Austin terrorist was part of Christian survivalist group

[SummerMadness]

not many christians are left and liberals and its not those few christians who are it that is bashing, its the non christians in the left that is doing the bashing. christianityphobia is mainstream with the left.

bill maher is one of few, he is disliked by the vast majority of left-wingers.

Most Americans identify as Christians, the notion that not many Christians are left and liberals is categorically false. Or are we now talking about the "right kind of Christians"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Kinda like how when someone drives a van into a crowd of people and before being beaten into submission after being dragged out professes loyalty to ISIS were told that we have to wait to find out their motives?

That always bugged me...but not as much as the apologists who would inevitably say, "I just want to point out that this doesn't mean every Muslim is a terrorist...we cannot let this isolated incident cause any hatred towards the Muslim community." every single time it happened.

In their minds, the problem of terror attacks is not worth mentioning....but they'll talk about bigotry against Muslims every chance they get.

 

[jovanovic]

Most Americans identify as Christians, the notion that not many Christians are left and liberals is categorically false. Or are we now talking about the "right kind of Christians"?

99 % of all right wingers in usa are christians but perhaps only 30 % of liberals and left are christians in usa.

 

[SummerMadness]

99 % of all right wingers in usa are christians but perhaps only 30 % of liberals and left are christians in usa.

I'm 78% sure you're quoting factual statistics there.

 

[Rion]

Islamic fundamentalism can be violent and is horrible. Point disproven.

*Point re-proven when you're arrested for a hate crime in a month's time*

 

[iluvatar5150]

That always bugged me...but not as much as the apologists who would inevitably say, "I just want to point out that this doesn't mean every Muslim is a terrorist...we cannot let this isolated incident cause any hatred towards the Muslim community." every single time it happened.

In their minds, the problem of terror attacks is not worth mentioning....but they'll talk about bigotry against Muslims every chance they get.

Attacks committed under the banners of Christianity and Islam aren't handled in the same way by either side. No, those on the left don't jump at the chance to shout #notallchristians every time a right-wing white guy does something, but 1.) Christians in this country aren't a small minority, and 2.) folks on the right aren't constantly looking for ways to demonize them.

At least in the US, anti-Muslim bigotry is a very easy thing to trigger, partly because many folks in the media seek to profit off of it. This isn't just a fringe element of the right-wing; it's popular media personalities and people at the highest level of politics stoking fires ready to flare up almost anywhere. Off the top of my head, I can think protests and political/legal fights against the "9/11 mosque", another mosque in Murfreesboro, and against a Muslim cemetery in central MA - none of which had anything to do with terrorism and everything to do with blind religious bigotry. And then there was all the Muslim-related stuff thrown at Obama. Given that volatility and the fact that the bigotry is directed at a small minority, I don't think it's inappropriate to be constantly vigilant against allowing it to get out of hand.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Minorities are not necessarily virtuous nor are majorities necessarily oppressors.

 

[frienden thalord]

Good question. But I do notice that if someone commits an act of violence after following a group of Islamic terrorist sites they are immediately labelled terrorist, but is the same true if they come from the alt-right instead?

As to this particular case, we need more evidence.

Goonie , its all terrorism. but LET us remember just cause someone
Says they christain , don't mean THEY CHRISTAIN.
A true fundemntal bible believing Jesus following Christain would not harm a soul
and would even pray for those who do them harm .
But their is an agenda at work. So even ones like me will seem dangerous in time .
But how dangerous can I be, when I don't even believe in self defense
but rather would pray for even one who was to kill me , to be FORGIVEN.
but society and even christain churches will in time see ones like me
who wont conform to socities new all inclusive religion , as dangerous ones. Just food for thought .

 

[Ana the Ist]

Attacks committed under the banners of Christianity and Islam aren't handled in the same way by either side. No, those on the left don't jump at the chance to shout #notallchristians every time a right-wing white guy does something, but 1.) Christians in this country aren't a small minority, and 2.) folks on the right aren't constantly looking for ways to demonize them.

At least in the US, anti-Muslim bigotry is a very easy thing to trigger, partly because many folks in the media seek to profit off of it. This isn't just a fringe element of the right-wing; it's popular media personalities and people at the highest level of politics stoking fires ready to flare up almost anywhere. Off the top of my head, I can think protests and political/legal fights against the "9/11 mosque", another mosque in Murfreesboro, and against a Muslim cemetery in central MA - none of which had anything to do with terrorism and everything to do with blind religious bigotry. And then there was all the Muslim-related stuff thrown at Obama. Given that volatility and the fact that the bigotry is directed at a small minority, I don't think it's inappropriate to be constantly vigilant against allowing it to get out of hand.

And frankly, it wouldn't bother me at all if it wasn't seemingly always mentioned by the left the first time they address a terror attack.
Whether it's a mayor, governor, senator...whomever...it's almost as if you can wait for the "But we need to remember..." in their press statement addressing the attack.

Regardless, do you think this was a terrorist attack?

 

[iluvatar5150]

And frankly, it wouldn't bother me at all if it wasn't seemingly always mentioned by the left the first time they address a terror attack.
Whether it's a mayor, governor, senator...whomever...it's almost as if you can wait for the "But we need to remember..." in their press statement addressing the attack.

Part of it, I'm sure, is virtue signalling. But part of it is trying to stave off the very real existence of folks on the other side ready to jump on anything that even smells like an offense committed by a Muslim.

Regardless, do you think this was a terrorist attack?

If we're going by the strict definition of "terrorism" as having a political motivation, then I have no idea. I'm not aware that they've found a motive yet, but then I haven't been paying that much attention to the story.

If we're going by the looser colloquial definition of "thing that terrorizes people", then yeah, it would seem like an obvious example of one.

But generally speaking, that distinction seems like a somewhat-pointless semantic one to me. For the purposes of prevention and apprehension, it's obviously useful to understand the motivations of criminals of any kind, however it seems less important to be that pedantic about criminal motivations when assessing the impact of their crimes on the communities they target. For example, if some dude is raping and killing women joggers, does it matter to the women joggers in that area whether he's doing it out of some misguided MRA agenda (which would be "terrorism") or if he's doing it because he's a sick hornball who gets off to killing women (which wouldn't be "terrorism")? I don't know that it does. If the term "terrorism" existed solely within the realm of law enforcement jargon, then getting specific with its usage would make sense, but the term's usage has moved well beyond that.

All that said, I haven't thought about this question too much, so I wouldn't really take a firm position on it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Part of it, I'm sure, is virtue signalling. But part of it is trying to stave off the very real existence of folks on the other side ready to jump on anything that even smells like an offense committed by a Muslim.

We're talking about situations where people died or an attempt to kill people was made. It seems more appropriate to be more concerned in that moment about future attacks...regardless of who commits them.

When a politician voices their concerns about bigotry against Muslims instead...it looks like they're more concerned about that then they are concerned about the people who just died.

Obviously, hate crimes are awful...but there's a time and place to address everything.

If we're going by the strict definition of "terrorism" as having a political motivation, then I have no idea. I'm not aware that they've found a motive yet, but then I haven't been paying that much attention to the story.

I wasn't either...but I read a few articles and it seems his motives were dubious to say the least.

If we're going by the looser colloquial definition of "thing that terrorizes people", then yeah, it would seem like an obvious example of one.

Sure...but the articles bringing it up are upset that the law enforcement community hasn't labeled it as terrorism yet. I mean the ink isn't even dry on this investigation.

But generally speaking, that distinction seems like a somewhat-pointless semantic one to me. For the purposes of prevention and apprehension, it's obviously useful to understand the motivations of criminals of any kind, however it seems less important to be that pedantic about criminal motivations when assessing the impact of their crimes on the communities they target. For example, if some dude is raping and killing women joggers, does it matter to the women joggers in that area whether he's doing it out of some misguided MRA agenda (which would be "terrorism") or if he's doing it because he's a sick hornball who gets off to killing women (which wouldn't be "terrorism")? I don't know that it does. If the term "terrorism" existed solely within the realm of law enforcement jargon, then getting specific with its usage would make sense, but the term's usage has moved well beyond that.

I agree completely...but both sides want to earn points for their respective narratives. The left wants as many young angry white men labeled as terrorists so they can claim that white men are the "real" problem.

The right, of course, wants as many Muslims labeled terrorists as possible to justify their narrative. I think it's disgusting when either side does it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

We're talking about situations where people died or an attempt to kill people was made. It seems more appropriate to be more concerned in that moment about future attacks...regardless of who commits them.

When a politician voices their concerns about bigotry against Muslims instead...it looks like they're more concerned about that then they are concerned about the people who just died.

Obviously, hate crimes are awful...but there's a time and place to address everything.

Sure, but I don't think they have to be separate times.

Sure...but the articles bringing it up are upset that the law enforcement community hasn't labeled it as terrorism yet. I mean the ink isn't even dry on this investigation.


I agree completely...but both sides want to earn points for their respective narratives. The left wants as many young angry white men labeled as terrorists so they can claim that white men are the "real" problem.

The right, of course, wants as many Muslims labeled terrorists as possible to justify their narrative. I think it's disgusting when either side does it.

And this is the danger of mixing professional jargon with colloquial usages of the same words. (See also "It's just a theory" re: evolution) If you're a LEO, then yeah, hold off on labeling it "terrorism" until you know the facts. But if you're just a rando trying not to get shot/blown up, then yeah, maybe you should fear the rednecks as much as the mooslims.

 

[Go Braves]

Smh.

 

[danbuter]

More Leftist drivel.

Also, OP is all over a Christian terrorist, but he defends Islamic terrorists immediately.

 

[Goonie]

More Leftist drivel.

Also, OP is all over a Christian terrorist, but he defends Islamic terrorists immediately.

Except they have not. Retract that falsehood.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure, but I don't think they have to be separate times.

Maybe I just don't understand the left's thinking on this then...I thought the whole reason we don't hear them say "But remember that not every young white conservative is a terrorist, Nazi, mass shooter, etc" is because it's contextually inappropriate.

You think it's because of some other reason?

And this is the danger of mixing professional jargon with colloquial usages of the same words. (See also "It's just a theory" re: evolution) If you're a LEO, then yeah, hold off on labeling it "terrorism" until you know the facts. But if you're just a rando trying not to get shot/blown up, then yeah, maybe you should fear the rednecks as much as the mooslims.

Lol perhaps if you're cherry picking or engaging in some funny math. Every article I've ever read making that claim is basically under the asterisk "if we exclude 9/11 and all Americans killed at U.S. embassies or otherwise abroad".

 

[danbuter]

Except they have not. Retract that falsehood.

lol. Here's your falsehood: French-Jewish Holocaust Survivor Found Dead in Burned Paris Apartment

 

[Goonie]

lol. Here's your falsehood: French-Jewish Holocaust Survivor Found Dead in Burned Paris Apartment

And I repeat retract your falsehood.

 

[danbuter]

Sorry, the thought police control the UK, but not America. That was just one example that you are pretending doesn't exist.

 

[Goonie]

Sorry, the thought police control the UK, but not America. That was just one example that you are pretending doesn't exist.

Sorry but the poster you are lying about, did not defend an Islamic terrorist, as the thread you linked to demonstrated.