Man beheads woman in OK

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.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Kelly502 wrote:

In Jah’Keem Yisrael we once again have a convert to Islam who became quite devout and became violent. In the wake of the murder he committed today, watch for more assurances that the murder had nothing to do with the religion that exhorts believers in its holy book, “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks.”

It's a good thing your profile name doesn't have 187 in it... or else I'd be addressing you by "Rakkasan" (and since you seem to be at Campbell, you KNOW what that means

) and to be fair, "Black Heart" or "Strike" doesn't have the same tone to it that Rakkasan does

This guy was violent a long time BEFORE he apparently converted to Islam. It is of course, too early to tell if any aspect, or every aspect of his actions were religiously motivated, OR... if he was a dude who had just lost his job and was getting back at "The Man"

**Grey Templar**

Well there are truly absurd comparisons, and then there are those which really aren't all that absurd.

Given how much violence Islamic extremists have committed over the last couple decades, and a general tone throughout history, its not wrong to have a hypothesis that there just might be a connection between a religion known to spawn a lot of violence and people who commit violent acts who just happened to recently convert to said religion.

**Kelly502**

Graphic:

http://pamelageller.com/2014/09/oklahoma-muslim-beheader-jahkeem-yisraels-facebook-page-is-all-about-islam.html/

**Ensis Ferrae**

Grey Templar wrote:
Well there are truly absurd comparisons, and then there are those which really aren't all that absurd.

Given how much violence Islamic extremists have committed over the last couple decades, and a general tone throughout history, its not wrong to have a hypothesis that there just might be a connection between a religion known to spawn a lot of violence and people who commit violent acts who just happened to recently convert to said religion.

What's actually somewhat sad is... I just hopped on google and did a search for "extremist buddhists" expecting to find some Onion, or Duffelblog type articles.... But, damn I was wrong and there are actually parts of the world where Buddhist extremists are killing (mainly) Muslims. But, because Buddhism isn't quite as mainstream as Islam or the various brands of Christianity, or Judaism; it's clearly escaping much, or most of the scrutiny that is given other religions. Part of this is of course that it's teachings are often foreign to people, and so most will only know the biggest/most "obvious" beliefs are ones of peace and tranquility (I mean hell, in a recent "Scientific" happiness study, the researchers found that Buddhists were the most "happy" while Christians were by far the least "happy"... not my test, and I put scientific in quotes for a reason

)

**Relapse**

Grey Templar wrote:
True. And I never ever said that conversion was a cause. Just maybe an effect of the same cause as what made them commit the evil act.

That makes sense, actually. There are more than a few cases, I am sure, where someone with discontent either in themselves or society at large, makes a change in religion, music style, sports team they follow, etc., and finds that the change isn't giving them the results looked for and finally go off the deep end.
Right now I am too lazy to google any examples, but I'm sure some of the more learned members of these forums could come up with examples.
This thread actually has potential to turn into a fairly interesting opportunity for learning the psychology of these types of individuals.

**Kelly502**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Kelly502 wrote:

In Jah’Keem Yisrael we once again have a convert to Islam who became quite devout and became violent. In the wake of the murder he committed today, watch for more assurances that the murder had nothing to do with the religion that exhorts believers in its holy book, “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks.”

It's a good thing your profile name doesn't have 187 in it... or else I'd be addressing you by "Rakkasan" (and since you seem to be at Campbell, you KNOW what that means ) and to be fair, "Black Heart" or "Strike" doesn't have the same tone to it that Rakkasan does

This guy was violent a long time BEFORE he apparently converted to Islam. It is of course, too early to tell if any aspect, or every aspect of his actions were religiously motivated, OR... if he was a dude who had just lost his job and was getting back at "The Man"

The Hatchet Battalion to be precise.

I'm a Crusader or Kafir, I have absolutely no empathy for murderers.

**Relapse**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Well there are truly absurd comparisons, and then there are those which really aren't all that absurd.

Given how much violence Islamic extremists have committed over the last couple decades, and a general tone throughout history, its not wrong to have a hypothesis that there just might be a connection between a religion known to spawn a lot of violence and people who commit violent acts who just happened to recently convert to said religion.

What's actually somewhat sad is... I just hopped on google and did a search for "extremist buddhists" expecting to find some Onion, or Duffelblog type articles.... But, damn I was wrong and there are actually parts of the world where Buddhist extremists are killing (mainly) Muslims. But, because Buddhism isn't quite as mainstream as Islam or the various brands of Christianity, or Judaism; it's clearly escaping much, or most of the scrutiny that is given other religions. Part of this is of course that it's teachings are often foreign to people, and so most will only know the biggest/most "obvious" beliefs are ones of peace and tranquility (I mean hell, in a recent "Scientific" happiness study, the researchers found that Buddhists were the most "happy" while Christians were by far the least "happy"... not my test, and I put scientific in quotes for a reason )

Yep, Cambodia was a great example of what you speak of.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Kelly502 wrote:

The Hatchet Battalion to be precise. I'm a Crusader or Kafir, I have absolutely no empathy for murderers.

Dude, I was in Bastogne brigade... I've never even heard of "Hatchet Battalion" Is that 4th Brigade?

**NuggzTheNinja**

BaronIveagh wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:

I didn't make the claim, and I can't speak to numbers, but there have been a few converts to Islam popping up in terroristy places doing terroristy things.

Yeah, but some of those are not exactly 'recent' converts. And I've known people to turn up in terroisty places doing terroisty things without being Muslim.

Examples?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azreal13 wrote:
Jihadin wrote:

My GAWD Azreal...how the heck did your thought process lead to that graph

I was looking for something to illustrate the absurdity of assuming that a correlation must mean a cause, had a quick Google and the web is full of stupid examples of extraordinary statistical relationships.

Spoiler:

This isn't really helpful. While correlation != causation has become a mantra of sorts, it ignores the very real fact that correlation often DOES indicate a true relationship, or at least the presence of a third variable that may be causal. Another limit of correlation is that it doesn't give you directionality.

However, the argument that correlation != causation isn't really an argument against statistical relationships. Studies containing correlation tests are published every day, so obviously the test has some scientific merit even if it cannot be used to demonstrate causation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kelly502 wrote:
Graphic:

http://pamelageller.com/2014/09/oklahoma-muslim-beheader-jahkeem-yisraels-facebook-page-is-all-about-islam.html/

"Don't be toxicated." lol...surely a beacon of light to the world.

**Frazzled**

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?

the difference of course is christians don't do that for their religion. enough with the pc already.u

**Platuan4th**

Frazzled wrote:

the difference of course is christians don't do that for their religion.

Any more.

They don't do that for their religion any more.

And that's still not universally accurate.

**Grey Templar**

Platuan4th wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

the difference of course is christians don't do that for their religion.

Any more.

They don't do that for their religion any more.

And that's still not universally accurate.

And they only did it when they couldn't actually read the Bible for themselves and/or they were goaded on by the only people who could. It was also when everybody killed everybody over everything. Religion was just one of an assortment of reasons.

**Ouze**

so uh, does anyone know yet why he did it?

**Bromsy**

Ouze wrote:
so uh, does anyone know yet why he did it?

Because he was an donkey-cave.

**whembly**

Bromsy wrote:
Ouze wrote:
so uh, does anyone know yet why he did it?

Because he was an donkey-cave.

That's my wager too...

No reports yet that the po-po interviewed the dude.

**Blackhoof**

Grey Templar wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

the difference of course is christians don't do that for their religion.

Any more.

They don't do that for their religion any more.

And that's still not universally accurate.

And they only did it when they couldn't actually read the Bible for themselves and/or they were goaded on by the only people who could. It was also when everybody killed everybody over everything. Religion was just one of an assortment of reasons.

has no-one heard of the Lords Resistance Army? Run by Kony. Christian fundamentalist group that wants to found a theocracy based on the Bible. Should be fun.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

or lets take a broad view of Christian terrorism in recent years: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

many examples. Not as prevalent as muslim terrorism, but i blame that mostly on the location of most Muslims compared to christians. Wealth and prosperity and education discourage religious extremism and religion in general (a proven correlation, religion is decreasing in every wealthy nation, bar China.

and what does it matter if genocide is resigned to the old testament? Its the same god ordering it as who sent in Jesus. What's the difference?

**reds8n**

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/217850/so-did-you-guys-hear-we-caught-a-terrorist-last-week/

**Da Boss**

This sort of thread makes me disgusted at Dakkadakka. Make a criticism of a christian or the christian religion on these boards and see how long it takes for your thread to get locked, on the grounds that "Attacking religion violates Rule 1" or whatever.

Sling mud and abuse at Islam for as long as you want and nothing happens.

Double standard, and a disgusting one. But it happens with such frequency there's probably no point in me posting this.

**Dreadclaw69**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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."

Do you have a source for that? What I took my information off was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Political_views_and_religious_beliefs

Then you fail at basic reading comprehension .

He bombed the federal building in 1995 and the interview with TIME magazine was in 1996 when he stated what I put in my post. He became an "agnostic" according to a book written in 2001. He also took Catholic rites before his execution, for what it's worth.

So like Ouze said and we all agreed, he was not religiously motivated, but to claim he was without Christianity at the time of the bombing is an outright lie.

From the link provided;

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]

Nothing in that information gives any indication of when he became agnostic. Nor did you manage to provide a link as requested. If I was incorrect based on the little information that I had available I will of course accept that the information is inaccurate. Until then comments such as "Then you fail at basic reading comprehension " are greatly unhelpful.

**Goliath**

Yes, it does. It says right there in the block of text that you've quoted two or three times.

1985 - confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York

1996 - Professes in an interview to have 'sort of lost touch with' Catholicism, though 'I do maintain core beliefs'

2001 - Claims in his book to not believe in hell, and further claims that science is his religion

June 2001 - Writes letter claiming to be agnostic, but takes Catholic rites prior to execution.

From this, using our basic powers of deduction, we can tell that he considered himself to be at least partially Catholic as late as 1996 (post-bombing), and by 2001 we can see that he considers himself to be agnostic, though he takes Catholic rites.

Thus, we can make the assumption that he became agnostic at some point between 1996 and 2001, due to him 'maintaining the core beliefs' of Catholicism shortly after the bombing.

**Dreadclaw69**

Goliath wrote:
Yes, it does. It says right there in the block of text that you've quoted two or three times.

1985 - confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York

1996 - Professes in an interview to have 'sort of lost touch with' Catholicism, though 'I do maintain core beliefs'

2001 - Claims in his book to not believe in hell, and further claims that science is his religion

June 2001 - Writes letter claiming to be agnostic, but takes Catholic rites prior to execution.

From this, using our basic powers of deduction, we can tell that he considered himself to be at least partially Catholic as late as 1996 (post-bombing), and by 2001 we can see that he considers himself to be agnostic, though he takes Catholic rites.

Thus, we can make the assumption that he became agnostic at some point between 1996 and 2001, due to him 'maintaining the core beliefs' of Catholicism shortly after the bombing.

So between 1985 and 1996, a substantial gap of eleven years, we don't know when he lost touch with his faith. You can make assumptions, but those are assumptions with little to no evidence. We don't know if he lost his religion years before the bombing, or minutes after. That is why I have asked for a link to the interview, to clarify this matter.

Leaving that aside for the time being the Oklahoma bombing was a secular act of violence motivated by a political grievance (legitimate or otherwise). I don't believe that religion has been established as a factor in the attack in the OP, at present it appears to be an act of workplace violence.

**motyak**

This is addressing the people claiming that "high ranking muslims never step in and tell people off".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/fatwa-targeting-australians-has-no-religious-authority-grand-mufti/story-fnpdbcmu-1227069153464

“As we have repeatedly preached in private and in public, in Arabic and in English, the horrors conducted overseas in the name of religion are crimes against humanity and sins against God,” the Grand Mufti said.

“The recent so-called ‘fatwa’ from overseas making reference to Australia as a target has no religious authority and must be rejected.

Seems to be pretty clearly saying 'they're bad' to me.

**Ouze**

reds8n wrote:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/217850/so-did-you-guys-hear-we-caught-a-terrorist-last-week/

No bro, that guy's white.

**motyak**

Ouze wrote:
reds8n wrote:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/217850/so-did-you-guys-hear-we-caught-a-terrorist-last-week/

No bro, that guy's white.

Wait I must have it wrong in my head. From that article, he wants a "Pre-Constitutionalist Community", to "restore America Pre- Constitutionally". Wasn't pre-constitution....British rule?

**reds8n**

One would suggest if your plan is concocted in public, on Facebook, and it largely consists of hysterical threats to shoot and/or blow stuff/people up, that MENSA is unlikely to be offering you membership anytime soon.

**LordofHats**

motyak wrote:
Ouze wrote:
reds8n wrote:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/217850/so-did-you-guys-hear-we-caught-a-terrorist-last-week/

No bro, that guy's white.

Wait I must have it wrong in my head. From that article, he wants a "Pre-Constitutionalist Community", to "restore America Pre- Constitutionally". Wasn't pre-constitution....British rule?

Maybe he means the Articles of Confederation?

Pft. Good luck with that brosefs. it's five steps away from anarchy

**Dreadclaw69**

reds8n wrote:
One would suggest if your plan is concocted in public, on Facebook, and it largely consists of hysterical threats to shoot and/or blow stuff/people up, that MENSA is unlikely to be offering you membership anytime soon.

If only natural selection worked faster

**Ouze**

motyak wrote:
Ouze wrote:
reds8n wrote:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/217850/so-did-you-guys-hear-we-caught-a-terrorist-last-week/

No bro, that guy's white.

Wait I must have it wrong in my head. From that article, he wants a "Pre-Constitutionalist Community", to "restore America Pre- Constitutionally". Wasn't pre-constitution....British rule?

Would we get the NHS? If so he has a compelling argument. I've long though an NHS type system is the best way to do healthcare.

**whembly**

motyak wrote:
This is addressing the people claiming that "high ranking muslims never step in and tell people off".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/fatwa-targeting-australians-has-no-religious-authority-grand-mufti/story-fnpdbcmu-1227069153464

“As we have repeatedly preached in private and in public, in Arabic and in English, the horrors conducted overseas in the name of religion are crimes against humanity and sins against God,” the Grand Mufti said.

“The recent so-called ‘fatwa’ from overseas making reference to Australia as a target has no religious authority and must be rejected.

Seems to be pretty clearly saying 'they're bad' to me.

w00t!

More.. MOAR!

As to what's happening in OK... um, did ya'll check the news?

o.O

**motyak**

whembly wrote:

As to what's happening in OK... um, did ya'll check the news?

o.O

Instead of going all Edward Nigma, how about you just link the news source you are talking about? I'd say its more polite that way