What if Jared Loughner were a Muslim? -CNN editorial

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,004
136
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.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,224
5,800
126
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.

Not a bad point. The "Foreign" part is still the main motivator though, not the Religion. I think we all know that it takes 2 or more generations for Immigrants to truly fit into their new Nation. This will always be the case.
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,989
20
81
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.

Not that I give two hoots about Islam and or its followers, but for the sake of historicity and some semblance of accuracy, you are not only completely erroneous, you have the temerity to be dogmatic about it as well! Ignorance and ego are quite proportional as you've amply demonstrated.

Look at the NLFT: National Liberation Front of Tripura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLFT); a Christian Terrorist Organization in north-eastern India. They are funded by rabid Southern Baptists (from the US) and are in collusion with the Maoists (Communists) of India. They go door to door, threatening Hindus there with conversion or death. They have either killed off, converted, or driven out most of the Hindus in Tripura (a state in north-eastern India). That state now is mostly Christian, unfortunately. This is mostly analogous to what the Muslims in Kashmir have done since 1989; driven out, murdered, raped, and/or converted thousands of the native Kashmiri Hindus. More than 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) are refugees in their own country! And what do foreigners who have no clue as to the goings on in Kashmir say about it? "India, stop attacking 'peaceful/tolerant' Muslims in Kashmir and allow them to have a plebiscite!" :rolleyes:

There are innumerable instances of Christians' barbarity world over since the calamitous conversion of Constantine and the Edict of Milan in 313 CE. And, before you start mouthing off, Christianity arrived in India in 45 CE, before it went to Europe, as St. Thomas is supposed to have founded his base in a city called Chennai in southern-India.

Want more proof of Christian atrocities in recent times? Look here: http://christianaggression.org/

That site mostly deals with the conflicts Christian terrorists are causing in India but the same can be applied to south-east Asia, many African countries etc.

Radical Islam, radical Christianity, and communism are the biggest threats to peace on this planet. The nexus between them in India is thriving thanks to copious amounts of funding from fundamentalist Christians in the US/Europe/Australia and elsewhere, from fundamentalist Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere, and of course, from communists in China, via Nepal and Burma.

Neither one of those ideologies is above the other. To suggest otherwise is historically and factually erroneous.
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
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.

Yes, 100 deaths is better than 200 deaths, assuming you value individual human lives. Not sure what issue you have with that. Also we're not talking about 200 to 100. We're probably talking more like hundreds of thousands of injuries compared to hundreds of injuries.

Feel free to compare the news feed from your site to that on http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/. One mostly concerns aggressive conversions and the other is talking about deaths. But hey you probably think conversions are as bad as deaths.

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.
 

PsiStar

Golden Member
Dec 21, 2005
1,184
0
76
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.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
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.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
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.

Do you just read the last page of the thread?

How can I get this through your thick skull? Numbers matter when comparing Christianity to Islam. It's like we're comparing neighborhoods and you keep suggesting that Beverly Hills is as dangerous as Compton because they both have murders. Meanwhile most sane people recognize that Compton is more dangerous because it has more murders.

And you keep going back to your USA is a Christian actor idea. Wrong. The USA is a secular western state. It is not a religious movement. If terrorists were committing acts in the name of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia I might want to listen to you, but they're not. They're committing them in the name of Islam.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
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.

It should be in the hundreds of millions to billions range.

Suggesting something ridiculous like tens of millions reeks of holocaust denial.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Not a label, but a common pseudonym for an apparent Caucasian.

And actually you do get the point, labels are useless & suggest inherent bigotry.

Yes it's a label. Labels are descriptive. In some cases the quality isn't relevant and in some cases it is. They do not necessarily suggest bigotry at although a lot of people do have trouble understanding that.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
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.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
The Imperialism/Capitalism/Christian trifecta has killed approximately 147 million people since 1500 is the estimates. Probably double that if you include imperialist type wars over resources/money such as Spanish Civil War, native genocides for land and Iraq.
WW1 is debatable but I usually include it, WW2 is basically round Europe's Round 2 of WW1 but I do not think Hitler (who is responsible) was a straight up capitalist, or his motives were profit driven. Now Mussolini? He would make quite a few of these right-wing cappy "patriots" here get woodys with his form of nationalist blend of Fascism/Capitalism that knew how to "Git 'er done" without the bad anti-semetic un-pc aftertaste of Hitlers Fascism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
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.

I didn't realize Belgians were from England, heh. CoW, I'm not saying something like 10 million, but something like 60m-100m sounds right, maybe it's higher I don't know a whole lot about it just some. Anything higher than 150-200m is just getting outrageous imo. There are pretty good guesstimates as to the population of the planet at those times and that many just is way to many.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
typical CNN drivel, not worth listening to.

Muslims unite and decry the activists, then we won't have reason to stereotype you.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
What if Jared Loughner was a clown? What if Jared Loughner was attractive? What if Jared Loughner wasn't Jared Loughner?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,004
136
"White guy" is not a very useful label...

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself by a few years, but how else would you label a minority? It'll be perfectly true within our life time.

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.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
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.

On this topic, you get it. It's to help expose the hidden bigotry - and sadly, largely wasted.

When people here the words "Muslim" and "terrorism" used together in something like 90% of uses - the same technique used with "Saddam" and "9/11", when they wouldn't SAY they were linked but would constantly use them next to each other - no matter how rationally they might approach the issue, it creates an effect on people.

This thread is to help show people the effect they might not be aware of.

It's a little like the effect on white Americans who were rationalizing segregation and discrimination against blacks, when a leader like JFK or Martin Luther King would ask them to put themselves in the shoes of the black person, to ask if they would change their skin color, and THEN they started to empathize more and realize, 'no, I wouldn't'.

These effects are there and hard to combat, so it's helpful to point them out.

Unfortunately, too many people who are affected don't hear it when it's pointed out.

I think that was the point Juan Williams was trying to make - that the effect happened to him, even while he rationally did not agree with it. How he'd feel fearful, even while his rational opinions told him it was wrong. It's the same point I was going to make when I considered the thread on 'what if he had been an illegal immigrant' - hopefully some people would learn from how much more strongly they'd react against a group.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
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?'
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
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?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
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.
 
Last edited:

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
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.

I get it now!

You're John McCain!