Another Right Wing Terrorist Caught - Will Anyone Care?

If the verses are taken out of context, why are those who practice islam still engaged in murdering homosexuals for the crime of being homosexual? Why are females who are raped, charged with having sexual relations outside of marriage, and whipped as a result?

 

You are conflating culture with religious law. They are not the same.

 

Pray tell how are they not the same? Are those who abide by sharia law not murdering homosexuals? Are they not punishing females for infidelity because they were sexually assaulted? Are they not murdering those that claim Mohammed was no profit?

 

So what "context", is, say, it ok to beat women, such as in Q4:34 (Shakir)? Please tell us when beating women is ok....or can we agree that Islam is not what's best for the world?

 

Anyone who uses that word in that manner isn't educated enough to have a qualified opinion.

 

Yes, they are, this very week:
University student brutally killed over alleged blasphemy allegations
http://www.christiansinpakistan.com...ly-killed-over-alleged-blasphemy-allegations/

But to the Islamic-apologist, pointing this barbarity out is far worse than the barbarity itself - something to do with the fact that most Muslims are poor and have brown skin, some argue. If rich white republican men like Trump were doing the EXACT same thing then they'd be up in arms over it!! But Muslims get a complete pass.

 

A feral white terrorist

 

You are clueless. SDS blew up police stations, and tried to do the FBI, Among other things they weren't just anti war and they were about as pro democracy as Pol Pot or Stalin. Every left wing nut group in the world call themselves something democratic or the people's something or the other but the one thing you could guarantee about any of them was that once they took charge the last things you would see is a truly functioning democracy or the people having much of any say so in how things were done.

 

Neither did Marx in the end. Almost all the early day communist were anarchists as well.

 

Antigovernment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Antigovernment may mean or refer to:

• Opposition (politics), a party with views opposing the current government. Lately that would be Democrats
• Political dissent, opposition to the politics of the governing body. See above
• Sedition, incitement of discontent to a lawful governing body. The left taking to the streets after the election on Nov. 8th 2016
• Anti-statism, political philosophy opposing state interference. Here we go, the working middle class
• Anarchism, political philosophy advocating the abolition of rulers. George Soros rent a mob and OWS anarchist

All anarchist I ever read about or saw were leftist.

 

It was the former leadership of the SDS and the Weather Underground who helped to launch Barack Obama's political career and convinced the DNC to run a black man for President in 2008.

 

Bobbyserious is the real extremist who wants to undermine democracy by painting everyone in the 'right-wing extremist' brush and though he doesn't say it, he'd want a Gestapo like State on the "politically undesirable". And though he'll deny it, this spectacle of his is proof.

 

What media silence? I've seen this story on every major national and local news outlet for the past two weeks.

 

I have seen this story rather frequently. Fox, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and CNN is where I have seen it if I am recalling correctly.

Calling this guy right wing is likely not true. He may have some views leaning to the right, but from what I have read he also has some left leaning views. Seems with his hate of religion and government he just does not like authority.

Basically he is just an anti-government nut.

 

I'm aware. I'd mentioned Ayers & the Obama connection.

 

He has no reason. He simply is full of hate and not speaking rationally.

 

Media silence about the epidemic of right wing terrorism, the fact that it's the #1 terror threat that we face according to law enforcement?

Think your average American knows that? Lol, please. There have been far MORE right wing terrorist attacks since 9-11 than Islamic ones. But the media just treats them as a side story, a blip. No connecting the dots to these growing right wing movements, no never ending reporting and special reports on major networks. And Fox News and the like? Hahaha please they won't touch it.

And yet according to the nutty right, the MSM is liberal. How strange.

 

This is a tired old left-wing trick that somehow won't die. There are three tricks: 1) measure by year, not periods, so as to include years where very little of either occurred, and 2) set very open paramaters for "right-wing terrorism" and extremely strict paramaters for Islamic terrorism, and 3) you look only at domestic terrorism.

1) First, as you noted, you have to exclude 2001 and 2016, when major Islamic terrorist attacks happened. We had some 3000 killed on 9/11, and roughly 50 killed in the Orlando shooting - btw, even according to New America (the original source for the claims you're making), the Orlando shooter alone killed more than all on their "right-wing terrorist" list combined (as I recall, the right-wing terrorism figure was 48 deaths over more than a decade). What this means is that, per their obviously cooked figures, we had roughly 3 people a year killed by right-wing terrorists, on average. Compared to an average of over 200/yr killed by Islamic terrorists - and you wonder why people are more concerned about Islamic terrorism? Oh, and again, according to the original source for your claims (New America), since 9/11 there have been nearly twice as many killed domestically by Islamic terrorism than by right-wing terrorism.

But then the interesting question is - if you're going to exclude the biggest Islamic terrorist attacks, why aren't you excluding any right-wing terrorism data?


2) I'm speaking specifically in reference to the figures you cited - that "right-wing terrorists have killed more Americans than their radical Islamic counterparts". I actually read through that study, not just the headline. If you read through it, you'll find that they apparently apply wildly different parameters for determining how to assign figures. For example, the "right-wing terrorist" kills include any instance of a person killed by someone who was considered a right-wing 'terrorist' (here, 'terrorist' applied pretty loosely). For example, I remember looking on the list and one of victims of "right-wing terrorism" was someone who was, if I recall correctly, killed in a bar fight (manslaught; not premeditated), because the individual who killed him was associated with right-wing extremist groups. On the other end, the list excluded many major, well-known Islamic terrorist attacks, like the D.C. snipers, who wrote in prison about Jihad.

So basically they set two standards: a) to count as Islamic terrorism, it has to be abundantly clear and beyond reasonable doubt that the motivation for the killing/attack was Jihadist, and b) to count as right-wing terrorism, the victim needs only to be killed by someone who is considered to be a right-wing extremist.

3) This is the obvious kicker - you only look at domestic terrorism. Of course, it seems odd, since less than 1% of the American population is Muslim. But even then, since 2000 Islamic terrorism has domestically killed what - 60+ times that of right-wing extremists? Do we even want to get into proportions here?

And you're, of course, excluding international terrorism - some 90% of which is Islamic terrorism. You're excluding the Islamic extremists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.) who have attacked the U.S. government, thrown homosexuals off of buildings, beheaded religious minorities, taken fairly modern and forward-thinking countries back to the dark ages [especially in regards to women's rights]. And you don't get why Americans are more concerned about Islamic terrorism than right-wing terrorism?

Oh, and the real kicker - whereas Islamic terrorism is responsible for about 90% of terrorism worldwide, has multiple countries (Syria, Iraq) under siege, and since 2000 is responsible for more than 60x the number of deaths caused domestically by right-wing terrorism - - - you speak of "Republican fear-mongering over Islamic terrorism to fire up their voting base". It seems completely lost on you that you're fear mongering over something which accounts for less than 2% of the deaths caused by the thing which you accuse the Republicans of fear mongering over.

 

Wow, you just wasted a lot of time twisting and turning and deflecting and creating straw men and using logical fallacies trying to justify your world view. Hope it made you feel better.

As for reality, our local and national law enforcement experts, you know the heroes those on the right proclaim to love so much, consider right wing terrorism to be a significantly bigger threat than Islamic terrorism.

Lol, guess they are all just falling for these "left wing tricks" and "fake news"...

 

Lolol speaking of fallacy..


The lack of self awareness is astounding.

 

It's the behavior and the beliefs of the adherents people are looking at when critisizing Islam.

 

Straw men AND logical fallacies? Silly me, I thought a straw man was one. Interesting that you were unable to point out a single deflection, straw man, or other fallacy. I just pointed out simple facts. My "worldview" is simply facts - something which one needs to ignored to buy into the OP.

 

That's not a nice thing to say about the men and women of law enforcement.

There are many logical fallacies, straw man is only one.

You cherry picked "facts" to support your world view, one that differs from the stated reality expressed by law enforcement and national security experts. It's no different that climate change deniers, tricks down believers, and a host of other right wing delusions.

 

You didn't answer how the extreme right wing can be both Fascists (i.e. pro-government) and at the same time be anti-government (i.e. anarchists). It's called cognitive dissonance - holding totally opposite ideas in your mind all at once.

Don't confuse Lenin and Stalin with Marx. You would be speaking the real world institution of Marxism with violence versus the natural progression capitalism into Marxism seen by Marx.

If you will read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers you will find out that the Founding Fathers were also for a small federal government whose basic functions would be national security and a judicial system. Read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution for meaning sometime.