Their beef was Political. You even state it yourself, you just don't see it.
Sorry I don't have time for a bible-thumping logic today. I'm sure you used to make similar arguments about feeling the power of Christ.
Their beef was Political. You even state it yourself, you just don't see it.
Sorry I don't have time for a bible-thumping logic today. I'm sure you used to make similar arguments about feeling the power of Christ.
And is that a religious motivator or a geopolitical motivator?
Here's a huge and critical distinction you have grabbed a hold of. Now let me frame it.
Muslims, largely foreign and originating from other nations with opposing geopolitical motivators are MORE of a threat due to their foreign background than domestic Christians are to their own nation. Why? Simply due to the nature of foreign and domestic loyalties and how fervently we police our own people.
If Jared Loughner were Muslim that religion would tie him into foreign geopolitical motivators.
The only ones that aren't ancient history and that are done in the name of Christianity are the abortion killings. Islam has infinitely more deaths in its name. Nice try.
This is a crock of absolute shit. Is killing a 100 people better than killing 200? Your comparison is rendered moot simply by the absurdity of it's allusion.
Back to topic ... he is not Muslim. "What if" yourself to oblivion. What if he was Hindu? What if he were South African?
He is a white guy ... deal with it.
I'd be fine if Christianity wasn't a world religion anymore, but I'm not accepting the BS that modern Christianity is as dangerous as modern Islam. The proof that Islam is more violent is written in blood.
And isn't the violent history and current standing of Christianity written in blood also?
As someone already stated, when you have control of almost all of the power, the violent means that you have at your disposal increase and you can use the more "humane" methods like sanctions against a country that you don't agree with or covertly funding coups that overthrow elected governments in the name of having a puppet to do whatever the corporate masters are dictating at that point in time.
Not a label, but a common pseudonym for an apparent Caucasian."White guy" is not a very useful label...
Billions were not slaughtered by the british empire, that is foolish to think. tens of millions? reasonable to imagine, but not billions my friend, not billions.
Not a label, but a common pseudonym for an apparent Caucasian.
And actually you do get the point, labels are useless & suggest inherent bigotry.
It should be in the hundreds of millions to billions range.
Suggesting something ridiculous like tens of millions reeks of holocaust denial.
I know for a fact that CoW REALLY hates europe but the answer as always lies somewhere probably in the center.
The Belgians did in about 30 million in the Congo themselves. That is nothing compared to the shit the UK was up to in India during those heady days of "real" free markets and capitalism.
"White guy" is not a very useful label...
Back to topic ... he is not Muslim. "What if" yourself to oblivion. What if he was Hindu? What if he were South African?
He is a white guy ... deal with it.
The OP is quite simple. We have this topic because we would be treating the entire subject of the massacre differently if it were committed by a Muslim. I don't know about you but I'll admit that it is true, that the national reaction would be different and more focused on the religion.
The point is we don't react the same.
What if Jared Loughner was a clown? What if Jared Loughner was attractive? What if Jared Loughner wasn't Jared Loughner?
What if you got the point?
If Loughner were a clown or attractive or 'Brigandier', there wouldn't be a big reaction about 'we need to get rid of clowns!'
If he were Muslim, or an illegal immigrant, there would be a lot bigger reaction against those GROUPS.
This shows the feelings of animosity, and somewhat the irrationality.
It might help people understand if they're part of a 'mob mentality' looking for such links and reacting against groups excessively.
Analogy: you hear a woman was raped by a man. If you then are told he was white, you have an outrage at one level. If you hear he is black, your outrage is far higher.
Now, that could tell you something about yourself, about your feelings about blacks, you didn't realize you had. You could ask, 'why don't I have the same level of outrage'?
I doubt you would though. You'd just say, 'what if he was a clown?'
No, people would use it to vindicate that clowns are, in fact, scary, and an entire subset of our population would be further ridiculed and marginalized.
What if he had been more attractive?
You talk about back lash? People that look like Loughner are going to get marginalized. I mean, bad creepy looking people make it more normal to hate on creepy looking people(something they cannot control.
What if he had been anyone else?
They would have focused on the superficialities of that person too, and they would be demonized.
And don't you think it's kind of insulting to the whole event to say, "What if he'd been muslim? lol, they're be so much more burnage!" How is that fair to muslims to attach them to this event? How is it relevant to act like Loghner happened for any other reason than Loughner was Loughner?
See my first point. If you don't get it after my post, I don't think you can at this time any more than John McCain can get the justice of ending gay discrimination in the military.
He may have the issue explained to him a thousand times very clearly, and he's just not going to get past his views, it seems.
