born 3 May 1938), commonly known in the United States as *"The Blind Sheikh"*, is a blind Egyptian Muslim leader



And his merry band of monsters...



> The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.



So you had a first attempt on the World Trade Center, which killed 6 and failed to bring the towers down, and then others came back and succeeded, it upped the threat level...

You could try blaming rap for the criminal behavior of African Americans in the cities, not too many regular white people glorify white supremacist rock music or think it is a legitimate part of "white" culture...


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 8, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well, the first attacks on the U.S. from radical muslim terrorists were Saudis, and various other middle eastern countries.  We need to adapt as they do or they will get past our security measures.
> 
> 
> The first attack on the Twin Towers was by an Egyptian...for those who have completely forgotten the first attempt on the Towers...
> ...



So it's really about numbers with you.  The *real* terrorists yield a high body count.  Everybody else is just practicing their own inherent brand of cultural criminality.  Or, just being law-abiding citizens enjoying "white power" rock while philosophizing and circumspecting about tyranny and freedom and all that.

Again, the families of the slain victims of those white power philosopher types might not be so sympathetic.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 8, 2012)

The problem is a guy in a white power rock band and has no other criminal record he's not going to be towards the top of any watch list.only people suspected of crimes make watch lists.  Had he been linked with some other crime prior to this other then liking crappy music we may have know about him.  Trust me when I tell you everyday I cone to work I get BOLOs and intelligence notifications about all these groups the white supremacy groups sovereign citizens black supremacy groups milita groups we do the best we can but a lone gunman acting alone is almost impossible to stop.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2012)

No, it is the most dangerous threat at the time.  For example, the 9/11 terrorists and their buddies have access to lots of cash, and the potential of weapons of mass destruction and have shown a serious determination to use them.  Show me where an organized white power, black power, vegetarian power group has inflicted the amount of damage to this country that the radical muslim terrorists have, and who currently still has the most potential, with foreign backing, training, money equipment, and then I'm sure the law enforcement resources will be realocated to deal with that threat.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 9, 2012)

Actually he was on a watch list for the FBI, but he had not committed a crime, so there was nothing anyone could do to limit his possession of firearms.

I think a large part of what is being said is the perception of terrorist.  You say the word terrorist and most think of a brown skinned man, dressed in Middle Eastern garb.  That is not a good thing.  Not necesarily because it eboldens bigots to take actions against those who match that look, but because if you are looking at the innocent guy dressed in a certain way, that you might miss the white guy right beside you with the bomb or gun.  Doesn't matter a wit if that guy is Muslim, Christian, white power, etc.  What matters is his intent.  That is why this arguement about which is more dangerous is kind of silly to me. Both are terrorist and both need to be stopped to the upmost of our abilities.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 9, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Actually he was on a watch list for the FBI, but he had not committed a crime, so there was nothing anyone could do to limit his possession of firearms.
> 
> I think a large part of what is being said is the perception of terrorist.  You say the word terrorist and most think of a brown skinned man, dressed in Middle Eastern garb.  That is not a good thing.  Not necesarily because it eboldens bigots to take actions against those who match that look, but because if you are looking at the innocent guy dressed in a certain way, that you might miss the white guy right beside you with the bomb or gun.  Doesn't matter a wit if that guy is Muslim, Christian, white power, etc.  What matters is his intent.  That is why this arguement about which is more dangerous is kind of silly to me. Both are terrorist and both need to be stopped to the upmost of our abilities.



I agree with you in the many Americans still can bring themselves to see a terrorist as anyone other than a brown man in Middle Eastern clothing.  You also raise an interest point:

If someone is on a watch list, but has never *technically* committed a crime, can they legally purchase firearms?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 9, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Actually he was on a watch list for the FBI, but he had not committed a crime, so there was nothing anyone could do to limit his possession of firearms.
> 
> I think a large part of what is being said is the perception of terrorist. You say the word terrorist and most think of a brown skinned man, dressed in Middle Eastern garb. That is not a good thing. Not necesarily because it eboldens bigots to take actions against those who match that look, but because if you are looking at the innocent guy dressed in a certain way, that you might miss the white guy right beside you with the bomb or gun. Doesn't matter a wit if that guy is Muslim, Christian, white power, etc. What matters is his intent. That is why this arguement about which is more dangerous is kind of silly to me. Both are terrorist and both need to be stopped to the upmost of our abilities.



This is where our history differs from yours. Over the years we've had to deal with various terrorist groups, from Greece just after the last war, to Cyprus, Kenya, Malaya, Oman, India, Palestine and of course Northern Ireland. Even a few Welsh terrorists who used to burn holiday cottages. Even with the radical Islamic terrorists our main danger is Northern Ireland still, many people think it's over, it's not, in fact it may be about to get far worse as there's rumours that the dissident IRA groups are joining up for a big campaign.


----------



## granfire (Aug 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> This is where our history differs from yours. Over the years we've had to deal with various terrorist groups, from Greece just after the last war, to Cyprus, Kenya, Malaya, Oman, India, Palestine and of course Northern Ireland. Even a few Welsh terrorists who used to burn holiday cottages. Even with the radical Islamic terrorists our main danger is Northern Ireland still, many people think it's over, it's not, in fact it may be about to get far worse as there's rumours that the dissident IRA groups are joining up for a big campaign.



well, the 'history' is really only a decade old. 
Everybody who came before was lily white! 
All those Eco terrorists are white. And - like your Irish hot spots - just because they are not in the news does not mean it's not happening (although somebody on MT suggested because something wasn't in the NY Times it was proof it didn't happen! :lol


----------



## Carol (Aug 9, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> If someone is on a watch list, but has never *technically* committed a crime, can they legally purchase firearms?



Yes, as long as they can (otherwise) legally purchase firearms.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 9, 2012)

Carol said:


> Yes, as long as they can (otherwise) legally purchase firearms.



If a man is on a Terrorist Watch List and declares publicly--"_I am al qaeda_"--he is still legally allowed to purchase the same kind of weaponry as the Aurora, CO killer.  
Stunning.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 9, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> If a man is on a Terrorist Watch List and declares publicly--"_I am al qaeda_"--he is still legally allowed to purchase the same kind of weaponry as the Aurora, CO killer.
> Stunning.


If he has not committed a crime why shouldn't he.  Its not a crime to say I'm al qaeda.  I think if he started buy a lot of guns he would make his way up the watch list some and they would dig deeper into his activities


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> If he has not committed a crime why shouldn't he.  Its not a crime to say I'm al qaeda.  I think if he started buy a lot of guns he would make his way up the watch list some and they would dig deeper into his activities



And that's where celebrating the 2nd amendment becomes zealotry.  When we would allow avowed enemies of the state to purchase guns in order to eventually kill us, we have lost our way.  We have lost our damned minds.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 9, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> And that's where celebrating the 2nd amendment becomes zealotry.  When we would allow avowed enemies of the state to purchase guns in order to eventually kill us, we have lost our way.  We have lost our damned minds.



Which is fine but remember a few hundred years ago all Americans were enemies of the state.  That's the point of the 2nd amendment


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Which is fine but remember a few hundred years ago all Americans were enemies of the state.  That's the point of the 2nd amendment



I think we've come far enough where a "short list" of enemies is pretty reasonable.  Al Qaeda, Taliban, Aryan Nation (and their spin-offs) are quite sufficient.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 9, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> I agree with you in the many Americans still can bring themselves to see a terrorist as anyone other than a brown man in Middle Eastern clothing.  You also raise an interest point:
> 
> If someone is on a watch list, but has never *technically* committed a crime, can they legally purchase firearms?



Yes, unless the law is changed.  However, many on the watch lists are not aware they are on the watch lists, and the FBI or other entities putting them there don't want them to know.  Somehow, being told "Sorry, you're not allowed to buy a gun.  You're not a felon, you're not blocked by domestic violence charges, you're not crazy... but you can't buy a gun" would probably kind of defeat that...


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 9, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> I think we've come far enough where a "short list" of enemies is pretty reasonable.  Al Qaeda, Taliban, Aryan Nation (and their spin-offs) are quite sufficient.


Sure great list but what about when the govt decides the tea party is an enemy of the state or the NAACP or even libertarians or whatever group the govt decides is bad.


----------



## granfire (Aug 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure great list but what about when the govt decides the tea party is an enemy of the state or the NAACP or even libertarians or whatever group the govt decides is bad.



well, we did move a big step in that direction, no? Like in the last decade. to the point that you really don't want to check out the Koran from the local library....


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure great list but what about when the govt decides the tea party is an enemy of the state or the NAACP or even libertarians or whatever group the govt decides is bad.



I know; Slipper Slope.  But being fearful of the proverbial "Slippery Slope" often means that we stand still and do nothing.  

The declaring of independence from the British Crown had its "slippery slopes".  The drafting and ratification of the Constitution had its "slippery slopes".  So did the Bill of Rights.  So did the  Equal Rights Amendment.  So did the Voting Rights Act.  All had slippery slopes, and all made the U.S. a better country.

I'm in agreement with your premise that no body of law should be written to *diminish* the rights of anyone (intentionally or by affect).  Yet we know that we have domestic enemies whose violent actions depend on full, unconditional freedom.  If people could find solutions to navigate the slippery-ness of a Constitution or Declaration of Independence, then surely we are advanced enough that we can find ways to allow citizens their right to guns while denying guns to our domestic enemies.


----------



## granfire (Aug 10, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> I know; Slipper Slope.  But being fearful of the proverbial "Slippery Slope" often means that we stand still and do nothing.
> 
> The declaring of independence from the British Crown had its "slippery slopes".  The drafting and ratification of the Constitution had its "slippery slopes".  So did the Bill of Rights.  So did the  Equal Rights Amendment.  So did the Voting Rights Act.  All had slippery slopes, and all made the U.S. a better country.
> 
> I'm in agreement with your premise that no body of law should be written to *diminish* the rights of anyone (intentionally or by affect).  Yet we know that we have domestic enemies whose violent actions depend on full, unconditional freedom.  If people could find solutions to navigate the slippery-ness of a Constitution or Declaration of Independence, then surely we are advanced enough that we can find ways to allow citizens their right to guns while denying guns to our domestic enemies.




I think it means that we need to think it through when we propose legislature stemming from a knee jerk reaction.

The devil is in the details. and what looks good when presented pared down into standard English might be all kinds of worms and hornet's nests when decyphered from legalese....


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 10, 2012)

granfire said:


> I think it means that we need to think it through when we propose legislature stemming from a knee jerk reaction.
> 
> The devil is in the details. and what looks good when presented pared down into standard English might be all kinds of worms and hornet's nests when decyphered from legalese....



I follow.  But if we've done essentially nothing since the Columbine shooting massacre, then whatever we do in this day--if anything--probably won't be a knee jerk reaction.  In fact, we allowed the AWB to sunset a few years _after_ Columbine.

Yes, the devil is always in the details when there is a nefarious intent.  The Constitution is one of the greatest bodies of law.  Yet its framers took great pains NOT to abolish humans owning humans.  Again, it's all about intent.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 10, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> I follow. But if we've done essentially nothing since the Columbine shooting massacre, then whatever we do in this day--if anything--probably won't be a knee jerk reaction. In fact, we allowed the AWB to sunset a few years _after_ Columbine.
> 
> Yes, the devil is always in the details when there is a nefarious intent. The Constitution is one of the greatest bodies of law. Yet its framers took great pains NOT to abolish humans owning humans. Again, it's all about intent.



THe Assualt Weapons Ban was the *biggest* knee jerk of all. In fact,to loop back around on all of this, I defy you to define an "assault weapon" satisfactorily.

EDIT: I defy ANYONE to rationally apply the Assault Weapons Ban's definition of "assault weapon" rationally and satisfactorily.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

You also assume that if I'm a terrorist and you put me on a list I won't still get a weapon.  I've bought hundreds of illegal guns and explosives even acting as a white supremacy gang member.  Guess who I bought most of my guns from.  Blood gang members  young black men that knew I was racist.  I had fake white power tattoos all over me the only color they cared about was green


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 10, 2012)

elder999 said:


> THe Assualt Weapons Ban was the *biggest* knee jerk of all. In fact,to loop back around on all of this, I defy you to define an "assault weapon" satisfactorily.
> 
> EDIT: I defy ANYONE to rationally apply the Assault Weapons Ban's definition of "assault weapon" rationally and satisfactorily.



No, no.  *I'm not advocating or arguing for the Assault Weapons Ban*.  I use it only in the context of making the point that, after Columbine, we did NOT enact new law on the level of an AWB.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> No, no.  *I'm not advocating or arguing for the Assault Weapons Ban*.  I use it only in the context of making the point that, after Columbine, we did NOT enact new law on the level of an AWB.


There was no reason to make new laws after columbine it was already illegal for the two boys to own guns.  Its also already illegal to shoot up a school so what makes you think if they didn't care its a crime to shoot up a school how are gun laws going to stop them?


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> You also assume that if I'm a terrorist and you put me on a list I won't still get a weapon.  I've bought hundreds of illegal guns and explosives even acting as a white supremacy gang member.  Guess who I bought most of my guns from.  Blood gang members  young black men that knew I was racist.  I had fake white power tattoos all over me the only color they cared about was green



Well there ya go.  Why even prohibit criminals from owning guns.  I mean, if they're gonna get guns anyway then we might as well not bother with laws that prohibit them.

Survival of the fittest.  Natural selection.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Well there ya go.  Why even prohibit criminals from owning guns.  I mean, if they're gonna get guns anyway then we might as well not bother with laws that prohibit them.
> 
> Survival of the fittest.  Natural selection.



So tell me why if I'm willing to kill someone what gun law will change my mind?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

If you want to prevent gun violence start enforcing gun laws we already have.  Hold judges accountable that give these guys slaps on the wrist and they are back out in a year or two.  We have mandatory minimum 5 year sentences for possession of a firearm during commission of a felony.  So the criminal goes to court take a plea to the felony charge the gun charge gets dropped and he gets 18 months for the felony charge.  They are back out in 10 months.  The laws are not broke the judicial system is


----------



## blindsage (Aug 10, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> I know; Slipper Slope. But being fearful of the proverbial "Slippery Slope" often means that we stand still and do nothing.
> 
> The declaring of independence from the British Crown had its "slippery slopes". The drafting and ratification of the Constitution had its "slippery slopes". So did the Bill of Rights. So did the Equal Rights Amendment. So did the Voting Rights Act. All had slippery slopes, and all made the U.S. a better country.
> 
> I'm in agreement with your premise that no body of law should be written to *diminish* the rights of anyone (intentionally or by affect). Yet we know that we have domestic enemies whose violent actions depend on full, unconditional freedom. If people could find solutions to navigate the slippery-ness of a Constitution or Declaration of Independence, then surely we are advanced enough that we can find ways to allow citizens their right to guns while denying guns to our domestic enemies.


The "slippery slope" is not an abstract argument in all cases.  I agree it is often carried way to far, but in the case of freedom of speach, and targeting specific individuals or groups to prevent from having guns, our history is not very good.  If "enemy of the state" is the standard then, historically speaking, anyone who has ever been accused of being part of a communist or socialist group should not have been allowed to have guns, including union members.  The slippery slope is real in some cases.  Now, I think in general it gets to absurd proportions when it comes to gun control, does anyone argue for citizen access to F-16s?  No?  Nuclear warheads?  No?  So obviously there's a limit that the vast majority can agree to, but we have to be careful when we decide to single out groups that have not done anything illegal as obvious people who should have their rights reduced.


----------



## billc (Aug 10, 2012)

Definition of "assault" weapon...

Any weapon that is the current low hanging fruit of those individuals who do not believe that ordinary citizens should own or carry firearms for any reason.  The exact weapon defined as an "assault" weapon, will vary depending on the current crimes that are being perpetrated, and which can be used to ban even weapons that are unrelated to those crimes.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 10, 2012)

blindsage said:


> . Now, I think in general it gets to absurd proportions when it comes to gun control, does anyone argue for citizen access to F-16s? No? .



To be fair, there are several pilots and organizations that privately own fighter-jet platforms. A few MIGs, some F-104s,
some F-14s, a few other foreign planes-that's just off the top of my head. All disarmed, of course, but....


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So tell me why if I'm willing to kill someone what gun law will change my mind?



There's no law that will change your mind.  That's not even an argument.  
Now, if you're willing to kill a temple full or train full or classroom full of people, then there ought to be a law that changes your _ability_ to kill that many people.

I'm not talking about keeping guns away from the people, I'm talking about keeping certain people away from guns.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> There's no law that will change your mind.  That's not even an argument.
> Now, if you're willing to kill a temple full or train full or classroom full of people, then there ought to be a law that changes your _ability_ to kill that many people.
> 
> I'm not talking about keeping guns away from the people, I'm talking about keeping certain people away from guns.



OK so again what law can you make that will keep guns away from certain types of people?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

Murder is illegal if I'm willing to break that law why would a law saying I'm not allowed to own a gun stop me?  I can see it now. "Man I really want to kill a room full of minorities but darn it I'm not allowed to own a gun its against the law so never mind"


----------



## billc (Aug 10, 2012)

You see, we don't need more laws against owning guns...we need more laws against committing murder, because there obviously aren't enough laws on the books making murder illegal.  If we put even more laws on the books that make killing innocent people against the law, then we would also take care of people using guns to commit those murders and we won't have violated the constitution to do it.  Unless of course there is a first amendment argument protecting the freedom of expression through murder.  I guess the supreme court would have to hear that one...:hmm:


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

So as I write this on my cell I'm currently sitting outside a Mosque as security.  I'm struck by a few things I figured I'd share.  #1 these are some of the nicest people I've ever met.  They keep bringing me out food drinks candy.  They won't stop thanking  me for being here. #2 the woman with the wonderfully  colored head scarfs are absolutely beautiful.  #3 I was talking to a older man with a noticeable limp he was walking inside and I say he had disabled Veterans tags.  He was wounded in Vietnam and he's so proud of it that he fought for our county #4 I get more and more pissed as ignorant *** people that would hate someone because of a religion and they dress differently. And would try to kill them or harm them.  #5 the kids are so amazed by my police car no different then any other kids I've met in the job.  #6 they keep trying to invite me in and show me around they want so hard to show me they are not a threat like I'm an enemy to them because of a few stupid people they seem fearful of my presence.  I'm no better then them and they have nothing to price to me but its hard to put that message across to them with seeming like I feel superior to them which I am most definitely not.

I'm pissed off that this has even became a topic of conversation because of some poor excuse of a human that was a waist of Air and is a 1000% less American then these awesome people are.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

I forgot the most important part this is the best rice pudding I've ever had


----------



## granfire (Aug 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I forgot the most important part this is the best rice pudding I've ever had



:lol:


----------



## Carol (Aug 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So as I write this on my cell I'm currently sitting outside a Mosque as security.  I'm struck by a few things I figured I'd share.  #1 these are some of the nicest people I've ever met.  They keep bringing me out food drinks candy.  They won't stop thanking  me for being here. #2 the woman with the wonderfully  colored head scarfs are absolutely beautiful.  #3 I was talking to a older man with a noticeable limp he was walking inside and I say he had disabled Veterans tags.  He was wounded in Vietnam and he's so proud of it that he fought for our county #4 I get more and more pissed as ignorant *** people that would hate someone because of a religion and they dress differently. And would try to kill them or harm them.  #5 the kids are so amazed by my police car no different then any other kids I've met in the job.  #6 they keep trying to invite me in and show me around they want so hard to show me they are not a threat like I'm an enemy to them because of a few stupid people they seem fearful of my presence.  I'm no better then them and they have nothing to price to me but its hard to put that message across to them with seeming like I feel superior to them which I am most definitely not.
> 
> I'm pissed off that this has even became a topic of conversation because of some poor excuse of a human that was a waist of Air and is a 1000% less American then these awesome people are.



There was an officer just like you outside my Sikh temple the Sunday after 9/11.  I do not follow the Sikh path any more, but believe me...your work is noticed and appreciated, and we do not see you as the enemy.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

Carol said:


> There was an officer just like you outside my Sikh temple the Sunday after 9/11.  I do not follow the Sikh path any more, but believe me...your work is noticed and appreciated, and we do not see you as the enemy.


Enemy was the wrong word but they seemed uneasy about a large bald white guy walking around


----------



## Carol (Aug 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Enemy was the wrong word but they seemed uneasy about a large bald white guy walking around


 
Its not much easier being the only redhead in a room full of Indian folk 

Food was darn good tho...


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

Carol said:


> Its not much easier being the only redhead in a room full of Indian folk
> 
> Food was darn good tho...


You got that right I'm so full I hope I don't have to run tonight or its coming back up on them when I catch them


----------



## granfire (Aug 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> You got that right I'm so full I hope I don't have to run tonight or its coming back up on them when I catch them



We should decide more problems with a cook off!


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

granfire said:


> We should decide more problems with a cook off!



No kidding right.  I volunteer to be the judge too


----------



## elder999 (Aug 10, 2012)

Meanwhile, in other news, from Tennessee:



> Hundreds of Muslims in Murfreesboro, Tenn., gathered on Friday afternoon for prayers in a new mosque that has  at times  divided the community.
> Debate over the building coincided with disputes over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque in New York. The congregation in Murfreesboro weathered a bomb threat, arson attempts and a court challenge. But members say the pain was worth the prize  a proper mosque to worship in after decades meeting in a cramped office space.
> 
> The $2 million mosque, with its green dome, stands out among the Christian churches tucked into the rolling hills of Middle Tennessee. But like the neighbors, an American flag flies out front.
> ...


----------



## granfire (Aug 10, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Meanwhile, in other news, from Tennessee:



DiD they have a proper cook out to celebrate the dedication of the new building?!


----------



## elder999 (Aug 10, 2012)

granfire said:


> DiD they have a proper cook out to celebrate the dedication of the new building?!



Not likely. It's Ramadan until the 18th, after all........


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 11, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So as I write this on my cell I'm currently sitting outside a Mosque as security.  I'm struck by a few things I figured I'd share.  #1 these are some of the nicest people I've ever met.  They keep bringing me out food drinks candy.  They won't stop thanking  me for being here. #2 the woman with the wonderfully  colored head scarfs are absolutely beautiful.  #3 I was talking to a older man with a noticeable limp he was walking inside and I say he had disabled Veterans tags.  He was wounded in Vietnam and he's so proud of it that he fought for our county #4 I get more and more pissed as ignorant *** people that would hate someone because of a religion and they dress differently. And would try to kill them or harm them.  #5 the kids are so amazed by my police car no different then any other kids I've met in the job.  #6 they keep trying to invite me in and show me around they want so hard to show me they are not a threat like I'm an enemy to them because of a few stupid people they seem fearful of my presence.  I'm no better then them and they have nothing to price to me but its hard to put that message across to them with seeming like I feel superior to them which I am most definitely not.
> 
> I'm pissed off that this has even became a topic of conversation because of some poor excuse of a human that was a waist of Air and is a 1000% less American then these awesome people are.



Thanks for posting this.  These people aren't the "other," they are Americans.  I'm glad this pisses you off.  It shows you care about people.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 11, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So as I write this on my cell I'm currently sitting outside a Mosque as security.  I'm struck by a few things I figured I'd share.  #1 these are some of the nicest people I've ever met.  They keep bringing me out food drinks candy.  They won't stop thanking  me for being here. #2 the woman with the wonderfully  colored head scarfs are absolutely beautiful.  #3 I was talking to a older man with a noticeable limp he was walking inside and I say he had disabled Veterans tags.  He was wounded in Vietnam and he's so proud of it that he fought for our county #4 I get more and more pissed as ignorant *** people that would hate someone because of a religion and they dress differently. And would try to kill them or harm them.  #5 the kids are so amazed by my police car no different then any other kids I've met in the job.  #6 they keep trying to invite me in and show me around they want so hard to show me they are not a threat like I'm an enemy to them because of a few stupid people they seem fearful of my presence.  I'm no better then them and they have nothing to price to me but its hard to put that message across to them with seeming like I feel superior to them which I am most definitely not.
> 
> I'm pissed off that this has even became a topic of conversation because of some poor excuse of a human that was a waist of Air and is a 1000% less American then these awesome people are.



In all seriousness, that's a really awesome testimony, sir.  

It fits well into this conversation because, unfortunately, there is still a large percentage of Americans who feel the exact opposite.  

Mahalo.


----------



## billc (Aug 11, 2012)

Yeah, thanks for caring about people Ballen0351, I'm sure that your years of service to your community as a police officer, risking your life in the service of strangers every day on the job really didn't capture that whole "caring for others," thing.  After all, everyone knows that people become police officers just so they can push people around, violate individual rights, and be an all around jerk.  It is nice to know you actually care about people too.


----------



## granfire (Aug 11, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Not likely. It's Ramadan until the 18th, after all........



You know, they eat and party more during Ramadan than any other time of year, right! 

Well, at least where it is a mainstream Holiday.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 11, 2012)

granfire said:


> You know, they eat and party more during Ramadan than any other time of year, right!
> 
> Well, at least where it is a mainstream Holiday.



Only at or after sunset when they break their fast, and dinner isn't _always_ festive....


----------



## granfire (Aug 11, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Only at or after sunset when they break their fast, and dinner isn't _always_ festive....



That is one of the reasons why Summertime Ramadan can be such a bummer.


It's been a while since I got to watch that documentary tho....but from what I gathered, the food bill goes up during the month exponentially so. 
I can't really fathom: The women of the family spend much of the day preparing the food for the evening's meal...

And then again, in our enlightened western world...we do tend to minimalize certain occasions and rituals.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yeah, thanks for caring about people Ballen0351, I'm sure that your years of service to your community as a police officer, risking your life in the service of strangers every day on the job really didn't capture that whole "caring for others," thing.  After all, everyone knows that people become police officers just so they can push people around, violate individual rights, and be an all around jerk.  It is nice to know you actually care about people too.



Way to puts words in my mouth.  That says a lot about you.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 11, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Way to puts words in my mouth.  That says a lot about you.



Pay him no mind.  Ballen0351 seems to represent what's good in law enforcement.  That's what matters.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 11, 2012)

I gave up reading Billi's posts and put him on ignore when he accused Brits and Europeans of killing off premature babies, that and the rabid attacks on anything he didn't like such as the Olympics. Of course when some one quotes him I can see he's still attacking those who really believe in freedom, free speech and the 'live and let live' philosophy that I've always associated with Americans and which the majority here still stand by, thank goodness.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 11, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I gave up reading Billi's posts and put him on ignore when he accused Brits and Europeans of killing off premature babies, that and the rabid attacks on anything he didn't like such as the Olympics. Of course when some one quotes him I can see he's still attacking those who really believe in freedom, free speech and the 'live and let live' philosophy that I've always associated with Americans and which the majority here still stand by, thank goodness.




I guess it's much easier for some to ignore those they think to be idiots than to not call them  idiots. Of course, not that I would call anyone an "idiot," _here on the study._  That would be wrong.....:lfao:


----------

