Atheism kills 3 in terrorist attack #chapelhillshooting

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
Honestly, I bet he was not out looking to kill Muslims, but got in this argument with 3 random people over a parking spot and the fact that they also happened to be muslim pushed him over the edge about it.

Perhaps that added to it too.

There had a been long running dispute between him and this group of neighbors, over condominium parking.

Police said in a statement Wednesday morning that a dispute about parking in the neighborhood of rented condominiums may have led to the incident.

“Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking. Hicks is cooperating with investigators,” Lt. Joshua Mecimore, a police spokesman, said.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/02...e-shot-dead-in-chapel.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

So basically this is a long running neighbor dispute gone bad. Obviously the guy is nuts. Anyone trying to make this into a hate crime is also nuts.
 

shagster01

New member
Perhaps that added to it too.

There had a been long running dispute between him and this group of neighbors, over condominium parking.



Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/02...e-shot-dead-in-chapel.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

So basically this is a long running neighbor dispute gone bad. Obviously the guy is nuts. Anyone trying to make this into a hate crime is also nuts.

Agreed. A hate crime is when someone specifically goes out looking for victims if chosen hate.
 

Repentance

BANNED
Banned
Well, you'd think "real Muslims" would be outraged that jihadists call themselves Muslims, too. They don't seem all that bothered by their radicals either :think: .

The radicals are targeting us more than any other people. Its rather absurd when the victims have to apologise for the crime of the oppressors just because we both claim to be Muslim, or if we are criticized for not doing enough.



All the moderate Muslims have done until now is offer little aid and verbal denouncements of Isis. Now some of them want to exterminate Isis, which is good but you can't overlook how long it took even that group to get to this point, despite everything else Isis has done to other people in the name of Islam.

All of this could have been avoided if "real" Islam hadn't let its radicals get out of control.

Iraq was once the richest Middle Eastern country and one would have expected it to remain stable and secure. The son was far worse than his father; the Americans and their allies must be blamed for the chaos that followed. What if Soviet Russia had invaded and occupied the US to free the coloured fold from their racism and what not? It breeds extremism and end times mentality. The rest of the Muslim world dare not touch the fire, because it burns us. ISIS cannot be destroyed. It is immortal as an ideology, that manifested since the early days of Islam - the Prophet denounced the fanatical ideology of the Khawarij and when asked why not just wipe them out, he (pbuh) said that then the rest of the world would think that Muslims(Prophet)are killing Muslims (his companions), and he also warned that they cannot be defeated (this ideology would always persist as a disease in the Ummah). Its not a geographic war for territory - its an ideological civil war within Islam.


You must not read all that well. I said they offered a little aid but their attitude towards Isis now should have been there long ago, regardless of whose citizens were being killed in the name of Islam.

The Jordanians have the family of the Prophet (pbuh) in power - their king is a direct descendant of the Prophet in the closest branch. If not for that their response would have been not that great. No Muslim dares to spill the life of another.



This doesn't make ALL atheists murderers any more than an Al Qaeda bombing makes all Muslims terrorists... or a KKK lynching makes all 'professing Christians' murderers.

Of course it does not



Where is this being alleged other than by the media and the family of the victims? The investigaters have not said any such thing.

Because in the religion of atheism they have no "AllahuAkbars", no standard sunnah and no common symbols. Its clearly a hate crime that should be treated as such to prevent it happening in the future.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The radicals are targeting us more than any other people. Its rather absurd when the victims have to apologise for the crime of the oppressors just because we both claim to be Muslim, or if we are criticized for not doing enough.

And then you go on to say ...

Because in the religion of atheism they have no "AllahuAkbars", no standard sunnah and no common symbols. Its clearly a hate crime that should be treated as such to prevent it happening in the future.

Uh huh. So you wish to condemn one group for the acts of some, but have a problem when the same thing is done to Muslims by the radicals who represent THEM?

Hypocritical much?
 

Repentance

BANNED
Banned
And then you go on to say ...

Uh huh. So you wish to condemn one group for the acts of some, but have a problem when the same thing is done to Muslims by the radicals who represent THEM?

Hypocritical much?

There are threads here which are titled "Islam kills" or "Islam murders or "Islam beheads", and no one seems to take issue - so I thought it was the norm here to title threads like that....
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There are threads here which are titled "Islam kills" or "Islam murders or "Islam beheads", and no one seems to take issue - so I thought it was the norm here to title threads like that....

IF you feel those types of thread titles are wrong, then you are hypocrite.
 

Repentance

BANNED
Banned
IF you feel those types of thread titles are wrong, then you are hypocrite.
I think its wrong, but the forum does not, right? If not why tolerate such blatant generalizations and why didn't anyone say otherwise when it was Islam being generalized?
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I think its wrong, but the forum does not, right? If not why tolerate such blatant generalizations and why didn't anyone say otherwise when it was Islam being generalized?

Because you opened your hypocritical yap on that thread as well. You indicated that the acts were done as a response to disrespecting Islam. IF followers of a religion respond in violence because they believe someone is blaspheming their religion/deity via their rule book ... the religion is question is dangerous. Those who react and those who justify their reactions are nutters.
 
Last edited:

Repentance

BANNED
Banned
Because you opened your hypocritical yap on that thread as well. You indicated that the acts were done as a response to disrespecting Islam. IF followers of a religion respond in violence because they believe someone is blaspheming their religion/deity via their rule book ... the religion is question is dangerous. Those who react and those justify the reactions are nutters.
O.K. I see my hypocrisy now.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Real Christians ought to be absolutely sick to their stomachs that Nick M also publicly claims to be one.

All religions have those who would pervert it into hatred and filth. Nick might even really believe. Christians are, like other people, quite capable of evil. We are just called to be better than that. Not every believer does so.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Sounds like an unhinged ticking time bomb. Thank goodness this guy with a nasty temper and history of threatening his neighbors was able to get his hands on a gun without any trouble.
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
There are enforcement acts that protect people of African descent from white supremacy groups.

In the Constitution? I don't recall reading anything about protections against white supremacist groups in the U.S. Constitution.


Governments in Islamic countries should have laws that prohibit terrorizing so called infidels within their borders

You mean like laws against beheadings?


...... and they should enforce them to keep groups like Isis from gaining power

Oh, is that why ISIS came into power? I really thought it was the power vacuum created by the withdraw of Coalition forces from Iraq. But maybe you're right, maybe there is just an absence of laws against murder, bombings, and such.. :plain:
 
Last edited:

Quincy

New member
In the Constitution? I don't recall reading anything about protections against white supremacist groups in the U.S. Constitution.

Bills, whatever they're called if you are so intent on splitting hairs. Excuse me for not having all my notes ready, fact checked and parsed for a simple post on an internet forum.


You mean like laws against beheadings?

Any form of terrorism.



Oh, is that why ISIS came into power? I really thought it was the power vacuum created by the withdraw of Coalition forces from Iraq. But maybe you're right, maybe there is just an absence of laws against murder, bombings, and such.. :plain:

Maybe you're right. Maybe the non-violent Muslims are just victims and lack the ability to police radicals within their own religion that they clearly outnumber and at one point had the armaments needed to eradicate jihadist organizations (which is what I inquired about there being laws against.... you know.... terroristic organizations not the act) before this power vacuum you describe happened and they got caught with their pants down :plain:
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
Bills, whatever they're called if you are so intent on splitting hairs.

Erm...laws.

Excuse me for not having all my notes ready, fact checked and parsed for a simple post on an internet forum.

A lack of fact checking I think is the problem.


Any form of terrorism.

So which form of terrorism is not unlawful? Beheadings? Bombings? Kidnappings?


Maybe you're right. Maybe the non-violent Muslims are just victims and lack the ability to police radicals

Speaking specifically of Iraq, it was the consolidated political and military might of Saddam Hussein that kept terrorist organizations in check. Dictators generally don't like armed militias they don't control running amok in their country. The removal of Saddam left a power void that Coalition forces struggled to fill, and in their absence other militant groups vie for power. Military analysts had long predicted a resurgence of militant groups after coalitions force would leave, that's a big part of why we stayed as long as we did; In hopes that we could build up the infrastructure, police forces, and military forces of Iraq to a point where they could resist sectarian groups like ISIS from taking over. That they have succeeded in doing, but just barely. Though, it was inevitable that a sectarian group of some stripe or another would rise to vie for control of Iraq.
 
Top