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.

 Alex C wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
he shouted no more body parts, a christian phrase used against PP

As a Christian, I can't say I'm familiar with this particular Christian phrase. Perhaps I need to read my Bible more often.

Pastafarious 34:63 "and thou shall knowest one of God's own whence he kneadeth the dough and saith 'no more body parts'". Look it up.

Of course most historians believe that the message there was to not use your elbows when kneading dough and had nothing to do with fetuses, but that's the nature of religious extremists-they take even the slightest mention of something in a two thousand year old text and use it to justify their personal cause.

Good article in the Washington Post on how this is likely not the result of an attack from some organization.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/30/why-the-planned-parenthood-shooting-could-actually-reflect-a-historical-decline-in-abortion-related-violence/

No more 'lol' comments. Keep it on topic and not stupid

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
And how do we know he wasn't targeting staff? There were 3 people killed but 9 people wounded.

Because PP said none of their staff were hurt

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Because PP said none of their staff were hurt

I'd qualify that a bit. What they actually said, per CNN, was:

"We're still reaching out to confirm individuals, how they are. I believe no one of our staff was severely injured. I also believe at this time that none of our patients were injured," she told CNN.

There's a lot of wiggle room in there. The only other sites I see reporting what you're saying is Lifenews and then the derposhere. So... maybe true, but maybe not. Like a lot of things about this story too early to call, in my opinion. No one wants to be the guy fronting the orbital blowout post, or the reddit located the missing student post.

So if a suicide bomber blows himself up in Paris, and nobody is injured, then it was just a plain old suicide and he didn't target anybody?

 d-usa wrote:
So if a suicide bomber blows himself up in Paris, and nobody is injured, then it was just a plain old suicide and he didn't target anybody?

Well, was he a white guy? Because that really frames our assumptions.

 d-usa wrote:
So if a suicide bomber blows himself up in Paris, and nobody is injured, then it was just a plain old suicide and he didn't target anybody?

What point are you attempting to make?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So if a suicide bomber blows himself up in Paris, and nobody is injured, then it was just a plain old suicide and he didn't target anybody?

What point are you attempting to make?

The point is that the "nobody was hurt, so they weren't targeted" argument is stupid.

But then I'm pretty sure that you know that. Because even though you are making this argument I'm still pretty sure that you would never claim that an IED that explodes early and doesn't injure anybody didn't target a convoy, or that somebody detonating a suicide vest without injuring anybody wasn't targeting a location, or that a drive-by shooting up a house without injuring wasn't targeting that house. But yet, shooting up a PP location while also talking to police about "no more baby parts" doesn't mean it was targeted because "nobody was hurt".

 Peregrine wrote:
So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?

With the information that's come out about him so far, in my mind, he's on the same plane as that Muslim in Britain that decapitated the old woman in her garden, or the other one that decapitated that lady at work.

In other words, a nut job.

I agree with the non terrorist title. He doesn't match what a terrorist is and I hate seeing the concept thrown around for no reason outside of "Gotcha Christians." I understand non-religious types want that ah-ha moment to prove that Christians are as violent as Muslims but this isn't it. I'm not religious myself or put specific weight on one religion or the other.

He was a crazy person, yes. As of now he isn't a terrorist but a psychopath.

Are there Christian extremists? Yah, like a crap ton. Are they organized and acting out violently? No, not as a group or a faith. Some sick individuals maybe in the some low key murder cases maybe I don't know but not organized terrorism. Could we start seeing it in the future? Maybe, there is always a possibility.

 d-usa wrote:
The point is that the "nobody was hurt, so they weren't targeted" argument is stupid.

But then I'm pretty sure that you know that. Because even though you are making this argument I'm still pretty sure that you would never claim that an IED that explodes early and doesn't injure anybody didn't target a convoy, or that somebody detonating a suicide vest without injuring anybody wasn't targeting a location, or that a drive-by shooting up a house without injuring wasn't targeting that house. But yet, shooting up a PP location while also talking to police about "no more baby parts" doesn't mean it was targeted because "nobody was hurt".

No, the argument was "how do we know he wasn't targeting staff?' Initial reports suggest that he shot at others not connected with PP, sought cover inside the PP building, and did not shoot at PP staff while inside the building. With the facts as they currently stand it is hard to claim that by not shooting at people from an organization he was targeting them - that may be considered by some to be a "stupid" argument.

Shooting a building in a drive by is targeting the building or the occupants therein. Reports to date do not show that this is what the assailant did with the PP building so the comparison is disingenuous.

An IED exploding early is also not an apt comparison because it detonated early. It was not deployed against its intended target. In this instance the shooter managed to get inside the building yet managed not to kill anyone.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I agree with the non terrorist title. He doesn't match what a terrorist is and I hate seeing the concept thrown around for no reason outside of "Gotcha Christians." I understand non-religious types want that ah-ha moment to prove that Christians are as violent as Muslims but this isn't it. I'm not religious myself or put specific weight on one religion or the other.

He was a crazy person, yes. As of now he isn't a terrorist but a psychopath.

Are there Christian extremists? Yah, like a crap ton. Are they organized and acting out violently? No, not as a group or a faith. Some sick individuals maybe in the some low key murder cases maybe I don't know but not organized terrorism. Could we start seeing it in the future? Maybe, there is always a possibility.

Pretty sure the KKK, Christian Identity movement, certain Aryan brotherhood groups will disagree with you there. Then if you go internationally you have the LRA, The Orange volunteers, Antibalaka etc.

 Ustrello wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I agree with the non terrorist title. He doesn't match what a terrorist is and I hate seeing the concept thrown around for no reason outside of "Gotcha Christians." I understand non-religious types want that ah-ha moment to prove that Christians are as violent as Muslims but this isn't it. I'm not religious myself or put specific weight on one religion or the other.

He was a crazy person, yes. As of now he isn't a terrorist but a psychopath.

Are there Christian extremists? Yah, like a crap ton. Are they organized and acting out violently? No, not as a group or a faith. Some sick individuals maybe in the some low key murder cases maybe I don't know but not organized terrorism. Could we start seeing it in the future? Maybe, there is always a possibility.

Pretty sure the KKK, Christian Identity movement, certain Aryan brotherhood groups will disagree with you there. Then if you go internationally you have the LRA, The Orange volunteers, Antibalaka etc.

So you are going to take the actions of the few and paint the rest of the Christians with that?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I agree with the non terrorist title. He doesn't match what a terrorist is and I hate seeing the concept thrown around for no reason outside of "Gotcha Christians." I understand non-religious types want that ah-ha moment to prove that Christians are as violent as Muslims but this isn't it. I'm not religious myself or put specific weight on one religion or the other.

He was a crazy person, yes. As of now he isn't a terrorist but a psychopath.

Are there Christian extremists? Yah, like a crap ton. Are they organized and acting out violently? No, not as a group or a faith. Some sick individuals maybe in the some low key murder cases maybe I don't know but not organized terrorism. Could we start seeing it in the future? Maybe, there is always a possibility.

Pretty sure the KKK, Christian Identity movement, certain Aryan brotherhood groups will disagree with you there. Then if you go internationally you have the LRA, The Orange volunteers, Antibalaka etc.

So you are going to take the actions of the few and paint the rest of the Christians with that?

No but if you run around and claim there aren't any christian terrorist organizations or that christians aren't violent, well you are living in another reality.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The point is that the "nobody was hurt, so they weren't targeted" argument is stupid.

But then I'm pretty sure that you know that. Because even though you are making this argument I'm still pretty sure that you would never claim that an IED that explodes early and doesn't injure anybody didn't target a convoy, or that somebody detonating a suicide vest without injuring anybody wasn't targeting a location, or that a drive-by shooting up a house without injuring wasn't targeting that house. But yet, shooting up a PP location while also talking to police about "no more baby parts" doesn't mean it was targeted because "nobody was hurt".

No, the argument was "how do we know he wasn't targeting staff?' Initial reports suggest that he shot at others not connected with PP, sought cover inside the PP building, and did not shoot at PP staff while inside the building. With the facts as they currently stand it is hard to claim that by not shooting at people from an organization he was targeting them - that may be considered by some to be a "stupid" argument.

Shooting a building in a drive by is targeting the building or the occupants therein. Reports to date do not show that this is what the assailant did with the PP building so the comparison is disingenuous.

An IED exploding early is also not an apt comparison because it detonated early. It was not deployed against its intended target. In this instance the shooter managed to get inside the building yet managed not to kill anyone.

So in the "he didn't target the PP clinic" argument corner:

- Nobody at the clinic was hurt

In the "he did target the PP clinic" argument corner:

- He made it inside the PP clinic
- When talking to police he talked about "no more baby parts" and made other "anti-abortion" statements
- Both of the civilian victims killed were there to accompany friends to the clinic

But maybe the attack just happened to randomly start outside the PP clinic, randomly killed people that were at the PP clinic, and randomly ended up with him barricading himself in the PP clinic and then randomly talking to the police about anti-abortion subjects.

Or maybe some people are willfully looking the other way.

Who really knows.

This is a shooter....not a suicide vest wearer, IED'er, financier for Insurgent operations or Bombmaker. Those guys were of clear mind and body and determined to kill Coalition Force Members. Bonus if their Americans. Fighting for a "Cause"

A shooter plain and simple. Lone Wolf. With Mental Issues. For people to equate this Asshat to Insurgents and terrorists gives to much credit to the individual himself. To justify a weakass perception of a "Cause"

Stop throwing this guy action up there with the likes of ISIS/AQ/Bakaharam/andanyotherdedicatedorganizations.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The point is that the "nobody was hurt, so they weren't targeted" argument is stupid.

But then I'm pretty sure that you know that. Because even though you are making this argument I'm still pretty sure that you would never claim that an IED that explodes early and doesn't injure anybody didn't target a convoy, or that somebody detonating a suicide vest without injuring anybody wasn't targeting a location, or that a drive-by shooting up a house without injuring wasn't targeting that house. But yet, shooting up a PP location while also talking to police about "no more baby parts" doesn't mean it was targeted because "nobody was hurt".

No, the argument was "how do we know he wasn't targeting staff?' Initial reports suggest that he shot at others not connected with PP, sought cover inside the PP building, and did not shoot at PP staff while inside the building. With the facts as they currently stand it is hard to claim that by not shooting at people from an organization he was targeting them - that may be considered by some to be a "stupid" argument.

Shooting a building in a drive by is targeting the building or the occupants therein. Reports to date do not show that this is what the assailant did with the PP building so the comparison is disingenuous.

An IED exploding early is also not an apt comparison because it detonated early. It was not deployed against its intended target. In this instance the shooter managed to get inside the building yet managed not to kill anyone.

So in the "he didn't target the PP clinic" argument corner:

- Nobody at the clinic was hurt

In the "he did target the PP clinic" argument corner:

- He made it inside the PP clinic
- When talking to police he talked about "no more baby parts" and made other "anti-abortion" statements
- Both of the civilian victims killed were there to accompany friends to the clinic

But maybe the attack just happened to randomly start outside the PP clinic, randomly killed people that were at the PP clinic, and randomly ended up with him barricading himself in the PP clinic and then randomly talking to the police about anti-abortion subjects.

Or maybe some people are willfully looking the other way.

Who really knows.

Cause a crazy man wouldn't just randomly start rambling about things.

Your last statement is correct though. Who really knows? All we "know" is that some nameless/faceless Officer, who wasn't cleared to say anything, said that the crazy guy who had just gone on a murdering spree, muttered a single statement about no more baby parts.

From such "evidence" we have a nationwide attack on Christians.

Seems justified. Know need to wait for any true facts or evidence, or anything of the like. We've got what we need to advance our agenda.

 djones520 wrote:

From such "evidence" we have a nationwide attack on Christians.

I've been attacked? My Church has been attacked? Dammed, I missed it.

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

From such "evidence" we have a nationwide attack on Christians.

I've been attacked? My Church has been attacked? Dammed, I missed it.

You're smart enough to know what I'm talking about.

The poor christians who only make up 73 percent of americans! First the war on christmas now this, who will think of the christians?

73% of the American population is Republican?

Just 56 percent of them with only 30 for democrat

 Jihadin wrote:
73% of the American population is Republican?

By this time next year, I hope so.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

From such "evidence" we have a nationwide attack on Christians.

I've been attacked? My Church has been attacked? Dammed, I missed it.

You're smart enough to know what I'm talking about.

I have not seen a systematic attack on Christians as a fallout from this. The same people that always bitch and moan about anything Christianity are bitching and moaning, but nothing new is happening.

What I am seeing is that the "Islam makes people do this, nothing like this would ever come from Christianity" myth is getting busted and people are having to open their eyes and remember that extremists come from all walks of life. That doesn't mean that Christianity made him do this anymore than Islam making people do things or [whatever makes people firebomb a lab to free lab-mice] makes people do things.

And that is what people are missing and why they are feeling attacked, but which is also the same thing that a lot of those same people have made other people feel: Christianity doesn't make you do violent extremist things, but Christians can also do violent extremist things. Just like Islam doesn't make you do violent extremist things, but Islamists can also do violent extremist things.

That's not an attack against Christianity, it's just pointing out that the guy with a cross painted on his trailer and who targeted a PP clinic was a nutter and that they come from all walks of life and that contrary to popular belief no single religion has a monopoly on extremist fethwits.

I had a mirror image of this when the Paris attacks happened. I said 'oh, that's probably more Islamic terrorism." and a few friends of a friend stridently tried to argue me down because 'there's no proof, wait for proof' 'it could be Basque separatists'. I said they were yelling Allah Akbar while they killed people. 'That's just hearsay'. Then I said whoever ends up being wrong buys the other guy a coke. I have yet to receive said coke.

And because I am that kind of guy, I checked all of their pages and one of 'em was basically saying 'See, christian terrorism! He was ranting about baby parts' like three hours after this broke.

It's funny.

 Bromsy wrote:
I had a mirror image of this when the Paris attacks happened. I said 'oh, that's probably more Islamic terrorism." and a few friends of a friend stridently tried to argue me down because 'there's no proof, wait for proof' 'it could be Basque separatists'. I said they were yelling Allah Akbar while they killed people. 'That's just hearsay'. Then I said whoever ends up being wrong buys the other guy a coke. I have yet to receive said coke.

And because I am that kind of guy, I checked all of their pages and one of 'em was basically saying 'See, christian terrorism! He was ranting about baby parts' like three hours after this broke.

It's funny.

So I am not the only one...

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
So you are going to take the actions of the few and paint the rest of the Christians with that?

I don't know, it seems to be pretty popular to do that when we're talking about Islam and its extremists.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
So you are going to take the actions of the few and paint the rest of the Christians with that?

I don't know, it seems to be pretty popular to do that when we're talking about Islam and its extremists.

So we treat everyone like crap then? Impeccable logic.

I think it's kind of disingenuous to conflate Islamic terrorism with Christian terrorism. While the latter is surely a thing, it's not been at the forefront of East v West ideological battles nearly as much as Islamic terrorism. The OAS was every bit as much of a bunch of disgusting pricks as the FLN in Algeria, but you don't see too many Western Christian holy warriors anymore, while you see plenty of if not increasing numbers of jihadis in recent times.

Mostly, and this is only what I think not can prove or anything, is because of the fundamental difference in Islam and Christianity in secular and governmental life. I can name a multitude of Islamic countries that are either heavily or at least somewhat dictated in their rule of law by Islam. In the West, ostensibly Christian for the purpose of this argument, not so much.

Of course we have gak politicians that try to push a Christian narrative to governing; but by and large, they are shut down, or at least heavily fought. You don't have this with many Islamic countries. America lost it's gak when an overweight backwoods Kentuckian tried to prevent marriage certificates. I am unaware of an Islamic country that doesn't persecute gay men legally, if not outright execute them.

Personally, I think a big part of the problem in Islam is its doctrine. You are required to prostrate yourself 5 times a day to be a good Muslim. Christians can be good Christians by going for an hour a week. Military's around the world learned centuries ago of the power of groups of men repeatedly performing simple tasks in union, often with vocalization, can lead to profound comradeship and espirit de corp. It's called drill and is still the forefront of any military training anywhere. And it's powerful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Part Two:

Anti-abortion people have always reminded me of anti-gun people: That is in America at least, they want to restrict your Constitutional right because they don't like it.

They even use the same arguments. Saving lives vs. taking lives. Bloody pictures of children. Founding father's wouldn't have wanted this; "Saving children" etc.

I just wish more people would mind their own damn business.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one or also grow a womb and then don't have one.

Don't like guns? Then don't buy one or move to somewhere they aren't allowed.

OT my friend just sold me a WW1 issue American made Enfield. I need to put a new stock on it, but damn does that fether kick! I can't believe that was the standard infantry round for 2 world wars!