ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think it's because of the beheading...

It was obviously important to Alton Nolen, or else why spend the time, energy and muscle-power to do it?

So the obvious question is: Why was this important to him to do that?

And you know who else behead peoples? Look on the news...

Could simply be some sort of fantasy copy-cat fetish too...

Except it used to be called "decapitation" (see my above post with a few instances where someone was murdered and decapitated) when someone did it, but now we call it a "beheading" to make it sound extra brutal and medieval, which is how we characterize our enemies.

The story says he repeatedly stabbed her and then "severed her head" but it doesn't say where he initially attacked her nor how large a knife he used. If you stab someone enough times in the neck, you can cause complete or near decapitation, which is similar to what happened to Nicole Brown Simpson.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's the usual, "HE'S A TERRORIST, ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!" routine. Being Muslim does not mean terrorist. We have religious extremists everywhere (Catholic vs Protestant), but they are just that, extremeist. The fact that he had converted to islam should not have been put in there, and any decent new orgniation would not have done it.

And to the "Quran is violent." crowd, so is the bible.

Read this and then never say it again http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788.

 d-usa wrote:
Meanwhile I'm going to stop by the Bombing Memorial tomorrow and wonder how people can already forget the biggest terrorist attack on American soil prior to 9/11 and that it was a white Christian right-wing military veteran extremist who committed that act and how whites, Christians, right-wingers, and military veterans are not painted with the same brush as the idiot who set off the bomb. Maybe someday this state can remember that extremists don't represent every member of the group that they are affiliated with.

Motivated by his hatred of the federal government and angered by its handling of the 1993 Waco siege and the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992, McVeigh timed his attack to coincide with the second anniversary of the deadly fire that ended the siege at Waco.[11][12]. . . The chief conspirators, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, met in 1988 at Fort Benning during basic training for the U.S. Army.[17] Michael Fortier, McVeigh's accomplice, was his Army roommate.[18] The three shared interests in survivalism.[19][20] They expressed anger at the federal government's handling of the 1992 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) standoff with Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge as well as the Waco siege—a 1993 51-day standoff between the FBI and Branch Davidian members which began with a botched ATF attempt to execute a search warrant leading to a fire fight (it is unknown whether ATF agents or Branch Davidians fired the first shot) and ended with the burning and shooting deaths of David Koresh and 75 others.[21] In March 1993, McVeigh visited the Waco site during the standoff, and then again after its conclusion.[22] McVeigh later decided to bomb a federal building as a response to the raids.[12][23][24][25]

 daedalus wrote:
Is it still a godwin if it's done in a video and not actually done by anyone posting in thread? My bingo card may depend upon the answer.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
EDIT: Never mind. Decided my blood pressure can't take being involved in this thread.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
EDIT: Never mind. Decided my blood pressure can't take being involved in this thread.

I seen your original post saying that the projecting of motives applied to more than d-usa, so I would like to reply to it by saying that perhaps you would like to take that issue up with the individuals in question.

 whembly wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


Man, that Woman and the people in that hall are all terrible. Clapping and cheering at that? Enjoy your hate parade. Morons.

Where's the talk of the bombings, the destabilisation of nations and the propping up of dictators that the US government propogates? It's so easy to say that it's their problem for being angry, despite the fact that Western Governments are largely responsible for a lot of that anger.

It's getting offtopic here, but Western Government is not the cause for the extremism in the Mid-east.

 Ouze wrote:
To claim that Timothy McVeigh had no religious beliefs is, at best, ignorant and at worst historical revisionism in the furtherance of fueling a partisan narrative.

You want to claim that he later was agnostic, sure. You want to claim that he had no religious motivation for the bombings, that's true. But when people start saying that, because a guy snapped at work and was a Muslim, hence he beheaded someone in the name of Allah, it seems fair to point that we don't know why he did it, and just because someone is a religious fundamentalist doesn't mean that's why they did what they did, and maybe a cult like Christian Identity has as much to do with Christianity as the Wahhabism that Osama Bin Laden practiced has to do with Islam.

But screw it, this is the OT, who needs nuance, right?

 Ouze wrote:
To claim that Timothy McVeigh had no religious beliefs is, at best, ignorant and at worst historical revisionism in the furtherance of fueling a partisan narrative.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Timothy McVeigh became agnostic while in prison, well after he committed his act of terrorism.

He was raised Catholic, attended Mass, and was confirmed. He said in a 1996 interview that he "lost touch with the Church" but he still maintained "his core beliefs."

McVeigh was a registered Republican when he lived in Buffalo, New York, in the 1980s, and had a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military,[83] but may have voted for Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, in the 1996 presidential elections.[84] McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[85] During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly.[86] McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.[87] In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[85] In the 2001 book American Terrorist, McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion.[88][89] In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic.[90] Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.[91]

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I don't give a crap anymore, and I'm sorry if my previous edit left that intention in any way ambiguous. If you want to discuss this any further then PM me, although I can't say that I'll reply, or even read it, due to my aforementioned state of not giving a crap.

 Ouze wrote:
To claim that Timothy McVeigh had no religious beliefs is, at best, ignorant and at worst historical revisionism in the furtherance of fueling a partisan narrative.

You want to claim that he later was agnostic, sure. You want to claim that he had no religious motivation for the bombings, that's true. But when people start saying that, because a guy snapped at work and was a Muslim, hence he beheaded someone in the name of Allah, it seems fair to point that we don't know why he did it, and just because someone is a religious fundamentalist doesn't mean that's why they did what they did, and maybe a cult like Christian Identity has as much to do with Christianity as the Wahhabism that Osama Bin Laden practiced has to do with Islam.

But screw it, this is the OT, who needs nuance, right?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you "don't give a crap" but still felt the need to respond? A strange position to take.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
If you want to discuss this any further then PM me

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you "don't give a crap" but still felt the need to respond? A strange position to take.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
If you want to discuss this any further then PM me

 Avatar 720 wrote:
If you want to discuss this any further then PM me although I can't say that I'll reply, or even read it, due to my aforementioned state of not giving a crap.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you "don't give a crap" but still felt the need to respond? A strange position to take.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
If you want to discuss this any further then PM me

You left out the last half of your quote for context;

 Avatar 720 wrote:
If you want to discuss this any further then PM me although I can't say that I'll reply, or even read it, due to my aforementioned state of not giving a crap.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
If you want to discuss this any further then PM me

 daedalus wrote:
Is it still a godwin if it's done in a video and not actually done by anyone posting in thread? My bingo card may depend upon the answer.

 d-usa wrote:
Final post before I'm really out:

For what it's worth this fine outstanding Muslim already served prison time for :

-Possession Of Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
-Poss Of Controlled Substance
-Escape From Detention
-Two separate instances of Assault And Battery On A Police Officer two years apart.

But hey, I'm sure he was a fine outstanding citizen prior to his recent conversion and it was that nasty Islam that made him go all violent.

 Goliath wrote:
Here's a thought experiment:
Take the exact same article as in the OP, but replace the words "muslim" with "evangelical christian", so rather than having recently converted to Islam, he had recently converted to Christianity, and rather than trying to convert his colleagues to Islam, he had tried to convert them to Christianity.

How do you think the reactions to the news would differ to currently?

Do you think people might be focusing on his criminal record? Calling him criminal scum, maybe? Completely ignoring any possible religious connotation? Can you say, entirely honestly, that people would be blaming it on his religion?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's the usual, "HE'S A TERRORIST, ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!" routine. Being Muslim does not mean terrorist. We have religious extremists everywhere (Catholic vs Protestant), but they are just that, extremeist. The fact that he had converted to islam should not have been put in there, and any decent new orgniation would not have done it.

And to the "Quran is violent." crowd, so is the bible.

Read this and then never say it again http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788.

 Jihadin wrote:
We all in agreement then that McViegh did not blow up the Fed building for religious cause then. He held a extremist view that was not religious in nature and retaliated against the US Government for the role they played in Waco. TX.

 d-usa wrote:
My expectations form the predictable people in my lovely home state:

1) The Islamic Organizations in this State are going to condemn his actions, like they have to do every single time anybody that is Muslim does anything bad anywhere on the planet.
2) The State Chair of the GOP is going to explain that this is nothing unusual and exactly what we should expect from Muslims because their only goal in life is to kill every non-Muslim.
3) The Islamophobes in this stupid state are going to eat it up and run along with it.
4) The entire state is going to go ape-gak crazy because of this while either forgetting or willfully ignoring that one time when a certain white guy did this:

Spoiler:

 d-usa wrote:
Final post before I'm really out:

For what it's worth this fine outstanding Muslim already served prison time for :

-Possession Of Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent To Distribute Cocaine
-Poss Of Controlled Substance
-Escape From Detention
-Two separate instances of Assault And Battery On A Police Officer two years apart.

But hey, I'm sure he was a fine outstanding citizen prior to his recent conversion and it was that nasty Islam that made him go all violent.

 RatBot wrote:
Let's all just conveniently ignore the parts of the Quran that mention tolerance and stuff, and focus on the the bits that mention killing without the proper historical context.

Also, let's ignore the parts of the Bible where people are killed for worshiping the wrong God.


My God, how much danger must I have been in during my three months in Amman, surrounded by bloodthirsty, evil Muslims who wanted nothing more than to kill me.

herp a derp, Muslims are eevul.

Yeah, this guy is an evil psycho. Yes, ISIS is a bunch of evil psychos. Clearly, the extreme minority speak for the clear majority (100,000 people clearly represent 2,000,000,000 Muslims!)

So why don't you Christians stop lynching black people and bombing federal buildings?

I'd like to congratulate a couple people in this thread for finally making my ignore list. That's a real feat because I can put up with a lot of idiotic garbage.

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's the usual, "HE'S A TERRORIST, ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!" routine. Being Muslim does not mean terrorist. We have religious extremists everywhere (Catholic vs Protestant), but they are just that, extremeist. The fact that he had converted to islam should not have been put in there, and any decent new orgniation would not have done it.

And to the "Quran is violent." crowd, so is the bible.

Read this and then never say it again http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788.

In all fairness, you are using Old Testament, which outlines a violent time where it was the order of the day for tribes and cities to massacre each other down to the last man, no matter what god they worshipped.

As far as Muslims go, in my own anicdotal experiendes, any Muslim I've ever dealt with has been a fairly good person. We had a group in from Oman just this week learning about lean production techniques and I loved being around them. They invited me to visit them, telling me that I could stay at their places if I make it out there, either through work or on my own.

Very kind people.
I'm not saying there aren't flying rodent gak crazy or totaly repugnant Muslims. The news is full of them and I know enough people that have been overseas in the middle of all of that crap.
I, and I suspect most others here just don't paint them all with the same brush

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
Let's all just conveniently ignore the parts of the Quran that mention tolerance and stuff, and focus on the the bits that mention killing without the proper historical context.

Also, let's ignore the parts of the Bible where people are killed for worshiping the wrong God.


My God, how much danger must I have been in during my three months in Amman, surrounded by bloodthirsty, evil Muslims who wanted nothing more than to kill me.

herp a derp, Muslims are eevul.

Yeah, this guy is an evil psycho. Yes, ISIS is a bunch of evil psychos. Clearly, the extreme minority speak for the clear majority (100,000 people clearly represent 2,000,000,000 Muslims!)

So why don't you Christians stop lynching black people and bombing federal buildings?

I'd like to congratulate a couple people in this thread for finally making my ignore list. That's a real feat because I can put up with a lot of idiotic garbage.

Proof that only 100,000 Muslims are violent extremists?

Russian sources estimated roughly 300,000 Chechens fought in the First Chechen War, and pretty much all of them were Muslims. That's ONE conflict area out of...well...pretty much the entire non-Muslim world against which Muslims are constantly fighting. I think your numbers are a bit off...

 RatBot wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Russian sources estimated roughly 300,000 Chechens fought in the First Chechen War, and pretty much all of them were Muslims. That's ONE conflict area out of...well...pretty much the entire non-Muslim world against which Muslims are constantly fighting. I think your numbers are a bit off...

Ah, yes, the Chechen War, fought totally because evil Chechen Muslims wanted to annihilate good, honest Russian Christians, and not because the Chechens, who have almost no linguistic, cultural, or religious ties to the Russians, wanted independence from Russia, a known respecter of human rights and civil freedoms. Why, they're just as bad as those no-good Kurds who won't accept Arab and Turkish hegemony. Not to justify the terrorist tactics Chechen groups employ(ed) against the Russians, but to go "Hurr durr, evul Muslims!" is fething stupid.