Three Muslims Killed Execution Style in Chapel Hill

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You're getting blowback because of your insistence on a "random" aspect of the Jewish deaths. Why, exactly, do you keep trying to argue that there's any "random" component (once the deli had been chosen) of what was obviously a hate crime? There was nothing random about the fact that Jews were killed while shopping in a Jewish deli. The terrorists knew this, and it defies credulity to argue they had no clue there were Jews shopping in the Jewish deli and therefore the "killings" of Jews were even partially "random", unintended consequences. When you keep insisting on the "randomness" aspect of these Jewish deaths, despite the very dubious logic behind the distinction you're trying to draw, it's like you see hate crimes in one place but randomness where Jewish deaths are concerned.

We both agree that the deli was chosen because it was Jewish. I agreed with that in every post I made on the topic. As I understand the event, once in the deli, the killer randomly shot people. You disagree. So, please, in very clear and plain language, explain to me how some of those in the deli were selected to be shot and others were not.

Note, this is only a topic of discussion because I posted my opinion that the controversy over Obama's remarks was purely semantic. That the shootings themselves were random as he described them. The choice of the deli, however, was not random and neither Obama nor I have suggested that it was.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:On the contrary, you have just put a target on the heads of Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins for making "anti-Islamic bigotry among progressives" and insinuating that people like them were responsible for this crime when we have no facts except the police statement that it appeared to be over a parking dispute. Good job smearing athiests everywhere you anti-athiest hate spewing bigot.

Here I thought that atheists were supposed be interested in rational thought. If you think that I put a target on Maher, Harris, and Dawkins, you are certifiably insane. Your hysterical rantings are making atheists look worse than any accusations of complicity in murder (not that I have made any such accusations) could ever do.

[Anonymous]

Another tidbit - family members of the vicitms say that the killer routinely harassed the couple and was openlyhostile towards them.

Yea, parking dispute my foot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure it was not about religion, just like shooting a kid about loud music is not about race.

I have seen this a dozen times. "How dare those [insert group here] do that to me. Who do they think they are?? I will show them!"

The fact they were Muslim may not have been the primary reason, but I am sure it factored into his rage. There is no doubt in my mind.

No doubt? Sounds like someone is projecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another tidbit - family members of the vicitms say that the killer routinely harassed the couple and was openlyhostile towards them.

Yea, parking dispute my foot!

they have also already reported the numerous anti-religion statements of the alleged perpetrator

[Anonymous]

They have also reported Hicks had been harassing the woman based on their clothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: I have not said that the killing in Chapel Hill were hate killings.

From page 1: 'I put it in the Political Forum because there are idiots who believe that if a radical anti-religious freak murders three Muslims, it is simply a "sad crime".'

So, yeah, Jeff. You effectively DID say the killings in Chapel Hill are hate killings. Upfront. In fact, your entire thread, from subject line until now, has furthered that storyline. Your backpedalling is unconvincing.

Let's let the police do their work, eh?

Is that what you said about benghazi? Or did you crucify obama over the video?

I have expressed no views on Benghazi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure it was not about religion, just like shooting a kid about loud music is not about race.

I have seen this a dozen times. "How dare those [insert group here] do that to me. Who do they think they are?? I will show them!"

The fact they were Muslim may not have been the primary reason, but I am sure it factored into his rage. There is no doubt in my mind.

No doubt? Sounds like someone is projecting.

Call it what you want. I am not naive or obtuse as some of you all seem to be.

But it is fine, the victims' families are starting to speak and it is painting a much different picture then what you all believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: I have not said that the killing in Chapel Hill were hate killings.

From page 1: 'I put it in the Political Forum because there are idiots who believe that if a radical anti-religious freak murders three Muslims, it is simply a "sad crime".'

So, yeah, Jeff. You effectively DID say the killings in Chapel Hill are hate killings. Upfront. In fact, your entire thread, from subject line until now, has furthered that storyline. Your backpedalling is unconvincing.

Let's let the police do their work, eh?

Is that what you said about benghazi? Or did you crucify obama over the video?

Has the thread reached the point where we can now open it up to every crime against humanity over the last 50 years? I'd like to know why the moderator didn't start a thread about how Haiti's PM hasn't called elections in 3 years while people are malnourished, that Pakistani woman who converted to Christianity, or about the Argentinian prosecutor who may have been assassinated by his own government. JK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: I have not said that the killing in Chapel Hill were hate killings.

From page 1: 'I put it in the Political Forum because there are idiots who believe that if a radical anti-religious freak murders three Muslims, it is simply a "sad crime".'

So, yeah, Jeff. You effectively DID say the killings in Chapel Hill are hate killings. Upfront. In fact, your entire thread, from subject line until now, has furthered that storyline. Your backpedalling is unconvincing.

Let's let the police do their work, eh?

Is that what you said about benghazi? Or did you crucify obama over the video?

New poster. The 'police'cant do their work when the State Dept stonewalls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: I have not said that the killing in Chapel Hill were hate killings.

From page 1: 'I put it in the Political Forum because there are idiots who believe that if a radical anti-religious freak murders three Muslims, it is simply a "sad crime".'

So, yeah, Jeff. You effectively DID say the killings in Chapel Hill are hate killings. Upfront. In fact, your entire thread, from subject line until now, has furthered that storyline. Your backpedalling is unconvincing.

Let's let the police do their work, eh?

Is that what you said about benghazi? Or did you crucify obama over the video?

New poster. The 'police'cant do their work when the State Dept stonewalls

Right, because in the wing nut mind, the government is the criminal to be investigated, not the actual killers. Amazing lack of perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: I have not said that the killing in Chapel Hill were hate killings.

From page 1: 'I put it in the Political Forum because there are idiots who believe that if a radical anti-religious freak murders three Muslims, it is simply a "sad crime".'

So, yeah, Jeff. You effectively DID say the killings in Chapel Hill are hate killings. Upfront. In fact, your entire thread, from subject line until now, has furthered that storyline. Your backpedalling is unconvincing.

Let's let the police do their work, eh?

Is that what you said about benghazi? Or did you crucify obama over the video?

Has the thread reached the point where we can now open it up to every crime against humanity over the last 50 years? I'd like to know why the moderator didn't start a thread about how Haiti's PM hasn't called elections in 3 years while people are malnourished, that Pakistani woman who converted to Christianity, or about the Argentinian prosecutor who may have been assassinated by his own government. JK

It is reasonable to expect some consistency from conservatives.

If someone is hit over the head on the street by a black man, you call it the knockout game and it's for certain a hate crime despite no statement of motive whatsoever by the criminals. Yet somehow the motive for this crime is a total and complete mystery, despite his numerous public posts about religion.

What are you so defensive about that you cannot admit that people kill muslims out of bigotry? Is it really so painful for that statement to cross your lips?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: I have not said that the killing in Chapel Hill were hate killings.

From page 1: 'I put it in the Political Forum because there are idiots who believe that if a radical anti-religious freak murders three Muslims, it is simply a "sad crime".'

So, yeah, Jeff. You effectively DID say the killings in Chapel Hill are hate killings. Upfront. In fact, your entire thread, from subject line until now, has furthered that storyline. Your backpedalling is unconvincing.

Let's let the police do their work, eh?

Is that what you said about benghazi? Or did you crucify obama over the video?

Has the thread reached the point where we can now open it up to every crime against humanity over the last 50 years? I'd like to know why the moderator didn't start a thread about how Haiti's PM hasn't called elections in 3 years while people are malnourished, that Pakistani woman who converted to Christianity, or about the Argentinian prosecutor who may have been assassinated by his own government. JK

It is reasonable to expect some consistency from conservatives.

If someone is hit over the head on the street by a black man, you call it the knockout game and it's for certain a hate crime despite no statement of motive whatsoever by the criminals. Yet somehow the motive for this crime is a total and complete mystery, despite his numerous public posts about religion.

What are you so defensive about that you cannot admit that people kill muslims out of bigotry? Is it really so painful for that statement to cross your lips?

pp here who took Jeff to task over his embellishments, including reference to execution-style killings at point-blank range:

I'm no conservative. I don't know what would give you the idea I am.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're getting blowback because of your insistence on a "random" aspect of the Jewish deaths. Why, exactly, do you keep trying to argue that there's any "random" component (once the deli had been chosen) of what was obviously a hate crime? There was nothing random about the fact that Jews were killed while shopping in a Jewish deli. The terrorists knew this, and it defies credulity to argue they had no clue there were Jews shopping in the Jewish deli and therefore the "killings" of Jews were even partially "random", unintended consequences. When you keep insisting on the "randomness" aspect of these Jewish deaths, despite the very dubious logic behind the distinction you're trying to draw, it's like you see hate crimes in one place but randomness where Jewish deaths are concerned.

We both agree that the deli was chosen because it was Jewish. I agreed with that in every post I made on the topic. As I understand the event, once in the deli, the killer randomly shot people. You disagree. So, please, in very clear and plain language, explain to me how some of those in the deli were selected to be shot and others were not.

Note, this is only a topic of discussion because I posted my opinion that the controversy over Obama's remarks was purely semantic. That the shootings themselves were random as he described them. The choice of the deli, however, was not random and neither Obama nor I have suggested that it was.

I think Obama's use of the word "random" in that instance was probably clumsy rather than deliberate, a bit like how my teenagers use the word "random." Not something in his talking points (I used to draft those for senior officials). FWIW, I voted for Obama although I don't think he's progressive enough on many issues.

So why not assume this fairly obvious explanation.

You, however, ran with it in an opposite direction: 1. that Obama really meant "random" and 2. that this actually makes sense. If you argue that the killings were partially random, however, you can't avoid lessening the The aspect of a hate crime. (Pretty sure you didn't need me to explain this, but you're welcome.)

[Anonymous]

Why have the Christian leader not denounced this?