Sniper

[Brightgirl48]

I think we have to start praying they find the sniper..this is terrible to have all these people not knowing they will be hit or notroyal blue

[Jake Bunce]

what sniper? is there a current event that i missed (wouldn't surprise me). there are lots of snipers in the world.

[mfinc]

I am not sure, but I think another terrorist related incident, I missed the news when I got hom, but I heard something about another incident.

[filburt1]

*looks at sig* Nothing new I believe

[ccd1]

Some sniper on the East Coast of the US has been randomly killing people over the past week. He's shot a few children and elderly men. I think the death toll stands at nine.

[heretic]

There's been 2 shootings in the city I live in.


I doubt prayers will help, but thanks :)

[Jake Bunce]

he probably played too many video games as a kid. no no, his parents spanked him too much. no wait, his 2nd grade teacher was too harsh.

don't mind me, just making sarcastic humor in bad taste :p

[WildWayz]

Wasn't it 10 victims?

I agree, if/when he is caught I bet he'll blame it on video games or movies then get off with it.

What gets me is he left a card saying "I AM GOD" and a note telling police NOT to tell the media. So what did the police do? Told the media. :rolleyes:

And wasn't it in Washington?

James

[ccd1]

Originally posted by WildWayz
Wasn't it 10 victims?

I agree, if/when he is caught I bet he'll blame it on video games or movies then get off with it.

What gets me is he left a card saying "I AM GOD" and a note telling police NOT to tell the media. So what did the police do? Told the media. :rolleyes:

And wasn't it in Washington?

James

Tarot card. They're speculating it may be a prank but I doubt it because how could someone else know where he was? Actually, the police chief was somewhat upset about someone leaking that information, but that always happens.

I think it's been moving around between Maryland, Washington and Virginia.

[Steve Machol]

Originally posted by Jakeman
don't mind me, just making sarcastic humor in bad taste :p 8 people dead and 2 wounded. Yeah, just the perfect opportunity for sarcasm. :rolleyes:

[Jake Bunce]

Originally posted by Steve Machol
8 people dead and 2 wounded. Yeah, just the perfect opportunity for sarcasm. :rolleyes:

absolutely the perfect opportunity, in light of this tragedy. laughing is good for you. worrying and dwelling on negatives is bad for you.

[Steve Machol]

No one is 'dwelling on negatives'. Making light of other people's loss and tragedies is more of a negative than anything else I've seen in this thread. Why did you even feel the need to respond in this manner?

[Jake Bunce]

Originally posted by Steve Machol
No one is 'dwelling on negatives'. Making light of other people's loss and tragedies is more of a negative than anything else I've seen in this thread. Why did you even feel the need to respond in this manner?

it's a show of good character to be able to laugh at our faults. i'm making fun of americans and their inability to accept responsibility for their actions. i guess you didn't get my humor. :p

[Steve Machol]

I thought 'humor' implied that something was 'funny'. Whatever. Feel free to have the last word.

[ccd1]

The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness: could not see the humor of the situation.

Could just be amusing, but it usually connototes laughter or "funny". It's a very subjective term.

[heretic]

This might help the humor people find.

The police are doing searches everywhere, roadblocks etc.

people don't park then walk to a store. they have someone drive them to the door, then they run, looking over their shoulder. then they wait inside until they get picked up again, then haul ass to the car.

playgrounds are deserted. so are malls.

what a way to live.


humor? :rolleyes:

[ccd1]

You can imagine how people in Israel and Kashmir are living.

[Erwin]

9 dead and 1 seriously injured.

As a doctor whose job it is to preserve life, that's not funny to me. But I Jake I think was just trying to relieve the sombre mood. So let's all take a deep breath, and relax.

[zachb]

Originally posted by baragon0
You can imagine how people in Israel and Kashmir are living.

Exactly what I thought when I read the thing about mall's being empty and people being scared to go anywhere.

[Skeptical]

What pisses me off is how the media and the mass of TV leeches that tune in to entertain themselves at dinner time over the tarot card issue. Unscrupulous people go around leaking info to the press. The press sucks it up and uses it to sell eyeballs to advertisers. Really lame.

I'm in LA, and the other night channel 9 (kcal) showed the video of the police chief lambasting the media for reporting on this leak of information. He spoke of channel 9 (of another state, not of kcal). Immediately the kcal news anchor said "that's channel 9 of XXX, not us." :rolleyes: Oh wow I'm so impressed. Kcal is just sooooo damn pious. Give me a break.

[WildWayz]

Most of the time the media is not in control of the real details and speculate.
So much mis-information it's not funny.

Like when those 2 girls (Holly and Jessica) in the UK were murdered - the amount of crap they came out with was just sickening. FFS they even interviewed old lovers (who had axes to bare) to try and drag up unrelated 'information'.

The news/papers are designed to make money off other peoples suffering - and the more extreme the news is the more people tune in/watch them.

James

[ccd1]

It's sad, but the only reason they do this is because there is a demand for it. This is the kind of specticle people love to see, almost like the Roman Colosseum (sp?)

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by baragon0
It's sad, but the only reason they do this is because there is a demand for it. This is the kind of specticle people love to see, almost like the Roman Colosseum (sp?)

True, but I think that's a poor excuse for the media. There's a reason laws forbid entrapment. People have their weaknesses. It's not right that these companies go around justifying what they do by exploiting our soft side. They can't be excused for playing up tragedies in exchange for profits.

[AuthorZone.Com]

Is it just me, or do you think this sniper wave is being done by Muslim terrorists?

Nevertheless, I am [B]FURIOUS!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

If this keeps up, I am going to go down there and hunt him down myself!!!!!!
ARGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[MarkB]

Not all terrorists are muslim.

Don't forget the Oklahoma (sp?) city bombing. More than likely, this sniper is one of your own.

[AuthorZone.Com]

True, and I did not mean that all Muslims are terrorists.
One of my best friends is a devout Muslim... Sorry for the confusion...

[CeleronXT]

We should hire assassins to hunt down, torture, and kill the sniper. :)

[AuthorZone.Com]

Well, I am opposed to torture, but something must be done to stop this nonesense.

[JimF]

How come whenever someone says something that's not politically correct about another race, creed, etc. and they're called out on it, all of the sudden all of that person's "best friends" are of the race or creed that the person just offended? As if that makes it okay to say what they just said?

"All 12345's are ignorant, moronic a-holes. But my best friend is a 12345, so it's okay that I say that."

-jim

[Raz Meister]

I think AuthorZone.com is one of these 12345's :rolleyes:

The anthrax attack was also supposedly an American. Believe it or not, there are AMERICANS who want to harm America aswell...

Anyway, heard on the news that there was a witness in the last attack. Shouldn't be long before they catch him/her.

[Synthetic]

counting last night, he has shot 11 people killing 9 so far :(

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/15/sniper.fear/index.html

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
I think AuthorZone.com is one of these 12345's :rolleyes:

The anthrax attack was also supposedly an American. Believe it or not, there are AMERICANS who want to harm America aswell...

Anyway, heard on the news that there was a witness in the last attack. Shouldn't be long before they catch him/her.

Who says being an American and being a Muslim is incompatible? What about the cell that was captured in Buffalo?

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by MarkB
Not all terrorists are muslim.

Don't forget the Oklahoma (sp?) city bombing. More than likely, this sniper is one of your own.

I think his question is legitimate. He didn't say all terrorists are Muslim.

[zachb]

The most recent victim, Linda Frankilin, worked as a teacher in my school in 1998. I just started in my current school this year, so I didn't know her, but a lot of the teachers and some other students did. It was a very sad day for a lot of them.

[bigmattyh]

Who cares if he's a Muslim? We've got all sorts of crackpots in America, all shapes, sizes, breeds, colors, races, and creeds. He's an animal and needs to be taken down.

[Vile]

Originally posted by bigmattyh
Who cares if he's a Muslim? We've got all sorts of crackpots in America, all shapes, sizes, breeds, colors, races, and creeds. He's an animal and needs to be taken down.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

When people stoop to this level, and have no regard for others lives, skin color, race, etc. make no difference.

This lunatic needs to be stopped.

[Raz Meister]

If hes Jewish or Christian, he isn't called a 'Jewish/Christian Terrorist'...just a terrorist. Same should be for Muslims or any of other faiths.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
If hes Jewish or Christian, he isn't called a 'Jewish/Christian Terrorist'...just a terrorist. Same should be for Muslims or any of other faiths.

Not with the growing trend of Islamic based terrorists or with lines like


Koran 8:65
"O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast,they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence"
.

With videos of "beheadings" by Al Qaeda in Indonesia found by Indonesian officials back in 2000 (yet their repeated denial they were present their until the Bali bombings), we should all be concerned about a religion which has a tendancy (moreso than any other religion, apparently) to drive people over the edge. The reason for this, in my opinion, is the fact that Mohammed himself led campaigns against Jewish and "Pagan" tribes, annhilating them all for not converting to his new religion.

[Raz Meister]

Originally posted by baragon0
Not with the growing trend of Islamic based terrorists or with lines like

.

With videos of "beheadings" by Al Qaeda in Indonesia found by Indonesian officials back in 2000 (yet their repeated denial they were present their until the Bali bombings), we should all be concerned about a religion which has a tendancy (moreso than any other religion, apparently) to drive people over the edge. The reason for this, in my opinion, is the fact that Mohammed himself led campaigns against Jewish and "Pagan" tribes, annhilating them all for not converting to his new religion.

Ok, Mr Aragont. You can't take out a small verse, without giving the context in which it is used. There are many others errors, but I will let you conduct your own RESEARCH.

The belief of Islam is as follows:
God decrees: Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love transgressors (2:190). Islam is NOT a pacifist religion. It allows you to retaliate, with cause.

The context of the "quote" you gave is that its only acceptable if you are being attacked. The correct quote which you tried to misuse is:O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast men they shall overcome 200, and if there be of you 100 steadfast they shall overcome 1,000 of those who do not believe, because they [the unbelievers] are a folk without understanding and sound judgment. (8:65)Understandable if you are being attacked.

You can get more info here: http://www.islamanswers.net/jihad/rules.htm

Just because a small group of people are hell bent on hurting America, please don't just try to point fingers. The men are evil - no ifs or buts about it. Islam is following by nearly a billion people worldwide who are not as Aragont would try to suggest.

[ccd1]

When does it say anything about being attacked? It is insulting all non-believers by saying they have no sound judgement.

Mohammed himself demonstrated this when he invaded tribes that would not convert to his new religion, including his tribe of origin.

[Raz Meister]

Originally posted by baragon0
When does it say anything about being attacked? It is insulting all non-believers by saying they have no sound judgement.
In the link that I provided, by people who have READ the Koran.

ANYONE, presumably non-believers in religious wars, that attacks someone without provocation doesn't have sound judgement. Isn't it obvious.

Mohammed himself demonstrated this when he invaded tribes that would not convert to his new religion, including his tribe of origin.
Can you PLEASE provide evidence of that claim. Where did you hear that, as its the first time I have heard of it!

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
In the link that I provided, by people who have READ the Koran.

Like me and all Islamic scholars I am aquainted with?

ANYONE, presumably non-believers in religious wars, that attacks someone without provocation doesn't have sound judgement. Isn't it obvious.


Where does it say provocation? Look at India and Pakistan, that's territorial, but based on religion.



Can you PLEASE provide evidence of that claim. Where did you hear that, as its the first time I have heard of it!

That's well known information, common knowledge really (along the same level as the crusades or what not).

I'll see what source I can find for you, though.

Well, in twenty seconds, I was able to find this: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar1.html

[Raz Meister]

Originally posted by baragon0
Like me and all Islamic scholars I am aquainted with?I very much doubt you understood what you read then. Islam, to those who understand it, is a very much peace loving religion. It does allow retalliations for attacks though, which is very common in todays world aswell.

Only the Buddist I think don't follow that line of thinking.
Where does it say provocation? Look at India and Pakistan, that's territorial, but based on religion.In the link I provided.

"Force can be used only when it is unavoidable, and only to the extent necessary. "

India and Pakistan are two different countries fighting for land. It is NOT over religion.

That's well known information, common knowledge really (along the same level as the crusades or what not).Amongst anti-Islamists probably, but not people who understand Islam and know their FULL history.

I'll see what source I can find for you, though.

Well, in twenty seconds, I was able to find this: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar1.html Great. Not exactly the source I was looking for. It provides NO evidence but pure dribble.

It seems like you are on a hell bent way to perversing the teaching of Islam.
I know you are a Buddhist and may blame Islam for converting Buddhists in India. It is NO excuse for slander.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
I very much doubt you understood what you read then. Islam, to those who understand it, is a very much peace loving religion. It does allow retalliations for attacks though, which is very common in todays world aswell.

Then why do actions speak differently? Islam obviously has the potential to make very violent fanatics. When is the last time you saw a militant Jain?


[quote]
Only the Buddist I think don't follow that line of thinking.
In the link I provided.


Buddhists take up arms when they need to fight. Look at Sri Lanka and Burma, two Theravadin Buddhist countries (most orthodox school).

I think you mean Jainists, who are strictly pacifists, they even sweep the floor before they walk to avoid stepping on insects or other bugs.

"Force can be used only when it is unavoidable, and only to the extent necessary. "

India and Pakistan are two different countries fighting for land. It is NOT over religion.


Interestingly enough, though, the main factor in the division is religion. Remember that Muslims, Hindus and Sikh's alike fought for independance against the British but then split themselves into Pakistan, India and what is now Bangladesh. Pakistan and Blangladesh being almost excluesively Muslim. See how religion played a factor? These were all Indo-Aryans, brothers by blood.

Amongst anti-Islamists probably, but not people who understand Islam and know their FULL history.


Who even said I'm an anti-Islamist. I could be Muslim for all you know, all I did was state a few historical occurances.
Great. Not exactly the source I was looking for. It provides NO evidence but pure dribble.


It gives the names of books by several scholars where this information was pulled from. Evidence enough?


It seems like you are on a hell bent way to perversing the teaching of Islam.

I'm not, I actively study Islam and promote tolerance to all religions


I know you are a Buddhist and may blame Islam for converting Buddhists in India. It is NO excuse for slander.

I am not Buddhist and Buddhism died out in India some 2500 years ago when hinduism accepted Gotama as the 9th incarnation of Vishnu.

[Skeptical]

With the rising terrorist activities around the world being attributed to Muslim extremists, I think it's time for the Muslim community to stand up for what is right and start doing something about it themselves. Stop the denials. Something is definitely wrong in the equation somewhere. There are billions of Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/etc., but the rates of terrorist activities in the name of those religions is nowhere NEAR that of Islamic terrorism.

We can sit and and play word games all day. There are verses in every religion that can be interpreted as pro-violence and there are others that can be interpreted as the opposite. But there's definitely something wrong here.

If the Muslim community doesn't get its act together, they risk the loss of respectability for the entire religion altogether.

They need take a firm stand and start teaching tolerance and peace. Not that the majority doesn't, but I think there are many that aren't really doing much to address this world-wide issue other than telling everyone, "don't judge us all. Our religion is peaceful".



p.s. If you think what I've said is racist or biggotted, I'm NOT. Try to understand my point from a world-peace point of view. I don't want this planet to self-destruct in another 100 years.

[ccd1]

Skeptical, that's my point exactly. However, it seems that when you say that, you will get an army of people repeating things about womens rights and peace and things that you didn't even mention.

[NetherChris]

I agree with Skeptical and baragon.... in fact I think they hit the nail on the head. There is a big big difference between prejudice/corruption and fact based historical happenings.

Facts are facts... there are no ifs ands or buts about it, and what happened definitely did happen. More terrorist actions are attributed to that religion than any other one in the world, which makes people fear it. They do need to take a stand and actively support peace, because to be honest, they haven't done anything to this point, and i'm not racist or biggotted either. I'm just looking at the politically correct nature of the country we live in... looking back on the original topic (sniper), that brand new movie I was actually looking forward to (phone booth) was actually delayed indefinitely because of what happened. Is this what has really happened to us? A group of people so insensitive so as to blame video games and movies for violence in the world? We need to pull our collective heads out of the clouds and seperate fact from illusion and decide what is really important.

[chrispadfield]

I am under the impression that many high 'ranking' muslims are condeming the terrorism, the problem is that the news companies prefere to show a group of extreme radicals waving guns in the air than they do showing the compartivly 'boring' condemnation of these acts. The news companies are also giving far too much air time to these extremists. For example there was a protest outside Finsbury Mosque (renowned as an extremist hot bed) on September 11th detailing the benefits of the day. These seemed to be news item #1. This was the problem; there are idiots who meet and have extreme view gatherings every day, it is the news companies the blow it out of all proportion and thus give the average person who watches the news the wrong impression about what muslims are doing.

[Jake Bunce]

the media plays on people's emotions to get higher ratings, that's all. i refuse to believe anything on tv or in the newspaper.

[Skeptical]

Yes the media does play things up to rile people's emotions and increase viewership, but still, it is based on truth. Fact is, Bali was bombed and 200 people were killed. Fact is 3000 people died on 9/11. Fact is, Palestinian Muslims are blowing themselves up almost weekly. Fact is, an overwhelming majority of terrorist activities have links to the Muslim world. Fact is, no OTHER religion can even come close in terms of violence.

Doubt the media all you want, but people have died, are dying, and will continue to die from this terrorist activity. What's the world going to do about it?

[Raz Meister]

I agree the media is based on the truth, but it is also selective of the truth it tells. They tell the "truth" that get the most viewers.

Just because a small group of people from a Muslim area decide to use terror to enforce their beliefs, please do not blame the religion (practiced by over a billion people peacefully) - and blame the people carrying out the terror. The religion in no way condones any acts of violence against civilians.

The violence commited in Northern Ireland, Spain and Sri Lanka are by non-muslims, but don't get the same sort of press coverage. Probably because they don't go to that much of an extreme but there are terrorists groups out there that are not muslim.

For the Palestinians, although I do not condone suicide bombings against civilians, I do understand where they are coming from. They are an occupied people from a foreign country for nearly 35 years, who controls every action they can, and cannot do. A country which has broken the most UN resolutions (more than Iraq) for the longest period of time.

[ccd1]

A perfect example of this was last year when the media was reporting a great deal of shark attacks even though the number was right on average as compared to previous years.

[Level]

Originally posted by baragon0
Some sniper on the East Coast of the US has been randomly killing people over the past week. He's shot a few children and elderly men. I think the death toll stands at nine.

lol he shot 1 kid..

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Level
lol he shot 1 kid..

Oh, like that's the thing to focus on.

[Level]

Originally posted by baragon0
Oh, like that's the thing to focus on.

actually, yes..

only 1 child has been involved.. and lived. I'm just correcting.

[chrispadfield]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
I agree the media is based on the truth, but it is also selective of the truth it tells. They tell the "truth" that get the most viewers.

Just because a small group of people from a Muslim area decide to use terror to enforce their beliefs, please do not blame the religion (practiced by over a billion people peacefully) - and blame the people carrying out the terror. The religion in no way condones any acts of violence against civilians.

The violence commited in Northern Ireland, Spain and Sri Lanka are by non-muslims, but don't get the same sort of press coverage. Probably because they don't go to that much of an extreme but there are terrorists groups out there that are not muslim.


One of the reasons, right or wrong, that the current terrosim is associated with muslims is because this is why they claim they are doing it, for their religion, or jihad. Sure they are wrong, but that dosen't defeat the fact that they claim they are doing it for this reason. I can't think of hand of another group of terrorists whose reason is religious. Northern Ireland perhaps was once but that is not the issue now, Spain is about terroritory etc.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Level
actually, yes..

only 1 child has been involved.. and lived. I'm just correcting.

And the rest?

They're all people, what real difference does it make if they're 14 or 41?

[Level]

Originally posted by baragon0
And the rest?

They're all people, what real difference does it make if they're 14 or 41?

lol 1 kid (13 yrs old) who was shot .. and you saying a few children were shot .. is a slight difference. not to sound like a dick.. just straightening a fact. so relax.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Level
lol 1 kid (13 yrs old) who was shot .. and you saying a few children were shot .. is a slight difference. not to sound like a dick.. just straightening a fact. so relax.

You are though, you've strayed off the entire thread just by going back to the second post and saying something everyone already knows.

[Level]

Originally posted by baragon0
You are though, you've strayed off the entire thread just by going back to the second post and saying something everyone already knows.

maybe because I just started reading the thread and read your post and didn't wanna read the following 3 pages? thanks.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Level
maybe because I just started reading the thread and read your post and didn't wanna read the following 3 pages? thanks.


Well, at least you admitted to that.

Anyway, the reason Islamic terrorism has been getting a great deal of attention in Western countries, is the mere fact that there is no other religiously motivated terrorism out there.

Sure, the Hindu's are retaliating and there hasn't been a major Sikh incident in quite a while. The Tibetans are launching a few bombs against the Chinese but Xinhua (CNN's source) is censoring that.

Islamic terrorism has made it world wide, and it has become quite apparent that there are some very high ranking people backing this up. I wonder why the Indonesian government didn't admit there was an al Qaeda presence in their country until the attacks on Bali (even though they had found an al Qaeda training camp).

It's ironic, though, it is 1423 in the Isamic calendar. Around this time in the Christian calendar, Christians weren't too peaceful either.

I personally find Islam to be a huge part of an intriguing culture, but this is what happens when there is no central clergy, anybody can do anything and blame it on someone else (or as a whole). (That was my Catholic side speaking :p)

[Skeptical]

All I know is, where there's a huge concentration of Muslims in the world, there's lots of violence.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Skeptical
All I know is, where there's a huge concentration of Muslims in the world, there's lots of violence.

Yeah, talk about World War I and World War II.

[Level]

sniper has struck again.

they believe it's related. It was 1 shot.. and witnesses saw a white van leaving the scene *sigh*

this took place in virginia at a ponderosa. a 37 yr old male was shot and taken to hospital. I-95 traffic is backed up beyond belief. tune into FOXNews to learn more on this...

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Level
sniper has struck again.

they believe it's related. It was 1 shot.. and witnesses saw a white van leaving the scene *sigh*

this took place in virginia at a ponderosa. a 37 yr old male was shot and taken to hospital. I-95 traffic is backed up beyond belief. tune into FOXNews to learn more on this...

*Reads about it on Xinhua and laughs*

[Skeptical]

You think this shooting is funny?

[Level]

Originally posted by baragon0
*Reads about it on Xinhua and laughs*

what is Xinhua? I'm lost here

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Skeptical
You think this shooting is funny?

No, I think Xinhua is.

Xinhua is the official newspaper of the CCP. They're CNN's source for anything that happens in China.

They have international news that's totally biased to backup the CCP in anyway, be it by saying "The PLA would never let this happen" or something to that effect.

[bigmattyh]

Originally posted by baragon0
It's ironic, though, it is 1423 in the Isamic calendar. Around this time in the Christian calendar, Christians weren't too peaceful either.Very interesting observation. I haven't heard anyone else take note of that.

I know the history of Christianity pretty well (although with a lot less detail for a few centuries of it), and I know it also went through a "golden age" early on, like Islam did. In fact, it was a great boon that Islam had such a great period in its history at the time Christianity began its decline into the overpowerful, centralized rule of the Dark Ages, because a lot of Western progress was flushed down the theological toilet at that time, and the only sane and reasonable people who saw fit to preserve the knowledge were the Islamic scholars. I wonder how many other parallels can be drawn, and if it's just the nature of societal and religious development that similar patterns might emerge on a broad scale.

Hm.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by bigmattyh
Very interesting observation. I haven't heard anyone else take note of that.

I know the history of Christianity pretty well (although with a lot less detail for a few centuries of it), and I know it also went through a "golden age" early on, like Islam did. In fact, it was a great boon that Islam had such a great period in its history at the time Christianity began its decline into the overpowerful, centralized rule of the Dark Ages, because a lot of Western progress was flushed down the theological toilet at that time, and the only sane and reasonable people who saw fit to preserve the knowledge were the Islamic scholars. I wonder how many other parallels can be drawn, and if it's just the nature of societal and religious development that similar patterns might emerge on a broad scale.

Hm.

Keep a close eye on the Baha'i faith.

[Supersonic]

Just thinking about a sniper scairs the heck out of me...:( * runs and hides*

[Raz Meister]

Originally posted by bigmattyh
Very interesting observation. I haven't heard anyone else take note of that. The violence is not occuring because they are "going through that sort of time".

The violence a small amount of Arabs are taking is because of American foreign policy, as simple as. America is accused of double standards and its biased support and military aid to Israel.

Once the Israeli/Palestinian situation is resolved and America stops supporting oppresive regimes there (such as the Saud Kingdom in Saudi Arabia), the Arabs would have no need to be angry with the US.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Raz Meister

The violence a small amount of Arabs are taking is because of American foreign policy, as simple as. America is accused of double standards and its biased support and military aid to Israel.


Have you seen the support they have? It's not just a small amount. There are a small amount doing this, but they have a lot of sympathizers and supporters. And these aren't just arabs. Indonesia isn't an Arab country.

[Raz Meister]

Actually a HUGE amount of people see the American government double standards and hypocrisy, not just Muslims.

The ACTUAL violence is commited by a VERY small amount of people. Around the region of 0.00001% are giving 100% of the people a bad name.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
Actually a HUGE amount of people see the American government double standards and hypocrisy, not just Muslims.

The ACTUAL violence is commited by a VERY small amount of people. Around the region of 0.00001% are giving 100% of the people a bad name.

Yes, but an amazingly LARGE amount of people are supporting them. They're cheering them on.

Nine players on a baseball field, 40,000 people cheering them on. Were it not for all those fans, I don't think we'd even have a league for those nine players.

[Raz Meister]

So you think they are doing this for cheers? Hmm...not as enlightened as I thought you were.

[ccd1]

Is that the way you throw down an analogy?

They have support, they have "fan loyalty", and yes, if you saw the images of September 12th, you will find a great deal of people cheering on the streets, giving out candy to children and firing AK-47's into the air.

[bigmattyh]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
The violence a small amount of Arabs are taking is because of American foreign policy, as simple as.No, it's taking place because a bunch of religious zealots have decided that they must cleanse the world of the infidels.

Before I go any further, let me just say that I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Islam, or Muslims, or anyone else because of their religion. I am speaking about the extremists -- the shooters, the grenade-lobbers, the bomb-belt wearers.

Not that you care much for the facts, Raz, but for anyone else who is interested in what the terrorists themselves are saying, read on.

On October 6th, terrorists struck the French oil tanker Limburg, by ramming it with a small boat filled with explosives -- sending one crewman to his death and 90,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf of Aden. Not surprisingly, a militant Islamic group based out of Yemen, Aden-Abyan Islamic Armyin, claimed responsibility for the attack.

So were they mistaken for hitting a French tanker, and not a US one? I mean, after all, if US foreign policy is the real reason for terrorism, why hit the French? The spokesman said that attacking the French was

no problem because they are all infidels, and infidelity is one and the same.
This is straight from the source. No mention of French foreign policy or oppression of Arab lands. They were attacked because they are infidels.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2320893.stm

It's not just the French getting hit, either -- but the message seems to be the same. After the Bali bombing, Abu Bakar Bashir, the leading radical Muslim cleric in Indonesia -- who may have had a hand in the attack -- offered this message to the familes of the victims, who died in Bali's "sinful nightclubs":

My message to the families is please convert to Islam as soon as possible.
And yes, he mentioned some things about supporting American foreign policy, but if it were truly only about foreign policy, he wouldn't have made the comments about converting to Islam.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/17/1034561267359.html

These are SICK, SICK people. They throw grenades into churches. They blow up synagogues. They shoot people in Christian centers. And before you say it's just the US-Zion this or that, or that it's just a Christian-Jew thing, they've also issued fatwas against Hindus, too, which blows to hell your whole hypothesis that this isn't religiously motivated. Hell, if it were Christians killing people and then making comments about their victims being infidels, and how they should accept Jesus Christ as their lord and personal savior real soon, you'd waste no time in calling this stuff for what it is. This is Inquisition- and Crusade-type thinking -- convert the enemy by the sword. Fighting for God. Sick.

Once the Israeli/Palestinian situation is resolved and America stops supporting oppresive regimes there (such as the Saud Kingdom in Saudi Arabia), the Arabs would have no need to be angry with the US. And don't you know that the extremists want to set up oppressive Islamic states in their place? How would you like to live in a country where you can be shot in a public square for not being able to quote the Quran properly? For shaving your beard?

I've gone over this before, and you don't want to get it, Raz. These people don't just want to get the US out of the "Arab world" or the "Muslim world", they want to establish a holy rule, a theocratic, totalitarian Islamic state throughout the world. They've said so, repeatedly, and you can put your blinders on all you want, but your refusal to accept the truth on this matter doesn't make it any less true.

[ccd1]

And you heard of the tapes found in Indonesia, of decapitated people--as propaganda to fight the holy war. And those aren't even Arabs!

[Erwin]

Abu Bakar Bashir actually has the audacity to accuse the US of actual carrying out the Bali bombing.

"I think the bomb was done by foreign intelligence, especially US intelligence. The indications are Americans and Jews did it to justify the claims that have been made so far that Indonesia is a terrorist haven. What they mean by terrorists is Muslims. "So to prove their theory they created the incident in Bali."

Australia has truly changed after this attack. Today, about 2 hours ago, I received news that there was a shooting at Monash University, the place where I study law part-time. 2 people were killed, 8 injured. No one knows exactly what the cause of the shooting is. Luckily, my sister and brother-in-law are fine - my brother-in-law was in the lecture theatre next to the one that the gunman shot at.

Nothing can shake you up more than the fact that you are no longer safe in your own country.

[Raz Meister]

bigmattyh, I wasn't talking about the Bali bombers, but more specifially the attacks on the WTC by Al-Queda.

You call these people Islamic terrorists, when you really should be calling them cold-blooded, psychotic terrorists.

Islam stricly forbids attacks on innocent civillians, which these terrorists just seem to forget.Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind," (Al-Ma'dah:32).

Source: Islam Online (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml)The terrorists in the attacks on the WTC are said to have been partying with alchol the night before the attacks. Do these look like religious people, or just psyhos trying to further their cause through terror?

[Raz Meister]

Latest news on the sniper is that they've arrested two men in connection with the attacks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2346921.stm

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Raz Meister


Islam stricly forbids attacks on innocent civillians, which these terrorists just seem to forget.

However, you can label any "innocent civilian" an opressor. It's not like they grow a green layer of skin to be identified. Anyone can become an "opressor".

Even Mohammed himself did such things, we all know how he plundered and conquered people. Does that look like peace?

[bigmattyh]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
You call these people Islamic terrorists, when you really should be calling them cold-blooded, psychotic terrorists.I call them Islamic terrorists (or really, I prefer the term Islamofascists, because their stated goal is the worldwide establishment of a totalitarian Islamic state) because they say that they kill in the name of Allah, and that they are doing his righteous work. Sounds like religious fundamentalism to me.

I understand that Islam forbids the killing of innocents (as any civilized religion does). And we can have discussions about whether these guys are technically Muslim -- but the fact remains that they believe they are acting in accordance with the word of Allah. Osama bin Laden himself said that civilians are legitimate targets in a democracy, because they are responsible for electing their leaders, and therefore, they are directly responsible for the actions their leaders take. So in his interpretation of Islam, civilians are not innocent.

My whole point is this. I know these nutjobs don't represent Islam (and most people know this). I don't care whether they are true Muslims, just like I don't care about whether the Christian nutcase who bombed abortion clinics in Atlanta (and who may have been responsible for the bombing during the 1996 Olympics) is really a true Christian. He's a Christian fundamentalist, and he knows it, the world knows it, and the rest of the world doesn't have a problem in labeling him exactly what he claimed to be -- a Christian fundamentalist zealot who claimed to be doing God's work. Same thing goes for the Al Qaeda nutcases who think they're doing the work of Allah. Their interpretation of their religion is inextricably bound up in their mission and actions. I don't care. I just want them taken out.

As long as they keep grenading churches and detonating car bombs outside of synagogues and saying that their victims had better convert to Islam, I'll keep calling them the Islamic Fundamentalists that they are.

[Raz Meister]

Originally posted by bigmattyh
I'll keep calling them the Islamic Fundamentalists that they are. That is where I think you are wrong.

A person can be a fundamentalist muslim and still not want to kill people or spread religion by terror. Fundamentalism is just orthodoxy where they go "back to basics".

Islam has always been a religion of peace. It was the first religion to forbidding racism (among others) from its conception.

Originally posted by baragon0
However, you can label any "innocent civilian" an opressor. It's not like they grow a green layer of skin to be identified. Anyone can become an "opressor".You can?

Civillians cannot be blamed for the policy of their governemnt. Its not like they approve each policy.

To suggest a civillian can be considered an opressor is wrong.

Even Mohammed himself did such things, we all know how he plundered and conquered people. Does that look like peace? I told you to do your research and not base your allegations on conjecture.

Any un-biased scholar will refute your claims.

You can read this article from a person who has read the whole Koran, and not just bits to demonize Islam.
http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Sabeel/sabeel11.htm

Also if you knew you history then you would know that Mohammad never picked up a sword once.

And finally, need I remind you that this thread was created to discuss the US sniper, and not the legality of Islam.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
You can?

Anyone can. It's just a label


Civillians cannot be blamed for the policy of their governemnt. Its not like they approve each policy.


To suggest a civillian can be considered an opressor is wrong.


Exactly. I can call anyone that doesn't follow my beliefs an "opressor" because they're contaminating the world with false beliefs. Nobody can stop me from labeling them as an "opressor" and "opressors" must be fought against in the minds of some.

They don't need to have a government or country behind them.

Any un-biased scholar will refute your claims.


And likewise for my points


Also if you knew you history then you would know that Mohammad never picked up a sword once.


Kind of like Hitler. I mean, he didn't really kill anybody but he ordered it.

And finally, need I remind you that this thread was created to discuss the US sniper, and not the legality of Islam.

Funny you should mention that after having posted only about Islam for the past couple pages.

[Raz Meister]

Originally posted by baragon0
Kind of like Hitler. I mean, he didn't really kill anybody but he ordered it.
*sigh* Again if you read your history, he did not order any killings of civillians. Yes they were involved in a WAR to DEFEND themselves, which is permissable. IF you knew your history, then you should know they were attacked for their beliefs and the number of people that had converted over. PLEASE get a clue!

And likewise for my pointsPlease provide such a source. I don't think you will find a legitimate historian that will support your comments.

Funny you should mention that after having posted only about Islam for the past couple pages. [/B] Actually my last third post was an attempt to go back on topic.

Clearly you will not try to study the facts, nor does it seem you are willing to learn anything that will change your Anti-Islamist views. I am very tired of your intolerent narrowminded views, and no longer want to participate in your slander of this religion.

[Edit]
Seem like Mr Bernardo Aragon isn't all too new on spreading hatred against Islam. Seems like he's an old hand at it: http://www.linuxnewbie.org/forum/showthread.php?threadid=62101

[Skeptical]

Religion has been and will be the cause of many many wars. This is why I hate religion with a passion, whether it's christianity, islam, buddhism, or whatever. I "pray" for that day when human beings can wake up from this stupor and realize "god" is nothing more than an imaginary fairy, like Santa Claus.

[bigmattyh]

Originally posted by Raz Meister
Originally posted by bigmattyh
I'll keep calling them the Islamic Fundamentalists that they are.
That is where I think you are wrong."Fundamentalism" as generally understood, and as applied to these terrorists, does not just describe a benign interest in returning to "fundamentals." According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fundamentalist):
fun·da·men·tal·ism n. - A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. (italics mine)The label of "fundamentalist" is dead-on (no pun intended) in the case of these terrorists, who murder others in the name of their religion -- and who clearly do not tolerate others, especially those who hold secular values.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Skeptical
Religion has been and will be the cause of many many wars. This is why I hate religion with a passion, whether it's christianity, islam, buddhism, or whatever. I "pray" for that day when human beings can wake up from this stupor and realize "god" is nothing more than an imaginary fairy, like Santa Claus.

Fortunatly, the Buddhists don't believe in any "God" (in your meaning of the word).

I'm actually saddened by Raz calling me "Anti-Islamist", I hope that isn't how you defened yourself against anyone trying to have a simple converstaion--regardless of their points of view (you might want to know that most things I post here aren't even my points of view, but simply points for discussion).

[Jake Bunce]

Dear Policeman:
I AM GOD.

(from a Family Guy episode I am told. lol)

[iBlaze]

well, they say the guy is caught now..


41 Year old John Lee Williams and 17 year old Jamaican citizen John Lee Malvo.


They have confessed to the shootings I heard and Williams will get the death penalty.. Malvo won't, I haven't heard what type of punishment nor sentence he will receive.


The men weren't hiding in bushes.. They modified the 90 chevy Caprice just for this occasion.. The men were laying down inside the car, shooting from the inside, with a hold in the back of the trunk. The car was built for a quick getaway.


I just hope these are the only 2

[ccd1]

Originally posted by iBlaze

They have confessed to the shootings I heard and Williams will get the death penalty.. Malvo won't, I haven't heard what type of punishment nor sentence he will receive.



How do you know this? They haven't even gone on trial yet.

[tubedogg]

Not to burst anyone's bubble but it is customary to get convicted of a crime before being executed, at least in the US. They both have to go to trial before you can hear what sentence they receive.

And the last I heard, Malvo wasn't talking at all and even tried to escape through some air ducts last night.

[bigmattyh]

Latest word from CNN is that both are being charged with murder (Malvo is being tried as an adult) and both will face the death penalty.

Authorities plan to try Malvo -- a Jamaican citizen who is identified as Lee Boyd Malvo on his birth certificate -- as an adult, according to Montgomery County State Attorney Douglas Gansler, and plan to seek the death penalty for both.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/26/sniper.shootings/index.html

[iBlaze]

Originally posted by baragon0
How do you know this? They haven't even gone on trial yet.


It was on the news, in my City (Nashville) I heard it on Channel 5 News.. Im sure I heard this, because when I did, I went and told my relatives that were in the house.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by iBlaze
It was on the news, in my City (Nashville) I heard it on Channel 5 News.. Im sure I heard this, because when I did, I went and told my relatives that were in the house.

It was a rhetorical statement. Nobody can get the death penelty or even serve a jail sentance until they've been charged and convicted of a crime.

These people still have to go on trial.

The fact that prosecutors are pushing for a death penelty is a different issue

[ccd1]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/26/sniper.letter.graphic/index.html

The snipers letter, with his bank account number :p

[Jake Bunce]

people like this just want attention. that's why i don't care.

imagine if the media and the american people showed no interest. the criminal would not be (in)famous, no news coverage, just a trial which no one watches, a conviction and sentance which no one protests. people like this would have no reason to be criminals.

hmmm, maybe. i'm just thinking about my ideal version of the world again.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Jakeman

hmmm, maybe. i'm just thinking about my ideal version of the world again.

Hide the women and children

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by Jakeman
people like this just want attention. that's why i don't care.

imagine if the media and the american people showed no interest. the criminal would not be (in)famous, no news coverage, just a trial which no one watches, a conviction and sentance which no one protests. people like this would have no reason to be criminals.

hmmm, maybe. i'm just thinking about my ideal version of the world again.

Yeah and true criminals would love that world too Jake. They'll have even easier to get away from committing crimes.

[Jake Bunce]

Originally posted by Skeptical
Yeah and true criminals would love that world too Jake. They'll have even easier to get away from committing crimes.

no, law enforcement is still in full effect in jake's world, just no media frenzy.

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by Jakeman
no, law enforcement is still in full effect in jake's world, just no media frenzy.

In that case, the snipers will most likely still be roaming free.

[Jake Bunce]

Originally posted by Skeptical
In that case, the snipers will most likely still be roaming free.

:confused: how? they would be arrested.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Jakeman
:confused: how? they would be arrested.

Not if nobody cares about it (no media, no attention)

[Jake Bunce]

Originally posted by baragon0
Not if nobody cares about it (no media, no attention)

they don't arrest criminals, police and other law enforcement do.:confused:

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Jakeman
they don't arrest criminals, police and other law enforcement do.:confused:

They did it so that the public could rest. How hectic do you think everything was when the sniper said "you children are not safe". It gave catching this guy top priority.

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by Jakeman
they don't arrest criminals, police and other law enforcement do.:confused:

Without public help, the police wouldn't have found the criminal so soon, if at all. They were caught because a trucker had spotted the snipers' car after hearing the license plate and car description on the radio.

[Jake Bunce]

Originally posted by Skeptical
Without public help, the police wouldn't have found the criminal so soon, if at all. They were caught because a trucker had spotted the snipers' car after hearing the license plate and car description on the radio.

in jake's world there are surveillance cameras everywhere to aid law enforcement. ;)

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by Jakeman
in jake's world there are surveillance cameras everywhere to aid law enforcement. ;)

In Jake's world, there's no criminals hehe.

[tubedogg]

In Jake's world apparently "civil liberties" is just a figure of speech...

[chrispadfield]

The only problem with survelliance cameras is who has access to the footage. It wouldn't worry me at all if they were literally everywhere (as they are more and more in the UK) if access to them is well controlled.

[bigmattyh]

So, uh, Jake: Why not just propose that in your ideal world, there would be no desire to commit crime? That would be a helluva lot more efficient than to wipe out the desire to watch the media circus, which covers crime with such attention that it provides an incentive for criminals to commit crime...

You know, your world being ideal and all, you wouldn't need security cameras and whatnot.

[Jake Bunce]

you guys can't win. you are arguing that a utopia isn't perfect. make certain assumptions. can't we imagine? :p