[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
These people have to clean their own houses.
The man is born in the US.[/quote]
Palestinian immigrant.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Yeah, uh, you’re an imbecile.[/quote]
Dude, you’re a bigot. I’ve been called worse by far better people than you.
As far as I’m concerned, I win.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Bill, lixy,
One more data point on the guy’s motive. He yelled, “Allah Akbar!” before opening fire. Now lixy could still possibly attribute the shooting to some other motive, being an Islamic liar. What do you think, Bill?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/a-person-behind-counter-stood-up-and-he-said-allah-akbar-and-just-opened-up-on-everybody.html
If that is correct then indeed that is evidence that Islam influenced his actions.
Major news organizations are reporting that some witnesses are saying this.
Of course, previously witnesses had said there were multiple shooters and it was reported Hasan was dead. At the 24 hour point, it’s a congealing fog rather than a clean set of certain facts.
[/quote]
Not to anyone with a functioning amygdala.
You really don’t know how Islam is organized, do you? You don’t know about the 4 Schools (which all teach violent jihad, btw) of Sunni jurisprudence? There are no “sects.”
80% of the mosques in the United States receive funding from Saudi Arabia. More are built each day.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Yeah, uh, you’re an imbecile.
Dude, you’re a bigot. [/quote]
Yeah, and…?
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
These people have to clean their own houses.
The man is born in the US.[/quote]
You know better than this
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
These people have to clean their own houses.
The man is born in the US.[/quote]
You know better than this
[quote]lixy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
How is it that where Muslims do have the control of a country, and we would hope that the majority are against terrorism, that it is not Muslims on the frontline against the extremists?
I don’t know what countries you have in mind, but I would wager that they have more pressing issues.[/quote]
They just don’t have the time. Uh, okay.
[quote]Why aren’t the extremists within countries such as Syria and Saudi Arabia being cracked down on by these countries? HARD?
In Saudi Arabia, that would make the Wahabi ruling class loose whatever legitimacy they have left. Saudi Arabia, by and large, is the place where most of the extremism we have and hate today came from.[/quote]
How does that refute my main point?
We’re talking about a society of 27 million or more people, the vast majority Muslim, who collectively choose to not crack down on those who teach and practice murder in the name of Islam.
What should we non-Muslims conclude from that about the seriousness of objection by Muslims in general? And why should we conclude that?
What? For preaching jihad? For supporting jihad?
Last I checked, Syria FINANCED Hezbollah and Hamas, which are terrorist organizations.
Cite one country that doesn’t crack down on people who kill other people.
Name me one case of Syria or Saudi Arabia prosecuting one single individual involved in terrorism against Jews.
So there you have two countries right there.
[quote]It cannot be out of freedom of speech, as there is none. Say something insulting about the king or some other such thing and be found out, and you’re lucky if jail is all you get.
Now you’re confusing me. What does freedom of speech have to do with killing people?[/quote]
I’m saying that the argument for permitting such preaching cannot be freedom of speech, as there is none.
If these societies wanted to, they could stop the extremist preaching.
[quote]So how is it that the extremist murderers in the name of Islam are not being cracked down by these Muslim-controlled societies?
Where? Seriously.[/quote]
I am being serious.
If you are claiming that there are no Muslim-controlled countries that do not do anything like what would be possible, if indeed anything at all, to stop the teaching and organizing of jihad, well, you can say so and everyone can judge for themselves your connection to reality.
[quote]If it is the case that most Muslims are moderate and against terrorism, but the fact is that even when in control their societies really don’t lift a finger or even offer aid and comfort, what does this say?
Seriously, what do you think it says? What conclusion should the non-Muslim draw, and why?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your question at all. But it’s a horrible idea to draw conclusions based on generalizations. Majority-Muslim countries cannot be put in the same basket, and then used to draw a conclusion.
Please try to be more specific.[/quote]
No, that is the exact question I wanted to ask. Surely there is something of some sort we should rationally conclude from these things. What is it and why?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Bill, lixy,
One more data point on the guy’s motive. He yelled, “Allah Akbar!” before opening fire. Now lixy could still possibly attribute the shooting to some other motive, being an Islamic liar. What do you think, Bill?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/a-person-behind-counter-stood-up-and-he-said-allah-akbar-and-just-opened-up-on-everybody.html
If that is correct then indeed that is evidence that Islam influenced his actions.
Major news organizations are reporting that some witnesses are saying this.
Of course, previously witnesses had said there were multiple shooters and it was reported Hasan was dead. At the 24 hour point, it’s a congealing fog rather than a clean set of certain facts.
Not to anyone with a functioning amygdala.[/quote]
I suspect you don’t know what the amygdala is, else you wouldn’t have said that.
Your statement is ironic, because your implication that it is you that are reasoning with your amygdala is quite correct, and is in fact your problem.
You’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot tell the difference between that which is known for a fact, and that which is strongly suggested as being likely.
As I said, you appear to be like the person that on say four or five coins being tossed but covered after the toss, insists that he KNOWS that at least one landed heads.
And upon being told that no, he is only making a highly likely guess, insists, “No, I KNOW! You are reasoning without your amygdala!”
And then if the coins are uncovered and in fact it turned out that one did land heads, scoffs and thinks that this proves that he “knew” all along.
I have found that one can never get across to such people the difference between having suggestive reasons for thinking something likely, and actually knowing. That has very much been the case with you here.
You don’t know that he shouted this. At the moment there is good suggestive evidence. However, anyone who has dealt with dramatic events with multiple witnesses will tell you that there will be some witnesses who are quite convinced that things happened that did not: individuals who, perhaps like yourself, can’t tell the difference between knowing and thinking likely, and whose minds fill in the gaps, so to speak, and on having heard something unintelligble shouted “remember” it has having been whatever seems likely to them. This sort of thing is common.
Is it more likely that that is what happened here? Just as witnesses “remembered” seeing multiple shooters though there was only one? Probably not. But at this point claiming that you “know” is an example of what I am talking about here: your lack of distinction between that which has good supportive evidence as being likely vs actually knowing.
[quote]I would be interested to know what sect of Islam his mosque is.
You really don’t know how Islam is organized, do you? You don’t know about the 4 Schools (which all teach violent jihad, btw) of Sunni jurisprudence? There are no “sects.” [/quote]
You really don’t know much about this if you think that murder in the name of Islam is equally likely to come from any of the schools.
[quote]On getting into that area:
You know, if there were, say, a Christian sect that preached from the pulpit that the only sure way to Heaven was to kill, say, blacks, I think we can all be sure that the FBI would have a plant or two in just about every such church and pretty much everyone, whether belonging to the “left” or the “right” would applaud.
But somehow the idea that every mosque that preaches that the only sure way to Heaven is jihad should have an FBI agent in it is considered “divisive,” “intolerant,” and “discriminatory.”
Lixy, do you think the first sort of church should be subject to extensive investigation by undercover agents?
How about the mosque of the type described?
80% of the mosques in the United States receive funding from Saudi Arabia. More are built each day. [/quote]
Yes, that is true, and quite relevant to the other question I asked Lixy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
These people have to clean their own houses.
The man is born in the US.[/quote]
I didn’t mean he should start a maid service. I am say the people of Islam need to clean out the radicals, not justify, excuse or condone their actions. This includes you. When you condem there should be NO “But,” in the statement.
There is NO excuse and everybody knows it.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
pat wrote:
Islam is infected with violent heresy. Not all muslims are violent and many do not condone it, but it does not nullify the fact that Islam has many followers who subscribe to the violence and if are to chicken to do it themselves, condone violence when it is done. The is rampant antisemitism with in its rank and file. The call for violence is wide spread…These are the indisputable facts.
I know from muslims that world wide islam is tearing itself apart because of internal strife, I think it is long over due to put a stop to the violence and actually behave in the peaceful manner that they proclaim to believe in. Which, consequently means to do away with hatred of the Jews as well.
These people have to clean their own houses. As long as they tolerate the violence with in their ranks, the violence will continue. I do not know what its going to take to convince them. All I know is I want to live in peace with them and not be afraid that one day their going to kill me just cause I am not muslim or what ever the reasoning for the violence. I really don’t care about the motivation anymore.
I am willing to bet my balls this guy killed these people because of his particular subscription to islam. Whether its right or wrong, I don’t know. If this is part of islam, I don’t know. I know they need to knock this shit off, that’s what I do know. I am pretty sure random killing is a sin even in islam, at least I hope it is.
How can you really believe this stuff? [/quote]
sarcasm?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Bill, lixy,
One more data point on the guy’s motive. He yelled, “Allah Akbar!” before opening fire. Now lixy could still possibly attribute the shooting to some other motive, being an Islamic liar. What do you think, Bill?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/a-person-behind-counter-stood-up-and-he-said-allah-akbar-and-just-opened-up-on-everybody.html
If that is correct then indeed that is evidence that Islam influenced his actions.
Major news organizations are reporting that some witnesses are saying this.
Of course, previously witnesses had said there were multiple shooters and it was reported Hasan was dead. At the 24 hour point, it’s a congealing fog rather than a clean set of certain facts.
I would be interested to know what sect of Islam his mosque is.
On getting into that area:
You know, if there were, say, a Christian sect that preached from the pulpit that the only sure way to Heaven was to kill, say, blacks, I think we can all be sure that the FBI would have a plant or two in just about every such church and pretty much everyone, whether belonging to the “left” or the “right” would applaud.
But somehow the idea that every mosque that preaches that the only sure way to Heaven is jihad should have an FBI agent in it is considered “divisive,” “intolerant,” and “discriminatory.”
Lixy, do you think the first sort of church should be subject to extensive investigation by undercover agents?
How about the mosque of the type described?
[/quote]
Abso-freakin’-lutely! As far as I’m concerned, it should be shut down.
Do such churches/mosques operate in the US?
That is a much briefer way of asking the question I asked Lixy on the previous page.
What are we non-Muslims to think when Muslims have complete control of many countries where murder in the name of Islam is taught in many easy-to-find-places and organizations dedicated to such murder have members that are easy to find, yet house-cleaning is weak or entirely absent?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Bill, lixy,
One more data point on the guy’s motive. He yelled, “Allah Akbar!” before opening fire. Now lixy could still possibly attribute the shooting to some other motive, being an Islamic liar. What do you think, Bill?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/a-person-behind-counter-stood-up-and-he-said-allah-akbar-and-just-opened-up-on-everybody.html
If that is correct then indeed that is evidence that Islam influenced his actions.
Major news organizations are reporting that some witnesses are saying this.
Of course, previously witnesses had said there were multiple shooters and it was reported Hasan was dead. At the 24 hour point, it’s a congealing fog rather than a clean set of certain facts.
I would be interested to know what sect of Islam his mosque is.
On getting into that area:
You know, if there were, say, a Christian sect that preached from the pulpit that the only sure way to Heaven was to kill, say, blacks, I think we can all be sure that the FBI would have a plant or two in just about every such church and pretty much everyone, whether belonging to the “left” or the “right” would applaud.
But somehow the idea that every mosque that preaches that the only sure way to Heaven is jihad should have an FBI agent in it is considered “divisive,” “intolerant,” and “discriminatory.”
Lixy, do you think the first sort of church should be subject to extensive investigation by undercover agents?
How about the mosque of the type described?
Abso-freakin’-lutely! As far as I’m concerned, it should be shut down.
Do such churches/mosques operate in the US?[/quote]
I am not aware of a Christian church of such a type, but there probably are such whackos somewhere and I hope they are being thoroughly investigated, and they probably are.
There are mosques of this sort in the United States. Whether they are being thoroughly investigated or not, I don’t know. I do know that CAIR has expressed opposition to such being done.
Thank you for the reasonable and clear-cut answer. I agree with your general view in both cases. (Though I would favor penetration, thorough investigation, and catching them in the process of preparing to commit or support the commission of such a crime, and then prosecute. Or in the case of such preachers who were not US citizens, deporting.)
[quote]I suspect you don’t know what the amygdala is, else you wouldn’t have said that.
Your statement is ironic, because your implication that it is you that are reasoning with your amygdala is quite correct, and is in fact your problem.
[/quote]
Not in this case. The amygdala is the reptilian brain that reacts in a Pavlovian manner, correct?
[quote]As I said, you appear to be like the person that on say four or five coins being tossed but covered after the toss, insisting that he KNOWS that at least one landed heads.
And upon being told that no, he is only making a highly likely guess, insteads, “No, I KNOW!”
And then if the coins are uncovered and in fact it turned out that one did land heads, scoffs and thinks that this proves that he “knew” all along.[/quote]
My stats has never been that great, but coin tosses are independent, identically distributed. Each coin has a 50/50 chance of landing heads/tails and each probability is independent of the toss before it. There is no more probability of it landing heads than tails.
Your analogy breaks down because the guy was, in fact, a Muslim who subscribes to a religion of violence against non-believers. So instead of it being like a coin toss where the coin is no more biased to land heads than tails, the coin is (in this case) much more biased to land on the side of "sudden jihad against the kuffar iaw Surahs 9:5, 9:29, and 9:111).
Bill, it’s pretty clear someone here doesn’t know much about Islam. Even Sufism advocates violent jihad.
But you can go ahead and continue to preguntale a lixy for some honest answers. We all know how much lixy is known for his honesty.
What do I know, though? I’m just a wild-eyed bigot. At least we have lixy, lifty, and now you to inject some dispassionate reason into this thread.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I suspect you don’t know what the amygdala is, else you wouldn’t have said that.
Your statement is ironic, because your implication that it is you that are reasoning with your amygdala is quite correct, and is in fact your problem.
Not in this case. The amygdala is the reptilian brain that reacts in a Pavlovian manner, correct?[/quote]
Not simply Pavlovian, but also emotionally-based, and not with higher logic.
Why you accuse me of reasoning without an amygdala, or implied it, I have no idea.
[quote]As I said, you appear to be like the person that on say four or five coins being tossed but covered after the toss, insisting that he KNOWS that at least one landed heads.
And upon being told that no, he is only making a highly likely guess, insteads, “No, I KNOW!”
And then if the coins are uncovered and in fact it turned out that one did land heads, scoffs and thinks that this proves that he “knew” all along.
My stats has never been that great, but coin tosses are independent, identically distributed. Each coin has a 50/50 chance of landing heads/tails and each probability is independent of the toss before it. There is no more probability of it landing heads than tails.
Your analogy breaks down because the guy was, in fact, a Muslim who subscribes to a religion of violence against non-believers. So instead of it being like a coin toss where the coin is no more biased to land heads than tails, the coin is (in this case) much more biased to land on the side of "sudden jihad against the kuffar iaw Surahs 9:5, 9:29, and 9:111). [/quote]
You do recognize that a person cannot know, without seeing, whether at least one coin landed heads or not – that an opinion that they won’t all land the same way and thus won’t all be tails does not constitute “knowing” – but you’re not recognizing that having suggestive evidence does not mean that you know the motive here or [/i]know[/i] what he shouted.
I didn’t mean you were as bad a case as the fellow with the coins: it was only an illustration that many people stubbornly insist that they know things that in fact they don’t and do not have sufficient reason to think that they do.
It can get really horrible, actually. This was a terrible problem with the pharmacy students in teaching them pharmaceutical analytical chemistry: what do you know from the outcome of the test? Which very often is not what you are really wanting to find out.
As a giveaway question (I had to have such to inflate their quiz scores) when OJ and the EDTA in his socks was in the news, and we were working with EDTA that day for determination of calcium (but in fact one does not know amount of calcium present from only that test, regardless of doing the calculation correctly) I asked “If it’s a fact that EDTA was found in the bloodstains in OJ’s socks, and if it’s a fact that the only way EDTA could be in there is if the police planted the bloodstains, would we then know that OJ did not kill Nicole?”
I thought it was a giveaway, as I had spent months towards the goal of their reasoning correctly as to what was known and what was not and they had made considerable progress, but sadly about 1/3 of the students were utterly convinced that such would prove that OJ did not kill Nicole: that this would enable to them to know that he did not.
We’re talking about college seniors here, and ones with better scientific aptitude than average. Of course there are many other examples that could be made. Society seems to do a poor job with regards to people recognizing what is actually known versus what has suggestive evidence.
My point in the last couple of paragraphs is that it’s a common thing: I am not accusing you of some rare lack of distinguishing the difference.
[quote]You really don’t know much if you think that murder in the name of Islam is equally likely to come from any.
Bill, it’s pretty clear someone here doesn’t know much about Islam. Even Sufism advocates violent jihad. [/quote]
It’s pretty clear that you don’t know or are ignoring that those who actually commit it are not equally likely to come from any school. Thus, it would be suggstive evidence relevant to understanding his influences if the murderer in question attended a Wahhabi mosque, if it distributed Saudi Arabian pro-jihad literature, if the imam preached radicalism, etc.
It would be also interesting to learn if he attended quite the opposite sort of mosque, yet in fact had jihad on his mind “regardless.”
Either way, interesting to know. I don’t know why you deny it.
Also it seems that the answer is yes indeed, it was an extremist mosque.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What?! No cheering for a soldier murdering other people…oh wait, he wasn’t in Iraq or Afghanistan and he was…gasp! A MUSLIM!!!
[/quote]
You’re a fucking idiot. I was going to explain to you just how stupid you are, but really…why bother. Just rest easy, knowing you may well be the dumbest motherfucker on the internet. Hey, at least thats SOMETHING.
[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
These people have to clean their own houses.
The man is born in the US.
I didn’t mean he should start a maid service. I am say the people of Islam need to clean out the radicals, not justify, excuse or condone their actions. This includes you. When you condem there should be NO “But,” in the statement.
There is NO excuse and everybody knows it.[/quote]
Islam CANNOT clean out the radicals. The radicals follow a CORE, FUNDAMENTAL TENET of islam. Radical islam is the very fabric and lifeblood of islams teachings. Islam without radicals is like Christians without Christ.
YOu know how I know you have no idea what you’re talking about?
[quote]
Thus, it would be suggstive evidence relevant to understanding his influences if the murderer in question attended a Wahhabi mosque, if it distributed Saudi Arabian pro-jihad literature, if the imam preached radicalism, etc.[/quote]
This. YOu think “Wahhabi” is one of the 4 Schools. Muhammad ibn abd al Wahhab was a Hanbali:
He also revived interest in Ibn Taymiyya, another Hanbali, who is a favorite of OBL. Taymiyya lived a long time before Wahhab. Do you have any idea what Taymiyya (one of the greatest Islamic scholars of all time) taught re: jihad?
I’ve answered you sufficiently and thoroughly already.