Posted on 02/15/2007 11:28:06 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Listen to the sound on the mall video for yourself and decide.
Sure sounds like the kid yelled "allu akbar" several times when the cops confronted him, but the tape is poor quality and there are lots of echoes.
But, but, but...don't you understand? If they just gave you the facts you might think or do something they don't like!
Doesn't that make sense to you? /s
From another thread:
A video has become available, taken by someone hiding in a gift shop:
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_044000331.html
A bit past midway through, does anyone else hear what sounds like "Allah-hu akbar! Allah-hu akbar!" - just after one of the cops shouts "Police"?
That's the problem. Muslims DO belong to a group that advocates violence - Islam. The prevalence of the jihadi teachings in Islam, and the absence of meaningful and widespread denouncement therein, make the lack of individual statement of intent meaningful.
Lack of absolute knowledge does not preclude one from acknowledging plausibilities.
Because Muslims have a codified doctrine on the use of violence for the purpose of extending their influence and Christians and Jews do not. Your question is as self-refuting as asking why we should legitimate businessmen and racketeers be held to different standards.
If islam were not a religion, what would you call those who practice it?
Yes, but there's always a lot of selectivity in fact-reporting. The Columbine killers were most likely from families that were at least nominally either Christian or Jewish, but I don't recall the MSM specifying their religious background in regular reports (in-depth article like NYT magazine features, etc., probably did). In that light, I find it hard to see an MSM conspiracy to minimize the threat of extremist Islam, in the fact that few articles about this incident mention the family's religion.
Studying to become a mullah.
This is a statement that is so fuzzy it can neither be proven nor refuted, therefore it has no legitimate purpose except to "spin" in the direction that is favorable to your thesis.
The Columbine killers were most likely from families that were at least nominally either Christian or Jewish, but I don't recall the MSM specifying their religious background in regular reports (in-depth article like NYT magazine features, etc., probably did). In that light, I find it hard to see an MSM conspiracy to minimize the threat of extremist Islam...
But let's examine that "light."
It is the assumption that Islam is, in some sense, interchangable with Christianity and Judaism. This is an assumption in need of support.
There are certain extremist groups with Christianity and Judaism that have codified their endorsement of violence to achieve their theologically driven objectives. At this particular point in history, those are quite small subsets of those larger religious traditions, but Christianity in particular once had a widespread devotion to violence as a means of extending its influence. Islam can change too, but we can help or hinder the pace of that change, by our choices in how we treat moderate and liberal Muslims -- the more we alienate the moderates and liberals, the more susceptible they become to the welcoming advances of the extremists. Personally, I don't want to help the extremists in any way.
Until we know more about this particular family and young man, I think it's important to keep in mind that "Muslim" is just the default religious identity of the entire Bosnian ethnic group, and the fact that a Bosnian identifies him/herself as "Muslim" when asked what his/her religious affiliation is, doesn't imply any serious level of belief in the teachings of the Bosnian brand of Islam (which is a notably non-extremism-prone brand to begin with). It's sort of like asking a native Englishman what religion he is -- if he doesn't give a whit one way or the other about religion, and hasn't been to church in years except to attend a few weddings and funerals of friends and relatives, he'll generally say "Anglican" -- but trying to make a connection between Anglican theology and any particular acts of this individual (good or bad) would be groundless.
That's good. You are on to something....
No, there are not. I can claim to be a major league ball player but my claim has nothing to do with professional baseball.
Islam can not divorce itself from violence without becoming something else. Christianity used violence in spite of it's universally accepted doctrines, not because of them. "Moderate" muslims can't denounce the extremists because they don't have a doctrinal leg to stand on.
Great list.
Note the CNN (i.e. MSM) article at this link http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1785542/posts?page=1 which mentions the Serbian massacre of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, while neglecting to mention that the Serbs are Christians.
Would it be groundless to entertain the idea a man may be Catholic if he makes the sign of the cross before and after short periods of silence?
Were they or weren't they? That is a provable/disprovable assertion, and I think I would have researched it further before making any statement about its probability if I were you.
In addition, I would like to see some compelling evidence for your earlier claim that most murderers are from "at least nominally" (nice wiggle room) Christian families.
And that is not sympathetic to muslims because...?
Never mind the "thousands" is under dispute.
It is concealing the involvement of Christians in heinous crimes, just as many of you are claiming the MSM is concealing the fact that the teenage shooter in Utah was a Muslim.
you are not answering the question that I asked.
well said
The Columbine killers were an anomaly.
These Muslim boys are a dime a dozen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.