Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Traditional families are...well the majority of the world so I don't see what you're getting at Canuck. *


*One of my took wearing comrades came back with boxes of maple creme cookies. Dear Dog, Maple syrup Oreos! no wonder you people are so mellow.

 cuda1179 wrote:
There has been TONS of legislation passed in order to prevent the next masacre.

If the criminals would just follow the laws, there wouldn't be any murders, much less massacres!

CA should just outlaw murdering people.

 Frazzled wrote:
Traditional families are...well the majority of the world so I don't see what you're getting at Canuck. *


*One of my took wearing comrades came back with boxes of maple creme cookies. Dear Dog, Maple syrup Oreos! no wonder you people are so mellow.

See now this is why Canada is so chill.
That and a strategic reserve of maple syrup!

 Frazzled wrote:
Traditional families are...well the majority of the world so I don't see what you're getting at Canuck. *

Nah, the whole man = head of household, marriage is for life, wife listen to husband in all matters, that kind of thing.

*One of my took wearing comrades came back with boxes of maple creme cookies. Dear Dog, Maple syrup Oreos! no wonder you people are so mellow.

A maple pecan Danish made with real maple syrup is one of the finest gifts we have given the world. That and the masterful prog rock stylings of Rush!

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
One of my took wearing comrades came back with boxes of maple creme cookies. Dear Dog, Maple syrup Oreos! no wonder you people are so mellow.

A maple pecan Danish made with real maple syrup is one of the finest gifts we have given the world. That and the masterful prog rock stylings of Rush!

As we're wandering, did you guys catch MasterChef Junior the other day? Ramsey was giving one of the kids gak for making maple bacon macaroons. WTF? That kid is on point. How does Gordon Ramsey not know about maple bacon donuts being the latest thing?


Well, feth, now I want a donut.

I had maple bacon donuts at a bacon festival in Madison, WI. I did not like.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
One of my took wearing comrades came back with boxes of maple creme cookies. Dear Dog, Maple syrup Oreos! no wonder you people are so mellow.

A maple pecan Danish made with real maple syrup is one of the finest gifts we have given the world. That and the masterful prog rock stylings of Rush!

As we're wandering, did you guys catch MasterChef Junior the other day? Ramsey was giving one of the kids gak for making maple bacon macaroons. WTF? That kid is on point. How does Gordon Ramsey not know about maple bacon donuts being the latest thing?


Well, feth, now I want a donut.

Want. Now.

 kronk wrote:
I had maple bacon donuts at a bacon festival in Madison, WI. I did not like.

I've had 'em (in Madison too)... and they look like those pictured above.

I lurved it... but, could only handle 1.

There is a difference between a Muslim terrorist and a terrorist that happens to be Muslim. If the religion is the driving force for the attack, then by all means call them out. If someone goes on a killing spree because they hate cat owners, well.... leave the religion out of it.

The first San Bernardino shooters were Muslim terrorists.
This guy, just a murdering POS. But, if they find a note saying he's killing in the name of Jesus, by all means, call him a Christian Terrorist.

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And then there's this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/04/10/why-isnt-the-media-pointing-out-that-the-san-bernardino-shooter-was-an-outspoken-christian/

If true, you'll note/remember how quickly MSM jumped on the previous SB attack for them being Muslims. Why isn't it being reported that this guy was Christian??

So he shot the ex wife for being a nonChristian? Else your comparison in-apt.

Agree, I don't think this is radical Christian abortion clinic bombing area. I think this is a sick individual, who was not radicalized committing an atrocity. Unless we find a note, motive, or something to that effect it would be hard pressed to call this religious zealotyr. Problem is with Muslim extremism, it all has its roots in teaching from some Imam somewhere, so then it falls in that category. I am not sure this fits in the hole your trying to place this peg.

Eh, you could make a case for all the "traditional family" crap that is preached over here as a motive for shooting his ex. It would be pure speculation, of course, but when has that ever stopped us from coming to firm conclusions with flimsy evidence.

Feeder has the general gist of it. . . If they found out he was Muslim, they would be speculating for days what his motives *really* were, who radicalized him, etc. etc. but because he was an outspoken Christian, there is not a peep as to what he was preaching, what he received from other preachers, what was going on in the churches he attended, all of which could very well have helped put him into the frame of mind to do what he did. I don't want to suggest he had terrorist motives, but an exploration of his religious views could lead to some fruit.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And then there's this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/04/10/why-isnt-the-media-pointing-out-that-the-san-bernardino-shooter-was-an-outspoken-christian/

If true, you'll note/remember how quickly MSM jumped on the previous SB attack for them being Muslims. Why isn't it being reported that this guy was Christian??

So he shot the ex wife for being a nonChristian? Else your comparison in-apt.

Agree, I don't think this is radical Christian abortion clinic bombing area. I think this is a sick individual, who was not radicalized committing an atrocity. Unless we find a note, motive, or something to that effect it would be hard pressed to call this religious zealotyr. Problem is with Muslim extremism, it all has its roots in teaching from some Imam somewhere, so then it falls in that category. I am not sure this fits in the hole your trying to place this peg.

Eh, you could make a case for all the "traditional family" crap that is preached over here as a motive for shooting his ex. It would be pure speculation, of course, but when has that ever stopped us from coming to firm conclusions with flimsy evidence.

Feeder has the general gist of it. . . If they found out he was Muslim, they would be speculating for days what his motives *really* were, who radicalized him, etc. etc. but because he was an outspoken Christian, there is not a peep as to what he was preaching, what he received from other preachers, what was going on in the churches he attended, all of which could very well have helped put him into the frame of mind to do what he did. I don't want to suggest he had terrorist motives, but an exploration of his religious views could lead to some fruit.

A very careful investigation into the church's he attended and such is in order.
More for the fact if someone did know or did have a part to play in this they deserve get there dues.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And then there's this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/04/10/why-isnt-the-media-pointing-out-that-the-san-bernardino-shooter-was-an-outspoken-christian/

If true, you'll note/remember how quickly MSM jumped on the previous SB attack for them being Muslims. Why isn't it being reported that this guy was Christian??

That article was self-defeating;

Let me be clear: I don’t think religion is to blame for this tragedy. I think there were probably a number of factors, perhaps including mental illness, that led to these heinous killings.

This attack is not considered an act of Christian terrorism because religion was not a motive for violence based on the available evidence.

 kronk wrote:
I had maple bacon donuts at a bacon festival in Madison, WI. I did not like.

We had some in work for one Christmas party. They were tasty but the bacon was chewy and should have been crispy.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And then there's this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/04/10/why-isnt-the-media-pointing-out-that-the-san-bernardino-shooter-was-an-outspoken-christian/

If true, you'll note/remember how quickly MSM jumped on the previous SB attack for them being Muslims. Why isn't it being reported that this guy was Christian??

That article was self-defeating;

Let me be clear: I don’t think religion is to blame for this tragedy. I think there were probably a number of factors, perhaps including mental illness, that led to these heinous killings.

This attack is not considered an act of Christian terrorism because religion was not a motive for violence based on the available evidence.

If you continued reading, he suggests that the media is partially at fault. He cites an attack by an atheist man against 3 Muslims over a parking space. All evidence pointed to the parking space and yet, local media latched onto his atheism. It was to the point where prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins were "forced" to make public statements regarding atheism and his views and try to distance himself from this one guy. On the flip side, no christian preachers are putting out public statements distancing themselves from this guy in the OP incident. It doesn't matter whether he was religiously motivated. It does matter how religion as a whole is represented in the media.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And then there's this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/04/10/why-isnt-the-media-pointing-out-that-the-san-bernardino-shooter-was-an-outspoken-christian/

If true, you'll note/remember how quickly MSM jumped on the previous SB attack for them being Muslims. Why isn't it being reported that this guy was Christian??

That article was self-defeating;

Let me be clear: I don’t think religion is to blame for this tragedy. I think there were probably a number of factors, perhaps including mental illness, that led to these heinous killings.

This attack is not considered an act of Christian terrorism because religion was not a motive for violence based on the available evidence.

If you continued reading, he suggests that the media is partially at fault. He cites an attack by an atheist man against 3 Muslims over a parking space. All evidence pointed to the parking space and yet, local media latched onto his atheism. It was to the point where prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins were "forced" to make public statements regarding atheism and his views and try to distance himself from this one guy. On the flip side, no christian preachers are putting out public statements distancing themselves from this guy in the OP incident. It doesn't matter whether he was religiously motivated. It does matter how religion as a whole is represented in the media.

First you make mention that the previous San Bernadino shooting was reported as religiously motivated because it actually was, you then pivot to ask why this case is not being religiously motivated when religion has not been shown to be a motivating fator, and you then try to defend your position by pointing out shoddy journalism in a third separate incident.

You ask "Why isn't it being reported that this guy was Christian", but you need to show why it should be reported that he was a Christian. Unless it is shown that religious was his motivation for this attack then it has as much relevance as what is favorite meal is, what TV show he watched, or how he put toilet roll in it's holder.

Indeed, in the LA basin, people kill each other all the time at astounding levels. Religion has nothing to do with it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

First you make mention that the previous San Bernadino shooting was reported as religiously motivated because it actually was, you then pivot to ask why this case is not being religiously motivated when religion has not been shown to be a motivating fator, and you then try to defend your position by pointing out shoddy journalism in a third separate incident.

You ask "Why isn't it being reported that this guy was Christian", but you need to show why it should be reported that he was a Christian. Unless it is shown that religious was his motivation for this attack then it has as much relevance as what is favorite meal is, what TV show he watched, or how he put toilet roll in it's holder.

It turned out that the first SB shooting was religiously motivated. What I'm saying is that the media reported on the religious aspect, speculating whether there was a connection long before it was confirmed there was one. So in 2 examples, one in which it turns out religion was a causal aspect of an incident, and one in which it played no part, the media hyped the religious angle.... That speculation has been completely missing from this incident, perhaps because he was Christian, which apparently affords special treatment.

Or the opposite, that the media reports on Muslims as potential terrorists as a first step due to previous Islamic terrorism. After all, there are more than two faiths in the US.

On the flip side, one can argue American Muslims are so awesome, terrorism is suspected, because otherwise they are not viewed as a criminal group of people.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

First you make mention that the previous San Bernadino shooting was reported as religiously motivated because it actually was, you then pivot to ask why this case is not being religiously motivated when religion has not been shown to be a motivating fator, and you then try to defend your position by pointing out shoddy journalism in a third separate incident.

You ask "Why isn't it being reported that this guy was Christian", but you need to show why it should be reported that he was a Christian. Unless it is shown that religious was his motivation for this attack then it has as much relevance as what is favorite meal is, what TV show he watched, or how he put toilet roll in it's holder.

It turned out that the first SB shooting was religiously motivated. What I'm saying is that the media reported on the religious aspect, speculating whether there was a connection long before it was confirmed there was one. So in 2 examples, one in which it turns out religion was a causal aspect of an incident, and one in which it played no part, the media hyped the religious angle.... That speculation has been completely missing from this incident, perhaps because he was Christian, which apparently affords special treatment.

It also comes down to fact while extreme christians exist the percentage of incidents, especially in Europe is heavily tilted to Islamic aligned groups or extremist individuals. Right now they re one of the most active hostile groups.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
It turned out that the first SB shooting was religiously motivated. What I'm saying is that the media reported on the religious aspect, speculating whether there was a connection long before it was confirmed there was one. So in 2 examples, one in which it turns out religion was a causal aspect of an incident, and one in which it played no part, the media hyped the religious angle.... That speculation has been completely missing from this incident, perhaps because he was Christian, which apparently affords special treatment.

Your assertion lacks evidence. Also it was my recollection that a religious motive was not given serious consideration early; http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooting-timeline-how-rampage-unfolded-n473501

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
It turned out that the first SB shooting was religiously motivated. What I'm saying is that the media reported on the religious aspect, speculating whether there was a connection long before it was confirmed there was one. So in 2 examples, one in which it turns out religion was a causal aspect of an incident, and one in which it played no part, the media hyped the religious angle.... That speculation has been completely missing from this incident, perhaps because he was Christian, which apparently affords special treatment.

Your assertion lacks evidence. Also it was my recollection that a religious motive was not given serious consideration early; http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooting-timeline-how-rampage-unfolded-n473501

That timeline is a bit bare.... I recall watching live on TV, as soon as they had the name, there was speculation, though weak, whether there was a religious/terror motive involved.

Well........ And I know this is going to sound bad, but can anyone think of a mass killing, or attempted killing, in the US (especially where there were multiple assailants) where they were Muslim and it wasn't religiously motivated? The only one I can remember was the DC sniper team.

Like the old saying goes, it you hear hooves, look for horses, not zebras.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
It turned out that the first SB shooting was religiously motivated. What I'm saying is that the media reported on the religious aspect, speculating whether there was a connection long before it was confirmed there was one. So in 2 examples, one in which it turns out religion was a causal aspect of an incident, and one in which it played no part, the media hyped the religious angle.... That speculation has been completely missing from this incident, perhaps because he was Christian, which apparently affords special treatment.

Your assertion lacks evidence. Also it was my recollection that a religious motive was not given serious consideration early; http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooting-timeline-how-rampage-unfolded-n473501

That timeline is a bit bare.... I recall watching live on TV, as soon as they had the name, there was speculation, though weak, whether there was a religious/terror motive involved.

Hence the deliberate choosing of the phrase "serious consideration" and the fact that the names were not mentioned by the media until over 7 hours after the incident was reported.

You still have yet to establish in fact that the perpetrator of this crime was given "special treatment" because of his religion.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well........ And I know this is going to sound bad, but can anyone think of a mass killing, or attempted killing, in the US (especially where there were multiple assailants) where they were Muslim and it wasn't religiously motivated? The only one I can remember was the DC sniper team.

Like the old saying goes, it you hear hooves, look for horses, not zebras.

Just some thoughts on this...

"Shooter-X (assailant) kills people, dies in process. In the investigation we find they are religious and "Y Militant Group" takes credit for it". But there is nothing actually linking the two but the religion, no contact, no records or anything. Does that mean it was religiously motivated? (Omar Saddiqui Mateen, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan)

What if "Y Group" didn't speak up to take credit for it, is it still religiouslly motivated? If it is... then what about when a Caucasian or non-Muslim does it, does that mean it is religiously motivated? (Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, George Hennard, James Huberty, Charles Joseph Whitman, Patrick Henry Sherrill, Jiverly Wong, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Kwan Fai Mak, Benjamin Ng, George Banks, Howard Unruh, Aaron Alexis, James E. Holmes, Mark Barton) There is a lot more but that point is...

People need a "reason why", society and mentally people look for a "justification" for something senseless because they need a "reason". It is easy to draw bias conclusions based on circumstantial evidence. Yes an extremist faction taking credit for something, doesn't mean it was them or because of them (it is just there is no one to prove it isn't true). Anyone who can is dead already. Even when someone is crazy and did something in the name of a "Christian God" we just label it insane or crazy, they weren't labeled a religious extremist. It wasn't until semi-recently that suddenly we have to make the link between Muslim = Extremist whenever violence was involved. There could be a fist fight at the local bar and where no one died, but media and society would label it a "Muslim Extremist" action, even if it wasn't true. It is just the natural link that people make when they are fearful.

Crazy is just crazy. Senseless acts of violence happen. Just because some "crazy person" killed a bunch of people in CA, doesn't mean that "crazy person" who shot the people are Canada are religiously motivated. It was definitely crazy motivated, disturbed motivated. In order for our minds to understand something, we have to classify it with a "why" so we make connections where they might not be connections and just coincidence.

In science we say, "Correlation does not imply causation".

As a side note, most of this is the fault of the media. Any shooting whether there is any fact or not immediately becomes "extremist" because it gets people to watch (Canada shooting as a reference).

 Dark Severance wrote:

As a side note, most of this is the fault of the media. Any shooting whether there is any fact or not immediately becomes "extremist" because it gets people to watch (Canada shooting as a reference).

Colorado Springs PP was an extremist act, yet it took what... weeks, months for him to be labeled an extremist?

And my point in what happened in the OP, is not that the perp is being given special consideration, his religion is.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

As a side note, most of this is the fault of the media. Any shooting whether there is any fact or not immediately becomes "extremist" because it gets people to watch (Canada shooting as a reference).

Colorado Springs PP was an extremist act, yet it took what... weeks, months for him to be labeled an extremist?

And my point in what happened in the OP, is not that the perp is being given special consideration, his religion is.

As stated before, you have yet to give any evidence of your assertion. Merely repeating it doesn't cut it.

 amanita wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

As a side note, most of this is the fault of the media. Any shooting whether there is any fact or not immediately becomes "extremist" because it gets people to watch (Canada shooting as a reference).

Colorado Springs PP was an extremist act, yet it took what... weeks, months for him to be labeled an extremist?

And my point in what happened in the OP, is not that the perp is being given special consideration, his religion is.

As stated before, you have yet to give any evidence of your assertion. Merely repeating it doesn't cut it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting.html?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/charleston-shooting-churc_n_7608738.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/craig-stephen-hicks-atheism_n_6661438.html


There's 3 examples right there, and not some low profile obscure stuff. As I said, we KNOW that the Colorado Springs PP shooting was religiously inspired terrorism, notice what's absent in the article? The Charleston shooting, no mention of the shooters religion, only a mention that FBI was looking at investigating on hate crimes with no further speculation.

And then on the flip side, you have an article wherein an atheist ends up killing people over a fething parking space, it is then 3/4ths of the article speculating on whether his anti-religious views fueled the incident. but yeah, there's no special treatment for Christianity.

Here's a point it seems. While terror groups exist for all religions. They seem to be more confined often to own areas of interest or conflict in the non Islamic sections.

Islamic groups seem to be the ones mostly who do engage in attacks outside there own border across far wider areas and only ones to modern world attack across continents apart.

IRA did attack mainland UK but not Europe etc yet ISIS has mounted attacks across middle east, Libya, Europe, likely tried America.

It could be said our intervention caused this however this phenomenon of attacking countries thousands of miles from area of conflict is pretty unique to the Islamist section of terror community.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting.html?_r=0

As I recall details of this shooting only really came out after the arrest, and he also had significant mental health issues. In fact he was declared incompetent to stand trial.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/charleston-shooting-churc_n_7608738.html

Pretty such that for Charlestown race was seen as the motivation fro close to the time the media started reporting, so religion was never seriously considered as a motivation

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/craig-stephen-hicks-atheism_n_6661438.html

Already been discussed and it was specifically noted very early in the discussion that this was shoddy journalism

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
There's 3 examples right there, and not some low profile obscure stuff. As I said, we KNOW that the Colorado Springs PP shooting was religiously inspired terrorism, notice what's absent in the article? The Charleston shooting, no mention of the shooters religion, only a mention that FBI was looking at investigating on hate crimes with no further speculation.

And then on the flip side, you have an article wherein an atheist ends up killing people over a fething parking space, it is then 3/4ths of the article speculating on whether his anti-religious views fueled the incident. but yeah, there's no special treatment for Christianity.

We have already covered the Chapel Hill shooting and early on it was conceded that it was shoddy journalism. Using a shooting with mental health as a decisive factor and another shooting that had racial undertones from the start does not demonstrate your claim.