• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass Shooting at Sikh Temple Outside Milwaukee [W:211]

Oh, save the hurt little bird act for somebody who doesn't know you.

And knock off the attempts at condescending intimidation for someone who doesn't know YOU. It don't work with me.

Who has argued about what god has asked you to do? What he asks of you is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion because it can't be confirmed one way or another. What I'm saying that god, whether you admit it or not, has asked the important people of your religion to kill on more than one occasion. Once you agree with that you by definition must accept that, at the very least, your deity and by extension your religion, are both violent.

No. What I accept is that there is and has been violence in my religion... same as there has been in most if not all religions, societies, countries, etc... That does NOT mean they defined AS violent. Big difference.
 
You'e really more disgusted by people's opinions of shootings than the actual shootings themselves?

That's ****ed up.

I'd rather have zero shootings and a thousand blowhards pontificating on past shootings than the opposite.

I agree......this should be TALKED about. And yes, gun availability should be talked about as well. I don't know the answer, but I am sick of crazy mother****ers buying guns legally and then shooting up crowds.
 
I agree......this should be TALKED about. And yes, gun availability should be talked about as well. I don't know the answer, but I am sick of crazy mother****ers buying guns legally and then shooting up crowds.

It seems we have had an epidemic of social terrorism dating back to at least Columbine yet there has been a national effort at denying the problem because each one gets viewed as "isolated."

It's very revealing how all Muslims get disparaged by some fake Muslims in one attack but no matter how many white guys go on spree killings they are still the innocent group.
 
It seems we have had an epidemic of social terrorism dating back to at least Columbine yet there has been a national effort at denying the problem because each one gets viewed as "isolated."

It's very revealing how all Muslims get disparaged by some fake Muslims in one attack but no matter how many white guys go on spree killings they are still the innocent group.
Curiously...this 'spree shooting' or incidents of domestic terrorism isnt an uncommon occurrence. Yet...we so seldom here of the rather common incidents...

Update: Police say OKC shooting not tied to Thunder game; Arrests made | ProBasketballTalk

Police: 2 killed in shooting outside funeral - Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5

Clash between 2 families led to shooting that injured 7, says cruise operator | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

Police: Alabama bar shooting suspect charged - CNN

And this is just recent.
 
Last edited:
I thought you were an atheist? You're sounding like god actually does tell these people to kill. Do you really believe that? Or isn't it true that people wanted to kill and "god talking to them" is a convenient excuse? If this were the case, it isn't religion that's violent, it's the nutjob who is violent.

If God exist and that is a big if, he had 2 million plus people killed that we can count, that doesn't include many women and children, the great flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the first-born Egyptian children, etc.
 

That is exactly what I mean because those haven't received national attention when things like the Sikh or batman shooting happen and the press swarms, people think the swarm is due to the rarity.
 
Curiously...this 'spree shooting' or incidents of domestic terrorism isnt an uncommon occurrence. Yet...we so seldom here of the rather common incidents...

Update: Police say OKC shooting not tied to Thunder game; Arrests made | ProBasketballTalk

Not domestic terrorism.


Not domestic terrorism.


Not domestic terrorism.



Not domestic terrorism.

And this is just recent.

I agree gun-related violence and killings is too common in our advanced and moral society. What disturbs me is the reluctance to have an honest and thoughtful conversation about prevention. There seems to be an almost knee-jerk defense that goes up among the NRA / pro-gun folks before we can even ask the intelligent-ethical question: How can we do better?

No level of gun violence or killings is acceptable, however it seems that, IMO, NRA folks seem to be okay with a certain level of blood as long as they are not inconvenienced with more paperwork or restrictions on purchases.

This is just my observation and opinion.
 
Really? Don't jump to any conclusions now. Personally, I think the picture in front of the swastika is a pretty good indication, but I can understand you waiting for more proof. After all, he might be part of ACORN or some other leftist organization well known for killing minorities.:rolleyes:

Well, thank you for the ignorant post highlighting your bigoted stereotyping of me based on nothing but my apparent political persuation.

Please find for me any instance where I'd jumped forward suggesting ACORN or some Leftist Organization was responsable for anything...from "killing minorities" to taking action against military recruitment stations. Please highlight where I suggested we should "wait for more proof" currently? I suggested in these incidents, and I've been consistent with this on this forum for YEARS regardless of whether it looks like it's something done by "liberals" (stupid "B" in her forhead lady), "muslims", "tea partiers", or anything else, that we wait a few hours/days to let actual FACTS come out...not baseless speculation. His presence in a white supremacist band, him standing proudly in front of that flag, his tatoo's, his presence on stormfront are the very things I suggested we wait for...actual facts about him...that does give rise to the notion he's a neo-nazi or white surpemacist. Simply that coincidentally the people jumping the gun this time turned out right, similar to them doing so during the Fort Hood shooter, doesn't change my standard approach to these things, nor does it erase the multitude of times...from the Backwards B girl to Laughler...where people jumped the gun ignorantly with assumptions and turned out WRONG. In both cases, the more prudent thing is to hold off on jumping to assertions based almost exclusively off of a desire to score political points and attack the other side, as is BLATANTLY obvious with your intent, and wait for further facts to come out.

At this point, further facts HAVE came out. But because you can't actually debate my point, or debate what I actulaly say you instead erect srawmen like suggesting I'm asking for more proof and debate your prejudiced stereotype you have in your head of conservatives that you bigotedly project onto me without any basis for it in reality. Actually, the way you react and are debating agaist me highlights my point in terms of the desire to rush to make assumptions for political expediency in situations rather than having the intellectual honesty to actually wish to function off of those horriblely inconvientent things called facts.
 
Not domestic terrorism.



Not domestic terrorism.




Not domestic terrorism.




Not domestic terrorism.



I agree gun-related violence and killings is too common in our advanced and moral society. What disturbs me is the reluctance to have an honest and thoughtful conversation about prevention. There seems to be an almost knee-jerk defense that goes up among the NRA / pro-gun folks before we can even ask the intelligent-ethical question: How can we do better?

No level of gun violence or killings is acceptable, however it seems that, IMO, NRA folks seem to be okay with a certain level of blood as long as they are not inconvenienced with more paperwork or restrictions on purchases.

This is just my observation and opinion.

The Sikh shooting was not domestic terrorism nor the batman massacre nor the Adkisson church attack. Those are all social terrorism. The term "domestic terrorism" is a BS media term designed to keep pretending the epidemic of shootings is not an epidemic.
 
Not domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism.
I agree gun-related violence and killings is too common in our advanced and moral society. What disturbs me is the reluctance to have an honest and thoughtful conversation about prevention. There seems to be an almost knee-jerk defense that goes up among the NRA / pro-gun folks before we can even ask the intelligent-ethical question: How can we do better?
No level of gun violence or killings is acceptable, however it seems that, IMO, NRA folks seem to be okay with a certain level of blood as long as they are not inconvenienced with more paperwork or restrictions on purchases.
This is just my observation and opinion.
Ah...but ALL spree shootings...and...where is the 'story'? Where is the hue and cry? Where is the outrage? And...typically...with no knowledge of ANY of the incidents, you call for anti-gun legislation. Would it have been effective in ANY of the incidents cited? And...isnt it interesting that your first thought is of gun control and not the victims in those incidents?
 
And knock off the attempts at condescending intimidation for someone who doesn't know YOU. It don't work with me.

No. What I accept is that there is and has been violence in my religion... same as there has been in most if not all religions, societies, countries, etc... That does NOT mean they defined AS violent. Big difference.

Then you are being dishonest. If your deity itself is violent, so is the religion that flows from its supposed teachings.
 
You seem to have a problem with misrepresenting the posts of others. The beliefs that I am referring are his EXTREMISM, NOT his ideology.
OK, let's review. Your argument previously was that conservatives should condemn him AND his ideas. Then you said that ideas are not the problem, separating the individual from the ideas.

Now you argument is that his EXTREMISM is the problem. The problem for you is that you are back to combining the individual with the ideology since extremism is defined as:


Extremism is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards.

So again, you first condemned the individual AND his ideology, next you separated the individual from the ideology and said the ideology is not the problem, the problem is the individual....and then finally you say EXTREMISM is the problem.....which is the individual acting out using EXTREME ideology as a rationale.






Of course it does. It's like Islam or Christianity. Neither religion causes violence. What causes violence is how an individual interprets the words of those religions. Same for anything.
If the individual is using (interpreting) literal translations, such as verse calling for the killing of non-believers (which is in the Abrahamic texts), then it is still the individual AND the ideology, they are not separate, they are combined. We do not excuse murder because of the ideology being used, the literal interpretation is condemned, that text is condemned by many because of ideology of justifying the murder of non-believers. There are whole schools of apologists defending the text, setup just to defend some the most insane, irrational aspects of the text.



Not at all.
Oh yes, you first condemned the individual AND the ideology, then you condemned just the individual, and now you have gone back to condemning both with your new "extremism" argument.



No, I addressed your points. You don't agree with them. You have made no compelling argument that demonstrates that any of your points are more valid that what I have said. You have been unable to show that two individuals, believing in the same ideology could NOT act differently. When you can, THEN you might have a point.
Aside from the fact that your argument keeps flip-flopping, I was never required to show that an ideology was the problem only when it is 100% effective, causing ALL to act out in its most extreme, literal form.

My argument still is that the ideology is a problem when it calls for the murder of those outside of the group.
You can keep arguing that is not a problem, and keep going through your verbal gymnastic demonstrations of combining, separating and recombining the ideology and the individual, but you are still defending bad ideologies, excusing them by arguing they are not a problem, that it is totally the individual.

There are no bad ideas, just bad people....that is poppycock, BS.
 
Domestic terrorism is someone of the country attacking his fellow countrymen with a hate/scare/political agenda. It isn't a made up media term. Lets not blame the media for everything.

Spree shootings are when the shooter(s) pick totally random victims with no motive to instill fear or financial gain.

OKC Thunder shooting was a D-boy shooting, not spree, not domestic terrorism. OKC bombing in '95 was domestic terrorism. It wasn't social and it wasn't a spree. We in Oklahoma understand the difference, it was brought home in gruesome detail as a firefighter brought the body of a small child out of the rubble- that damn sure wasn't 'social'.

The Sikh Temple shooting was domestic terrorism. Play word games all you want, there is a difference between rival drug gangs having it out and a man with white supremist ties walking into a place of worship and shooting those of a different faith.
 
Domestic terrorism is someone of the country attacking his fellow countrymen with a hate/scare/political agenda. It isn't a made up media term. Lets not blame the media for everything.

Spree shootings are when the shooter(s) pick totally random victims with no motive to instill fear or financial gain.

OKC Thunder shooting was a D-boy shooting, not spree, not domestic terrorism. OKC bombing in '95 was domestic terrorism. It wasn't social and it wasn't a spree. We in Oklahoma understand the difference, it was brought home in gruesome detail as a firefighter brought the body of a small child out of the rubble- that damn sure wasn't 'social'.

The Sikh Temple shooting was domestic terrorism. Play word games all you want, there is a difference between rival drug gangs having it out and a man with white supremist ties walking into a place of worship and shooting those of a different faith.


It is social terrorism because it is one faction of society terrorizing another faction of society.
 
I have to wonder if any of these crazy fanatics have considered,
If God wanted someone Smote, wouldn't it make a better show if He did it himself.
 
I have to wonder if any of these crazy fanatics have considered,
If God wanted someone Smote, wouldn't it make a better show if He did it himself.

God is Pure and therefore cannot directly take the action so a born sinner bears the burden of God's smoting. The Rico Statute came out long after the Bible and doesn't apply.
 
Domestic terrorism is someone of the country attacking his fellow countrymen with a hate/scare/political agenda. It isn't a made up media term. Lets not blame the media for everything.

Spree shootings are when the shooter(s) pick totally random victims with no motive to instill fear or financial gain.

OKC Thunder shooting was a D-boy shooting, not spree, not domestic terrorism. OKC bombing in '95 was domestic terrorism. It wasn't social and it wasn't a spree. We in Oklahoma understand the difference, it was brought home in gruesome detail as a firefighter brought the body of a small child out of the rubble- that damn sure wasn't 'social'.

The Sikh Temple shooting was domestic terrorism. Play word games all you want, there is a difference between rival drug gangs having it out and a man with white supremist ties walking into a place of worship and shooting those of a different faith.
Calling it 'domestic' terrorism is a word game. Terrorism is terrorism.
 
No Vance-
refining the data to show this terrorist attack was done by one countryman on his fellow countrymen is why 'domestic' is added to terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist.

Social terrorism??? I can't find anyone who agrees with that term as real and domestic as fabricated by the media....

please link to where you found this.
 
No Vance-
refining the data to show this terrorist attack was done by one countryman on his fellow countrymen is why 'domestic' is added to terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist.

Social terrorism??? I can't find anyone who agrees with that term as real and domestic as fabricated by the media....

please link to where you found this.
Terrorism is terrorism. We dont run around the globe pointing out it is 'only' domestic terrorism when some scumbag blows up a souk in Iraq. We shouldnt qualify it as anything less than here.
 
It is domestic terrorism when Sunnis kill ****tes, but not when al-Queera operatives come into Iraq to kill Iraqis. But I am curious, why do you use the term 'only' with domestic terrorism? I don't consider domestic terrorism to be lower than international terrorism.

Why do you think that way?
 
No Vance-
refining the data to show this terrorist attack was done by one countryman on his fellow countrymen is why 'domestic' is added to terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist.

Social terrorism??? I can't find anyone who agrees with that term as real and domestic as fabricated by the media....

please link to where you found this.

Sorry but it is called "domestic terrorism" because people do not want it to be linked with "Islamic terrorism", because "Islamic terror" is something over there and "they are fighting us because they hate our freedom" mentality, where as "domestic terrorism" can be written off as a nutter with loose political motives which can easily be dismissed as coming from a nutter.

The sad part is that there is more "domestic terrorism" in the US than Islamic terrorism and often it is not even categorised as terror because the person doing it is a white Christian and more than often a "right winger", and everyone knows how the right reacts when they are accused of harbouring fanatics that shoot people....we all remember how the right reacted when the administration released a GOP ordered (by Bush) report on domestic right wing terrorism.... or when Gabby Gifford and a few left wingers were gunned down...

Even this time around it is a clear cut right wing terror attack and people are falling over themselves to dismiss it as not only as a terror attack but trying whatever possible to get distance between their right wing beliefs and the crazies on the right who did the terror and share a lot of those beliefs.

It is time for the right to admit that they have a problem and deal with it.
 
Last edited:
It is domestic terrorism when Sunnis kill ****tes, but not when al-Queera operatives come into Iraq to kill Iraqis. But I am curious, why do you use the term 'only' with domestic terrorism? I don't consider domestic terrorism to be lower than international terrorism.

Why do you think that way?
I have no need to qualify the term. Terrorism is terrorism. Acts of terrorism can be committed by the white guy next door or the Muslim guy down the road. They commit acts of terror. Why do you insist on qualifying it?
 
I have no need to qualify the term. Terrorism is terrorism. Acts of terrorism can be committed by the white guy next door or the Muslim guy down the road. They commit acts of terror. Why do you insist on qualifying it?

Because people dont want some white guy that looks like your cousin to be in the same box as OBL.... it is sadly a very common and natural thing to do. Denial basically. There is no difference between a white Christian using a weapon to terrorise the public or a dark/black Muslim using a bomb to blow up a bus, or an Asian using poison gas to kill people in a subway... they are all terrorists, but they are not called that depending on who is describing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom