what is wrong with this country?

by Guest Sun May 26, 2013 10:03 am

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/26/justice/oregon-teen-bomb-plot/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The 1999 shooting spree at Colorado's Columbine High School served as Grant Acord's benchmark and inspiration, Benton County District Attorney John Haroldson said. But the prosecutor said the teen wanted to top Columbine in a planned attack at West Albany High School.

With the help of explosive devices, checklists and diagrams, Acord's "goal was to model the Columbine shootings with some adjustments that would make it a greater success," Haroldson said.

The prosecutor said police found six types of explosives in the 17-year-old's possession after they arrested him Thursday night at his mother's house in Albany, Oregon.

by confuzzled dude Sun May 26, 2013 12:29 pm

Nothing is wrong as long as the perpetrator is not Muslim even then it's Islam's fault. We do no wrong, suck it up or go back to your home country.

"Acord, a juvenile, will be charged "as an adult with attempted
aggravated murder," Haroldson said. He will also face bomb-making
charges and "unlawful possession of a deadly weapon with intent to use
against another person.""

Are these charges same as using weapons of mass destruction, could he be facing death penalty.

by Kris Sun May 26, 2013 12:37 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:Nothing is wrong as long as the perpetrator is not Muslim even then it's Islam's fault. We do no wrong, suck it up or go back to your home country.

"Acord, a juvenile, will be charged "as an adult with attempted
aggravated murder," Haroldson said. He will also face bomb-making
charges and "unlawful possession of a deadly weapon with intent to use
against another person.""

Are these charges same as using weapons of mass destruction, could he be facing death penalty.

>>>Who said this or where was this implied? Can you give you us references?

by confuzzled dude Sun May 26, 2013 12:48 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Nothing is wrong as long as the perpetrator is not Muslim even then it's Islam's fault. We do no wrong, suck it up or go back to your home country.

"Acord, a juvenile, will be charged "as an adult with attempted
aggravated murder," Haroldson said. He will also face bomb-making
charges and "unlawful possession of a deadly weapon with intent to use
against another person.""

Are these charges same as using weapons of mass destruction, could he be facing death penalty.

>>>Who said this or where was this implied? Can you give you us references?

My dear Kris, not very many references by the media outlets in itself is a big reference, imagine all the mayhem this could have caused had this kid was a Muslim.

by Kris Sun May 26, 2013 1:25 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Nothing is wrong as long as the perpetrator is not Muslim even then it's Islam's fault. We do no wrong, suck it up or go back to your home country.

"Acord, a juvenile, will be charged "as an adult with attempted
aggravated murder," Haroldson said. He will also face bomb-making
charges and "unlawful possession of a deadly weapon with intent to use
against another person.""
.

>>>Who said this or where was this implied? Can you give you us references?

My dear Kris, not very many references by the media outlets in itself is a big reference, imagine all the mayhem this could have caused had this kid was a Muslim.

>>>> You can rest assured he will be tried just as any other alleged criminal would be. A death penalty may not be out of the question either. The media reference argument you are making is a red herring. If he proclaims his to be a cause tied to some religion, say an extremist version of baptism, and there have been repeated incidents tied to the same cause, you can bet there will be media references to that.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun May 26, 2013 1:35 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Nothing is wrong as long as the perpetrator is not Muslim even then it's Islam's fault. We do no wrong, suck it up or go back to your home country.

"Acord, a juvenile, will be charged "as an adult with attempted
aggravated murder," Haroldson said. He will also face bomb-making
charges and "unlawful possession of a deadly weapon with intent to use
against another person.""
.

>>>Who said this or where was this implied? Can you give you us references?

My dear Kris, not very many references by the media outlets in itself is a big reference, imagine all the mayhem this could have caused had this kid was a Muslim.

>>>> You can rest assured he will be tried just as any other alleged criminal would be. A death penalty may not be out of the question either. The media reference argument you are making is a red herring. If he proclaims his to be a cause tied to some religion, say an extremist version of baptism, and there have been repeated incidents tied to the same cause, you can bet there will be media references to that.

why is this not attempted terrorism? should we consider sending him to guantanamo? why is he not an enemy combatant? you know this was briefly discussed in the case of dzhokar tsarnaev right? cooler heads prevailed in the end.

are you implying that this conversation would not have taken a different tone if his name was mohammed iqbal?

by Guest Sun May 26, 2013 1:49 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:Nothing is wrong as long as the perpetrator is not Muslim even then it's Islam's fault. We do no wrong, suck it up or go back to your home country.

What is the intent of the kid? Has it been planned to be perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal and inspired thus? If so, it is more dangerous for the safety and security of the country than if he were acting on his own accord, whether or not Islam is involved and should be dealt with more sternly.

by Kris Sun May 26, 2013 2:33 pm

why is this not attempted terrorism?
>>>If you are asking in a generic sense, it well could be. If you are asking in a legal sense, where it is defined as an act against the United States, that has to be established first. Seems like this kid is a nutjob along the lines of the Columbine team.

should we consider sending him to guantanamo? why is he not an enemy combatant? you know this was briefly discussed in the case of dzhokar tsarnaev right? cooler heads prevailed in the end

>>>My understanding is Gitmo is a workaround to deal with enemy combatants apprehended on foreign soil. As such, they could not have pulled off going the Gitmo route with tsaranaev either. Also, the enemy combatant angle would be a stretch in the case of a self-styled jihadi on American soil unless it can be shown he was being instigated by a broader network of organized jihadists ( I have not kept up on this story as to how things shook out in the end; to the extent I followed the story, it was two brothers who were self-styled jihadists for the most part).

are you implying that this conversation would not have taken a different tone if his name was mohammed iqbal?

>>>If you are talking of conversations in the media, they would have been different inasmuch as there has been a high correlation between Islamic names and terrorism. In the context of recent events, this is something that is understandable. If the conversations are in a legal context, the tone would not have been different in that Md. Iqbal would have had the same rights as anyone else.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun May 26, 2013 3:08 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>If you are talking of conversations in the media, they would have been different inasmuch as there has been a high correlation between Islamic names and terrorism. In the context of recent events, this is something that is understandable. If the conversations are in a legal context, the tone would not have been different in that Md. Iqbal would have had the same rights as anyone else.

i am talking about the overall political discourse in this country which include the media and many politicians most of whom happen to be republicans. the problem with the correlation between islamic names and terrorism is that you can make the same type of correlations for all sorts of things. many racist attacks on this country have been by whites inflicted on blacks. nearly all attacks on homosexuals have been inflicted by whites. are we to vilify and treat all white people with the same level of suspicion regardless of their individual culpability because they tend to commit such crimes?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun May 26, 2013 3:18 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
i am talking about the overall political discourse in this country which include the media and many politicians most of whom happen to be republicans. the problem with the correlation between islamic names and terrorism is that you can make the same type of correlations for all sorts of things. many racist attacks on this country have been by whites inflicted on blacks. nearly all attacks on homosexuals have been inflicted by whites. are we to vilify and treat all white people with the same level of suspicion regardless of their individual culpability because they tend to commit such crimes?

Unwritten social rule:

In all countries, the majority assumes it as normal for the majority to indulge in criminal acts and wrong doings and there are laws to punish them - so they believe.

The majority also assumes that the minorities have to work hard, free of criminal acts, and contribute to the country and ear their way.

So 100 whites may do 1000 mistakes, but a single minority is not expected to indulge in any wrong doing. Why do they say that each minority is representative of the entire community/group?

Chinese, koreans, Indians, Vietnamese, mexicans, Budhists, and hindus understand this. The only group that refuses to accept this is the iSlamic group. The attitude towards Islamists is same as American view of Japs and Korenas and blacks and hispanics. Except, the iSlamis claimed one Ummah and indulge in world wide operations, and hence the worldwide resentment towards them - right or wrong.

by confuzzled dude Sun May 26, 2013 3:23 pm

Kris wrote:
are you implying that this conversation would not have taken a different tone if his name was mohammed iqbal?

>>>If you are talking of conversations in the media, they would have been different inasmuch as there has been a high correlation between Islamic names and terrorism. In the context of recent events, this is something that is understandable. If the conversations are in a legal context, the tone would not have been different in that Md. Iqbal would have had the same rights as anyone else.

Nope, no sir, first of all he would've tried at the federal level so FBI could figure out any perceived connections he may have had when he traveled to visit his grand parents along with his parents, and any youtube videos he may have deleted. As for the perception of him being a nutjob (which essentially means he one of our own), it can be argued that Boston bombers are nutjobs in their own right, isn't it?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun May 26, 2013 3:24 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Chinese, koreans, Indians, Vietnamese, mexicans, Budhists, and hindus understand this. The only group that refuses to accept this is the iSlamic group. The attitude towards Islamists is same as American view of Japs and Korenas and blacks and hispanics. Except, the iSlamis claimed one Ummah and indulge in world wide operations, and hence the worldwide resentment towards them - right or wrong.

interesting choice of terms for describing groups.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun May 26, 2013 3:31 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Unwritten social rule:

In all countries, the majority assumes it as normal for the majority to indulge in criminal acts and wrong doings and there are laws to punish them - so they believe.

The majority also assumes that the minorities have to work hard, free of criminal acts, and contribute to the country and ear their way.

thankfully the laws of this country were not made by people who believe in the tyranny of the majority like you seem to.

by Kris Sun May 26, 2013 3:35 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>If you are talking of conversations in the media, they would have been different inasmuch as there has been a high correlation between Islamic names and terrorism. In the context of recent events, this is something that is understandable. If the conversations are in a legal context, the tone would not have been different in that Md. Iqbal would have had the same rights as anyone else.

i am talking about the overall political discourse in this country which include the media and many politicians most of whom happen to be republicans. the problem with the correlation between islamic names and terrorism is that you can make the same type of correlations for all sorts of things. many racist attacks on this country have been by whites inflicted on blacks. nearly all attacks on homosexuals have been inflicted by whites. are we to vilify and treat all white people with the same level of suspicion regardless of their individual culpability because they tend to commit such crimes?

>>> Since whites are the majority, it would be difficult to single them out as a whole for suspicion. If is a subset of whites, say KKK'ers or the Michigan Militia types, are engaging in criminal behavior, yes, people/media would be well within their rights to vilify them. As an example, if a black church is burnt down and there are KKK'ers in the area, the media cannot be faulted if it wants to investigate racial hatred of the KKK'ers as a possible motive. As to whether there was actual guilt, that would be for the legal system to vet out. Incidentally, I am not of the opinion that the legal system is perfect. I find the double standard in punishment of whites and blacks for the same crime to be a problem, but overall I don't find the system to be so flawed that the legal system loads the dice against muslims capriciously as CD implies.

by Kris Sun May 26, 2013 3:46 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
are you implying that this conversation would not have taken a different tone if his name was mohammed iqbal?

>>>If you are talking of conversations in the media, they would have been different inasmuch as there has been a high correlation between Islamic names and terrorism. In the context of recent events, this is something that is understandable. If the conversations are in a legal context, the tone would not have been different in that Md. Iqbal would have had the same rights as anyone else.

Nope, no sir, first of all he would've tried at the federal level so FBI could figure out any perceived connections he may have had when he traveled to visit his grand parents along with his parents, and any youtube videos he may have deleted. As for the perception of him being a nutjob (which essentially means he one of our own), it can be argued that Boston bombers are nutjobs in their own right, isn't it?

>>>I am not clear on what you want done. If this Columbine kid-wannabe didn't travel anywhere, what do you want them to investigate him on? If he had connections to some militia group and was in the habit of posting videos, yes, they would have investigated it. I am not sure what your point is on the Boston bombers and nut-jobs. Yes, the Boston guys were nut-jobs and if they were spouting jihadi nonsense, they were jihadi nutjobs and the police should look into that.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun May 26, 2013 5:21 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Chinese, koreans, Indians, Vietnamese, mexicans, Budhists, and hindus understand this. The only group that refuses to accept this is the iSlamic group. The attitude towards Islamists is same as American view of Japs and Korenas and blacks and hispanics. Except, the iSlamis claimed one Ummah and indulge in world wide operations, and hence the worldwide resentment towards them - right or wrong.

interesting choice of terms for describing groups.

yeah..now you are all getting technical and legalistic....

Let me tell you this...who cares what legalities say? Even the politicians and law enforcement use it to their convenience.

India MEANS hindus - that is what World assumes. When you say you are an Indian they dont assume you are a muslim. Pakis call India HINDUStan, Islamis in India call it HINDUStan, the Naarhties call it HINDUStan...and you and the IAG can sccream all you want and be as politically correct you wish, the reality is....India MEANS HINDUSTan and unfortunately as long as muslims dont consider India to be supreme over Islam, India and Hindustan (Southies look at it as HINDISTAN and hence prefer India) consist of Hindus and Muslim components.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun May 26, 2013 6:01 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

yeah..now you are all getting technical and legalistic....

no i am not. it is central to what we are discussing.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:India MEANS hindus - that is what World assumes.

you mean YOU assume that. most definitely my american friends don't assume that. they know the difference between india, a secular democracy, and pakistan an islamic republic.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun May 26, 2013 6:10 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

yeah..now you are all getting technical and legalistic....

no i am not. it is central to what we are discussing.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:India MEANS hindus - that is what World assumes.

you mean YOU assume that. most definitely my american friends don't assume that. they know the difference between india, a secular democracy, and pakistan an islamic republic.

Sorry most americans and non-americans, elite, not so elite, legal, illegal, young, old, men and women assume Indians are hindus by default. All these people know the differences as well and that is why they assume by default an Indian is a Hindu and Pakisaitani is a muslim until clarified.

Yes..I come across a much much broad spectrum of people than you do on a daily basis. I am not just assuming it; I know that for a fact.

by confuzzled dude Sun May 26, 2013 6:32 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

yeah..now you are all getting technical and legalistic....

no i am not. it is central to what we are discussing.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:India MEANS hindus - that is what World assumes.

you mean YOU assume that. most definitely my american friends don't assume that. they know the difference between india, a secular democracy, and pakistan an islamic republic.

Sorry most americans and non-americans, elite, not so elite, legal, illegal, young, old, men and women assume Indians are hindus by default. All these people know the differences as well and that is why they assume by default an Indian is a Hindu and Pakisaitani is a muslim until clarified.

Yes..I come across a much much broad spectrumof people than you do on a daily basis. I am not just assuming it; I know that for a fact.

I think both of you are correct in your own accounts, one lives in one of the elite east coast cities and the other *ahem* lets say in a middle american town that hosts a broad spectrum of people.

by confuzzled dude Sun May 26, 2013 6:42 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>I am not clear on what you want done. If this Columbine kid-wannabe didn't travel anywhere, what do you want them to investigate him on? If he had connections to some militia group and was in the habit of posting videos, yes, they would have investigated it. I am not sure what your point is on the Boston bombers and nut-jobs. Yes, the Boston guys were nut-jobs and if they were spouting jihadi nonsense, they were jihadi nutjobs and the police should look into that.

Nothing I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in the application of laws across ethnic groups, you pretty much said the same in one of your earlier posts. I wonder why can't he be tried as a domestic terrorist, I hear they found tea party news papers in his room Smile

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun May 26, 2013 6:49 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:

I think both of you are correct in your own accounts, one lives in one of the elite east coast cities and the other *ahem* lets say in a middle american town that hosts a broad spectrum of people.

Sorry...I am correct wonly...no ifs, and or buts... Wink

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 27, 2013 9:41 am

Confuzzled is incoherent at the supposed injustices meted to his Islamic brown brethren and making more and more outlandish claims...watch for him at the next rally in pakistan with burning American flags and George bush effigy.

Ps:did you read on wapo that tea party was a terrorist outfit or you come to the conclusion in your research?

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 27, 2013 9:44 am

For most Americans that don't live in politically correct U, Indians == Hindus and Sikhs

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon May 27, 2013 10:20 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:For most Americans that don't live in politically correct U, Indians == Hindus and Sikhs

IAG knows no limit to suck upto the Koranists and Jehadis, even if the law enforcement agencies in the US, UK, Germany, India, Russia, China screen and watch iSalaamis and anyone with iSalami name anywhere, and even if the Jehadists bomb boston and Bombay every Friday.

by confuzzled dude Mon May 27, 2013 12:40 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:Confuzzled is incoherent at the supposed injustices meted to his Islamic brown brethren and making more and more outlandish claims...watch for him at the next rally in pakistan with burning American flags and George bush effigy.

Ps:did you read on wapo that tea party was a terrorist outfit or you come to the conclusion in your research?

Keep turning blind eye to blatant double standards and hope it won't come back to bite [the kids of] us minorities. Why is this case not being tried as a terrorist activity when this kid had much more ammo in his possession than say that Somali wanna be Jihadist Somali kid from Oregon who actually took the bait from FBI who provided him with a fake bomb to plant. BTW, parents of the kids that were gone in Columbine incident won't find any solace because the perpetrator wasn't a Jihadist.

by confuzzled dude Mon May 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:For most Americans that don't live in politically correct U, Indians == Hindus and Sikhs

IAG knows no limit to suck upto the Koranists and Jehadis, even if the law enforcement agencies in the US, UK, Germany, India, Russia, China screen and watch iSalaamis and anyone with iSalami name anywhere, and even if the Jehadists bomb boston and Bombay every Friday.

Not any worse than sucking up to white supremacists & NRA loonies.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon May 27, 2013 12:51 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:BTW, parents of the kids that were gone in Columbine incident won't find any solace because the perpetrator wasn't a Jihadist.

Agree...if the perpetrator had been a Jihadist, the whole country would be (still) trembling, not just the parents.

One question:

Which religious followers account for most terror incidents in the last 20 years?

by Guest Mon May 27, 2013 12:53 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:Confuzzled is incoherent at the supposed injustices meted to his Islamic brown brethren and making more and more outlandish claims...watch for him at the next rally in pakistan with burning American flags and George bush effigy.

Ps:did you read on wapo that tea party was a terrorist outfit or you come to the conclusion in your research?

Keep turning blind eye to blatant double standards and hope it won't come back to bite [the kids of] us minorities. Why is this case not being tried as a terrorist activity when this kid had much more ammo in his possession than say that Somali wanna be Jihadist Somali kid from Oregon who actually took the bait from FBI who provided him with a fake bomb to plant. BTW, parents of the kids that were gone in Columbine incident won't find any solace because the perpetrator wasn't a Jihadist.

The Jihad ideology is very dangerous. The world has seen many terrorist activities perpetrated by the ones inspired by that ideology. Hence, it needs to be taken seriously and dealt with more firmly. It's not a question of injustice to minorities. Please don't bring in your minority insecurities here.

by confuzzled dude Mon May 27, 2013 1:02 pm

nenu wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:Confuzzled is incoherent at the supposed injustices meted to his Islamic brown brethren and making more and more outlandish claims...watch for him at the next rally in pakistan with burning American flags and George bush effigy.

Ps:did you read on wapo that tea party was a terrorist outfit or you come to the conclusion in your research?

Keep turning blind eye to blatant double standards and hope it won't come back to bite [the kids of] us minorities. Why is this case not being tried as a terrorist activity when this kid had much more ammo in his possession than say that Somali wanna be Jihadist Somali kid from Oregon who actually took the bait from FBI who provided him with a fake bomb to plant. BTW, parents of the kids that were gone in Columbine incident won't find any solace because the perpetrator wasn't a Jihadist.

The Jihad ideology is very dangerous. The world has seen many terrorist activities perpetrated by the ones inspired by that ideology. Hence, it needs to be taken seriously and dealt with more strongly. It's not a question of injustice to minorities. Please don't bring in your minority insecurities here.

So pray tell me what is it Ms. Secure, this is less dangerous than Jihad Ideology because this sort of stuff is part of American Culture or bcz he did not convert to Islam. You conveniently seem to have forgotten the violations committed under patriot act and the people suffering in Gitmo for years.

by Guest Mon May 27, 2013 1:10 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
nenu wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:Confuzzled is incoherent at the supposed injustices meted to his Islamic brown brethren and making more and more outlandish claims...watch for him at the next rally in pakistan with burning American flags and George bush effigy.

Ps:did you read on wapo that tea party was a terrorist outfit or you come to the conclusion in your research?

Keep turning blind eye to blatant double standards and hope it won't come back to bite [the kids of] us minorities. Why is this case not being tried as a terrorist activity when this kid had much more ammo in his possession than say that Somali wanna be Jihadist Somali kid from Oregon who actually took the bait from FBI who provided him with a fake bomb to plant. BTW, parents of the kids that were gone in Columbine incident won't find any solace because the perpetrator wasn't a Jihadist.

The Jihad ideology is very dangerous. The world has seen many terrorist activities perpetrated by the ones inspired by that ideology. Hence, it needs to be taken seriously and dealt with more strongly. It's not a question of injustice to minorities. Please don't bring in your minority insecurities here.

So pray tell me what is it Ms. Secure, this is less dangerous than Jihad Ideology because this sort of stuff is part of American Culture or bcz he did not convert to Islam. You conveniently seem to have forgotten the violations committed under patriot act and the people suffering in Gitmo for years.

the difference is the dangerous ideology Vs individual craziness. Please don't bring in Islam here and get all blindly defensive. We are talking abt toxic ideologies, not Islam. A swastika of any kind is not tolerated as it symbolizes the nazi/white supremacist ideology. Does it have anything to do with islam?

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 27, 2013 1:21 pm

Con guzzled dude:voted most likely to burn American flag in Peshawar in year 2016 in his school book.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Mon May 27, 2013 1:26 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:Con guzzled dude:voted most likely to burn American flag in Peshawar in year 2016 in his school book.

it's not called a school book or schoolbook.

by confuzzled dude Mon May 27, 2013 1:29 pm

nenu wrote:

the difference is the dangerous ideology Vs individual craziness.

That's your perception not a fact. The very fact that he was influenced by another incident that took place several years ago in this very country (and not his original idea) makes this very similar to the dangerous ideologies you are referring to.

by Kris Mon May 27, 2013 1:41 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
nenu wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:Confuzzled is incoherent at the supposed injustices meted to his Islamic brown brethren and making more and more outlandish claims...watch for him at the next rally in pakistan with burning American flags and George bush effigy.

Ps:did you read on wapo that tea party was a terrorist outfit or you come to the conclusion in your research?

Keep turning blind eye to blatant double standards and hope it won't come back to bite [the kids of] us minorities. Why is this case not being tried as a terrorist activity when this kid had much more ammo in his possession than say that Somali wanna be Jihadist Somali kid from Oregon who actually took the bait from FBI who provided him with a fake bomb to plant. BTW, parents of the kids that were gone in Columbine incident won't find any solace because the perpetrator wasn't a Jihadist.

The Jihad ideology is very dangerous. The world has seen many terrorist activities perpetrated by the ones inspired by that ideology. Hence, it needs to be taken seriously and dealt with more strongly. It's not a question of injustice to minorities. Please don't bring in your minority insecurities here.

So pray tell me what is it Ms. Secure, this is less dangerous than Jihad Ideology because this sort of stuff is part of American Culture or bcz he did not convert to Islam. You conveniently seem to have forgotten the violations committed under patriot act and the people suffering in Gitmo for years.

>>>CD,
With due respect, you are conflating various issues here. Whether you like it or not, Jihadism is a major source of danger to the West as well as many other parts of the world, because it is organized, is funded often by rogue countries and rooted in the idea that anything other than a radical form of islam needs to be stamped out. We can argue back and forth as to whether that is the right islam or not, but the reality is it is here and societies have to contend with it. To throw that into the mix of minority persecution is disingenuous in that it leaves out the root cause as to why countries like the US want to fight it. If there are acts of discrimination against individuals on account of this, there are legal checks and balances to deal with that.
The Columbine equivalent does not hold up for the simple reason that the perpetrators are not organized, funded or are sponsored by groups that have a de facto war against the US. And if there are incidents that are sponsored by some domestic group with that kind of an agenda, the US is not going to sit aside with the attitude that "oh, they are not muslims!" as you imply. Regardless of the motives, it is not as though these malcontents are going to walk away from the law. Unless, you are contending that they are not being punished and only muslims are being punished, I am not sure what your point is.

by Guest Mon May 27, 2013 1:47 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
nenu wrote:

the difference is the dangerous ideology Vs individual craziness.

That's your perception not a fact. The very fact that he was influenced by another incident that took place several years ago in this very country (and not his original idea) makes this very similar to the dangerous ideologies you are referring to.

What ideology? If we have terrorist organizations constantly spewing that ideology, if we have the ideology inspired ppl causing intense damage to the life of people and property all over the world frequently, if we have wars caused by that ideology, if a nation's security is constantly threatened by that ideology, then yeah, take it damn seriously and deal with it firmly.

A couple of lonely, loony, depressed, suicidal and psychopathic kids went on shooting spree 15 yrs ago and currently a possibly lonely, loony, depressed, suicidal and psychopathic kid takes inspiration from them and tries to do something similar. So, what's the ideology here?

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 27, 2013 1:51 pm

Confuzzled dude has his secular Islamic blinders on. Outfitting of such blinders enables a horse to not see any jihadist ideology at work in his ex home town or current adopted country but identifies with a 'brown ummah' battling pernicious white supremacism which for some reason also gainfully employs him and allows him to prosper despite his obvious foriegnness.

It's more important to protest some gun owners in rural Iowa or Texas than to protest real threats that 'assmililated' Muslims with jihadist bent that are slowly rearing their head in uk, France, us..that's the best kinda blinder.

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 27, 2013 1:58 pm

Phlegmy, you should take up the hobby of masturbating bulls or horses which is most likely to be more productive than your current unappreciated one of correcting spellings or grammar online. The bulls and horses might even thank you rather thank kick you like the beneficiaries of your current grammatical munificence do on repeated basis.

Ps: how does the fact that a Muslim Northindian is banging d with his 4.2 inch dick make you feel? Tell us if you have reconciled with that turn of events yet

by confuzzled dude Mon May 27, 2013 2:09 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:Confuzzled dude has his secular Islamic blinders on. Outfitting of such blinders enables a horse to not see any jihadist ideology at work in his ex home town or current adopted country but identifies with a 'brown ummah' battling pernicious white supremacism which for some reason also gainfully employs him and allows him to prosper despite his obvious foriegnness.

This is so '90s talk buddy, tables have turned for a while now, Go check out what these multinational companies are up to. Anyway, you're back to your usual You-are-a-traitor-if-you-crticize-your-adopted-countrie's-policies slant.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

It's more important to
protest some gun owners in rural Iowa or Texas than to protest real
threats that 'assmililated' Muslims with jihadist bent that are slowly
rearing their head in uk, France, us..that's the best kinda
blinder.

How did you deduce that I'm not against Jihadists. I'm actually opposing all kinds of extremists unlike some of the SuChers who like to pick and choose.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon May 27, 2013 2:13 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
How did you deduce that I'm not against Jihadists. I'm actually opposing all kinds of extremists unlike some of the SuChers who like to pick and choose.

Simple:

for every 100 words of criticism against stone throwing episode by hindu, you criticise with 3 words against every koranist bombing - that still is better than 0 words by your other IAG members.

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 27, 2013 3:10 pm

You are back to your ohh I'm a brown victim because Americans are wary of my favorite Muslims and its unfair because am feeling insecure on my couch in suburban dc whine

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 27, 2013 3:15 pm

Regarding your criticism of all kinds of extremism, what bombs did tea party who you cite as extreme explode? did you attend jnu or one of those univerisities where they teach high funda concepts such as moral equivalence?

by confuzzled dude Mon May 27, 2013 10:21 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>CD,
With due respect, you are conflating various issues here. Whether you like it or not, Jihadism is a major source of danger to the West as well as many other parts of the world, because it is organized, is funded often by rogue countries and rooted in the idea that anything other than a radical form of islam needs to be stamped out. We can argue back and forth as to whether that is the right islam or not, but the reality is it is here and societies have to contend with it. To throw that into the mix of minority persecution is disingenuous in that it leaves out the root cause as to why countries like the US want to fight it. If there are acts of discrimination against individuals on account of this, there are legal checks and balances to deal with that.
The Columbine equivalent does not hold up for the simple reason that the perpetrators are not organized, funded or are sponsored by groups that have a de facto war against the US. And if there are incidents that are sponsored by some domestic group with that kind of an agenda, the US is not going to sit aside with the attitude that "oh, they are not muslims!" as you imply. Regardless of the motives, it is not as though these malcontents are going to walk away from the law. Unless, you are contending that they are not being punished and only muslims are being punished, I am not sure what your point is.

There is no disagreement on Jihadism being the major source of modern terrorism, I don't think I've ever suggested it is not. Please don't pay much attention to Uppili's usual hyperbole (Islam Apologist Group and other made up stuff) or Propa's extemporaneous rants. My point, as you said, is about legal prosecution methodology used between the two groups. It is an established fact that be it is Time Square bomber, Christmas tree bomber in Oregon or for that matter Boston bombing are not organized crimes, carried out/planned by an individual or a few, so was this high school kid. Oregon Christmas tree bomber is scheduled to be sentenced in June. I will be curiously watching both these cases given the parallels between the two, hope I will be proven wrong.

by truthbetold Mon May 27, 2013 10:37 pm

Cd,
My expectation is that prosecution would do all necessary work as professionally required. (Of. Course it is understood within variations in individual styles).
media and politicians would play each case to suit local vconsumrr base. Ct played newtown murderers to anthem degree detail. One lone guy and his mother (both dead) can only provide so much negative material. Ran out of news utility and faded in few weeks.
Boston marathon will get more media coverage due to a still alive terrorist, a non local religion negative involvement and an international connection.
Please be careful in drawing your conclusions from different situations.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon May 27, 2013 10:39 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>CD,
With due respect, you are conflating various issues here. Whether you like it or not, Jihadism is a major source of danger to the West as well as many other parts of the world, because it is organized, is funded often by rogue countries and rooted in the idea that anything other than a radical form of islam needs to be stamped out. We can argue back and forth as to whether that is the right islam or not, but the reality is it is here and societies have to contend with it. To throw that into the mix of minority persecution is disingenuous in that it leaves out the root cause as to why countries like the US want to fight it. If there are acts of discrimination against individuals on account of this, there are legal checks and balances to deal with that.
The Columbine equivalent does not hold up for the simple reason that the perpetrators are not organized, funded or are sponsored by groups that have a de facto war against the US. And if there are incidents that are sponsored by some domestic group with that kind of an agenda, the US is not going to sit aside with the attitude that "oh, they are not muslims!" as you imply. Regardless of the motives, it is not as though these malcontents are going to walk away from the law. Unless, you are contending that they are not being punished and only muslims are being punished, I am not sure what your point is.

There is no disagreement on Jihadism being the major source of modern terrorism, I don't think I've ever suggested it is not. Please don't pay much attention to Uppili's usual hyperbole (Islam Apologist Group and other made up stuff) or Propa's extemporaneous rants. My point, as you said, is about legal prosecution methodology used between the two groups. It is an established fact that be it is Time Square bomber, Christmas tree bomber in Oregon or for that matter Boston bombing are not organized crimes, carried out/planned by an individual or a few, so was this high school kid. Oregon Christmas tree bomber is scheduled to be sentenced in June. I will be curiously watching both these cases given the parallels between the two, hope I will be proven wrong.

There is something called "Social reality" nothing absolutely NOTHING is done per books - legal or academic. The only group that expects all implementation strictly by the book is the one under scanner in this universe.

by confuzzled dude Mon May 27, 2013 11:13 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd,
My expectation is that prosecution would do all necessary work as professionally required. (Of. Course it is understood within variations in individual styles).
media and politicians would play each case to suit local vconsumrr base. Ct played newtown murderers to anthem degree detail. One lone guy and his mother (both dead) can only provide so much negative material. Ran out of news utility and faded in few weeks.
Boston marathon will get more media coverage due to a still alive terrorist, a non local religion negative involvement and an international connection.
Please be careful in drawing your conclusions from different situations.

Well FBI actually preyed on this Oregon Christmas tree bomber (after his parents informed them of him), they posed as terrorist outfit, provided guidance/fake bomb, were in contact with him, he wasn't half as smart as the other kid who made 6 pipe bombs all by himself.

by confuzzled dude Mon May 27, 2013 11:22 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

There is something called "Social reality" nothing absolutely NOTHING is done per books - legal or academic. The only group that expects all implementation strictly by the book is the one under scanner in this universe.

Thanks for the attempt to make me look sane Smile

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon May 27, 2013 11:46 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

There is something called "Social reality" nothing absolutely NOTHING is done per books - legal or academic. The only group that expects all implementation strictly by the book is the one under scanner in this universe.

Thanks for the attempt to make me look sane

I am trying... I know it is futile.... Razz

by Kris Tue May 28, 2013 12:15 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>CD,
With due respect, you are conflating various issues here. Whether you like it or not, Jihadism is a major source of danger to the West as well as many other parts of the world, because it is organized, is funded often by rogue countries and rooted in the idea that anything other than a radical form of islam needs to be stamped out. We can argue back and forth as to whether that is the right islam or not, but the reality is it is here and societies have to contend with it. To throw that into the mix of minority persecution is disingenuous in that it leaves out the root cause as to why countries like the US want to fight it. If there are acts of discrimination against individuals on account of this, there are legal checks and balances to deal with that.
The Columbine equivalent does not hold up for the simple reason that the perpetrators are not organized, funded or are sponsored by groups that have a de facto war against the US. And if there are incidents that are sponsored by some domestic group with that kind of an agenda, the US is not going to sit aside with the attitude that "oh, they are not muslims!" as you imply. Regardless of the motives, it is not as though these malcontents are going to walk away from the law. Unless, you are contending that they are not being punished and only muslims are being punished, I am not sure what your point is.

There is no disagreement on Jihadism being the major source of modern terrorism, I don't think I've ever suggested it is not. Please don't pay much attention to Uppili's usual hyperbole (Islam Apologist Group and other made up stuff) or Propa's extemporaneous rants. My point, as you said, is about legal prosecution methodology used between the two groups. It is an established fact that be it is Time Square bomber, Christmas tree bomber in Oregon or for that matter Boston bombing are not organized crimes, carried out/planned by an individual or a few, so was this high school kid. Oregon Christmas tree bomber is scheduled to be sentenced in June. I will be curiously watching both these cases given the parallels between the two, hope I will be proven wrong.

>>>If you are talking of cases litigated on American soil, the legal prosecution methodology *will* follow the same principles, including the right to counsel and presumption of innocence. As TBT says below there will be variations in the investigations within reason, as the nature of the crimes themselves vary. If there is an Islamic connection and foreign travels, it would be a major gaffe not to look into that aspect of it.

by Propagandhi711 Tue May 28, 2013 9:22 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>CD,
With due respect, you are conflating various issues here. Whether you like it or not, Jihadism is a major source of danger to the West as well as many other parts of the world, because it is organized, is funded often by rogue countries and rooted in the idea that anything other than a radical form of islam needs to be stamped out. We can argue back and forth as to whether that is the right islam or not, but the reality is it is here and societies have to contend with it. To throw that into the mix of minority persecution is disingenuous in that it leaves out the root cause as to why countries like the US want to fight it. If there are acts of discrimination against individuals on account of this, there are legal checks and balances to deal with that.
The Columbine equivalent does not hold up for the simple reason that the perpetrators are not organized, funded or are sponsored by groups that have a de facto war against the US. And if there are incidents that are sponsored by some domestic group with that kind of an agenda, the US is not going to sit aside with the attitude that "oh, they are not muslims!" as you imply. Regardless of the motives, it is not as though these malcontents are going to walk away from the law. Unless, you are contending that they are not being punished and only muslims are being punished, I am not sure what your point is.

There is no disagreement on Jihadism being the major source of modern terrorism, I don't think I've ever suggested it is not. Please don't pay much attention to Uppili's usual hyperbole (Islam Apologist Group and other made up stuff) or Propa's extemporaneous rants. My point, as you said, is about legal prosecution methodology used between the two groups. It is an established fact that be it is Time Square bomber, Christmas tree bomber in Oregon or for that matter Boston bombing are not organized crimes, carried out/planned by an individual or a few, so was this high school kid. Oregon Christmas tree bomber is scheduled to be sentenced in June. I will be curiously watching both these cases given the parallels between the two, hope I will be proven wrong.

there's your "problem" right there..you start out with the assumption/suspicion that american judiciary, law enforcement & govt etc are racist are always looking to burn brown kebab makers in reston who are innocent. but you're willing to turn all sorts of blind eye towards the moral and material support izlamics provide their terror prone ilk to the extent of going through some seriously funny logical contortions to prove there is no islamic problem in this world and it's simply manufactured by american racists and NRI patriots (ofcourse you aren't one of them...you're an NRI armchair secularist). biased much?

by Guest Tue May 28, 2013 12:26 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:Con guzzled dude:voted most likely to burn American flag in Peshawar in year 2016 in his school book.
it's not called a school book or schoolbook.

ayyeda achachan!

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com