Forum Thread

Islamic attack in Philly?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 18 1 2 Next
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Since I am a retired member of the law Enforcement Community in Phila. which would tend to give me a biased view of the recent event that occurred here in Phila. last Thursday night, and the subsequent uproar over whether or not the shooter was acting on his Islamic beliefs or not, and the opposing comments made by the Mayor and then the Police Commissioner, one says it was Islamic related the says it was not, any thoughts?
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What does CNN, NY Times, Huffington Post say ? I've not heard it reported yet.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    CNN this morning had Sen. Marco Rubio on and he called it an act of terrorism, the White house spokesperson gave a no comment, and also the Mayor of Philadelphia is being criticized because of the confession of the gunmen where he stated that his intentions were motivated by Islamic teachings and that the police enforced laws contrary to the Koran.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There are crazy people and more so in larger cities. I saw this on the news and it seemed like a crazy guy. Terrorism ? Sure - Okay. It wasn't organized or thought out so I wouldn't compare it to worse events.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I find it interesting how the right wing crazies call this an act of terrorism, but keep their mouths shut about a group of armed militia men taking over Federal property until their demands are met. That meets the literal definition of terrorism, but you don't hear any right wing nut jobs calling those idiots terrorists.

    Terrorism has a definition. Anytime a Muslim shoots someone doesn't mean that it was an act of terrorism. Just as anytime a white person shoots someone doesn't mean it's an act of terrorism. Terrorism has become this catchall phrase the right wing nut jobs use whenever someone who is a different color than them shoots somebody. It's more complicated than that.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jay walking done by a Muslim is terrorism. Sad state of affairs. You see what you want to see.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This individual in his statement said that he was acting out in the name of Islam and that he was only following the Directives contained in the Quran, and that the police enforced laws contrary to Islamic law. Would this then qualify as a terrorist act?
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Perhaps this is important to current and former philly cops but since I'm neither I'm going to move on.

    ======================

    Last year, 44 Americans were shot by Muslim terrorists. By comparison, 52 Americans were shot by toddlers. Which raises the question: Why isn't the government doing more to protect us from toddlers? Think about it. They don't share our values. They barely speak English. They steal our welfare. They have no marketable skills. They're prone to angry outbursts. Worst of all? Most of them aren't even Christians. How long until we say enough is enough and deport these free-loading parasites once and for all??? Jeremy McLellan, L M A O

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: This individual in his statement said that he was acting out in the name of Islam and that he was only following the Directives contained in the Quran, and that the police enforced laws contrary to Islamic law. Would this then qualify as a terrorist act?
    No. The word is passing it's usable shelf-life. It has become nothing more than a means to "terrorize" people by the powers that be resulting in increased hatred of Muslims, restriction of freedom and increased spending for a bloated military that can do nothing about these acts.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: This individual in his statement said that he was acting out in the name of Islam and that he was only following the Directives contained in the Quran, and that the police enforced laws contrary to Islamic law. Would this then qualify as a terrorist act?
    No. The word is passing it's usable shelf-life. It has become nothing more than a means to "terrorize" people by the powers that be resulting in increased hatred of Muslims, restriction of freedom and increased spending for a bloated military that can do nothing about these acts.
    Yes Lonely; nowadays they paint everything with the word terrorist; I'll get a T-shirt made; Don't shoot me, I'm not a "terrorist". Yes, they use it indeed to make the war and gun industry rich.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Last year, 44 Americans were shot by Muslim terrorists. By comparison, 52 Americans were shot by toddlers. Which raises the question: Why isn't the government doing more to protect us from toddlers? Think about it. They don't share our values. They barely speak English. They steal our welfare. They have no marketable skills. They're prone to angry outbursts. Worst of all? Most of them aren't even Christians. How long until we say enough is enough and deport these free-loading parasites once and for all??? Jeremy McLellan, L M A O

    This is great, but the sad thing is that even this number is way off.

    The real number of Americans killed by terrorism (in the last DECADE) is 24. It's hard to find a concrete number of Americans who were shot and wounded by terrorists, but it is, without a doubt, much lower than the number of Americans who were shot and wounded by toddlers.

    Another travesty is the number of toddlers who kill themselves because their gun toting idiot parents left a loaded weapon within their reach. Thirteen toddlers killed themselves as of October 14th of last year. Another 18 injured themselves, 10 injured other people, and two killed someone else.

    No matter which way you look at it though, toddlers shot more people in one year than terrorists did in one decade.

    It's nice to see where our priorities lie when it comes to solving our nations ills. Instead of blaming Muslims for everything, how about we blame our gun culture that has made sure there are more guns than people living in this country?

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: This individual in his statement said that he was acting out in the name of Islam and that he was only following the Directives contained in the Quran, and that the police enforced laws contrary to Islamic law. Would this then qualify as a terrorist act?

    That's for the authorities to decide. If he is determined to have "unlawful[ly] use[d] force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" then yes, he is a terrorist and should be tried as one.

    However, I do find it interesting how you only focus on Islamic terrorists. You were eerily silent about Robert Lewis (the Planned Parenthood shooter) and used every logical fallacy in the book to change the subject about Dylan Storm Roof (the shooter who slaughtered nine African Americans who welcomed him into their Bible study) being a terrorist.

    Am I the only one who notices that you only seem to worry about terrorism when it's an Islamic person doing the shootings? Weird...

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    A simple question:

    a man kills a couple of people. He states that they have committed offenses against God and god's law as stated in the Torah. He further claims that the police are acting in defiance of god's law by allowing the two people to behave as they did.

    is this person a terrorist?

  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: This individual in his statement said that he was acting out in the name of Islam and that he was only following the Directives contained in the Quran, and that the police enforced laws contrary to Islamic law. Would this then qualify as a terrorist act?

    That's for the authorities to decide. If he is determined to have "unlawful[ly] use[d] force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" then yes, he is a terrorist and should be tried as one.

    However, I do find it interesting how you only focus on Islamic terrorists. You were eerily silent about Robert Lewis (the Planned Parenthood shooter) and used every logical fallacy in the book to change the subject about Dylan Storm Roof (the shooter who slaughtered nine African Americans who welcomed him into their Bible study) being a terrorist.

    Am I the only one who notices that you only seem to worry about terrorism when it's an Islamic person doing the shootings? Weird...

    I see again you are applying your definition of a terrorist to be only of one genre , in the cases you cited I am totally without memory as to what I posted as to what acts I chose to call a terror act or not, in truth in this incident I did focus on Islamic Terrorism because the individual stated as much, , I don't recall if Robert Lewis claimed to be a terrorist or not as well as Dylan Storm Roof, if taken in context of an individual act of violence with only a personal sense of hatred towards his victims as the only reason, then I would say that is not an act of terrorism but the acts of a mad man. I am curious though as to why you would interject another topic to bolster your own argument , would that now be considered as a "Straw man Argument"?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: I see again you are applying your definition of a terrorist to be only of one genre ,

    I copy and pasted the legal definition our government has for terrorism. It's not "my" definition whatsoever; it's our governments.

    johnnycee Wrote: in the cases you cited I am totally without memory as to what I posted as to what acts I chose to call a terror act or not,

    That's why I provided links to the discussions so you can review your comments, or lack thereof. Let me know if you need any help navigating those links. I will be happy to oblige.

    johnnycee Wrote:in truth in this incident I did focus on Islamic Terrorism because the individual stated as much,

    How is firing on a police officer in the "name of Islam," as he is quoted, any different than Robert Lewis killing three people in the name of being a "warrior for the babies”?

    johnnycee Wrote: , I don't recall if Robert Lewis claimed to be a terrorist or not as well as Dylan Storm Roof, if taken in context of an individual act of violence with only a personal sense of hatred towards his victims as the only reason, then I would say that is not an act of terrorism but the acts of a mad man.

    Thankfully you don't get to define the word terrorism.

    Would you call someone who thinks he's a"warrior for the babies" that kills three people a terrorist?

    It seems as if someone must say they are a terrorist in order for you call them a terrorist. White people who slaughter people for political reasons seem to be mentally unstable people in your mind, but Muslims who slaughter people for political reasons are terrorists.

    johnnycee Wrote: I am curious though as to why you would interject another topic to bolster your own argument , would that now be considered as a "Straw man Argument"?

    I hate to break this to you, but you're thinking of a red herring. A straw man is an entirely different logical fallacy...

    A red herring is when someone brings up something that doesn't have to do with the topic at hand and insists it has something to do with the topic at hand.

    Me bringing up the fact that you only say something is terrorism when it is done by a Muslim is no red herring because it actually does have to do with the topic at hand. I provided two separate times we were discussing a shooting (which is what this discussion is about!!) where you either didn't contribute to the conversation or encouraged all of us to hold our horses and wait for the authorities to determine if it was terrorism.

    I then said that you have a double standard when someone who is of Caucasian decent commits an act of terrorism. Since you started this discussion by suggesting this person committed an act of terrorism then your past posts are fair game and relevant to the current topic.

    So I encourage you to study up on the English language (especially the difference between straw man and red herring) before suggesting that I committed a logical fallacy.