So when will the right start blaming the killer of Jo Cox on Christianity?

72
0

Screen Shot 2016-06-17 at 1.42.53 pm

It ain’t terrorism when it’s Christians doing it

In the hours after the Orlando killings, the Right and some in the media were very quick to claim this was Islam’s fault. This was the home grown lone wolf Muslim radical and it was further evidence that Islam is somehow incompatible with our values hence the only solution is to bomb them into the bronze age.

Much of that bluster has been diluted now by the later facts that the gunman was frequenting gay clubs, gay apps and gay men for some time before the shooting. Homophobic Self-hate mixed with the need to somehow justify ones repressed sexuality and easy access to semi-automatic weapons had more to do with Orlando than Islam did.

It’s interesting to see the muted reaction to the terrible killing of British Labour MP Jo Cox. The killer has been connected to a far right Christian pro-apartheid group yet the right aren’t calling it terrorism by Christianity.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Hate, social division, inequality, lack of connection with civil society and alienation are driving our violence, attempting to paint entire religions as the problem simply creates another problem.

You fight hate with understanding not invading the Middle East.

72 COMMENTS

  1. Slight issue here Martyn. You are being pre-empt again. Some details to date:
    * the Orlando shooter claimed allegiance to the IS. I note that they did not disown him. I would suggest that the word Islamic in IS might just perhaps even to the most in denial of reality person suggest its about some religious belief.
    * yes the Orlando shooter went to gay clubs. I have seen no evidence yet offered that he was gay or in denial. He might just have been casing the joint. And thats a might. Until I hear otherwise I wont assume anything.
    * Some verses of the Koran condemn homosexuality (there seems to be some debate here about interpretation). As a result some Islamic states ban and punish it severely. Some groups of Islam export this as terror. If it were Christian or Buddhist groups / countries displaying this anti gay behavoir would it not be fair to take a precautionary principle? Or would that be anti Christian? For the record we know that the Orlando shooter had been flagged as as a possible Islamic threat and / or nutcase by his workmates. Precaution failed.
    * The British shooter…what do we know? The RWNJ groups moved very quickly to distance themselves. To date there is no confirmation of membership or association. That may yet emerge. There also seems to be some confusion about what the man actually uttered if anything.
    * British Rightist groups have no consistent record of political assassinations or murder, let alone terror. Islamic groups have a consistent record in Britain.

    I suspect but I dont know that both shooters are lone nutters. Until we know otherwise I think that using the deaths of 50 gays and one MP to make somepoint about Islamic terror versus Christian terror is somewhat insulting to the deceased. You may be proven correct when the facts are verified, until then you are playing fast and loose.

    • Some verses of the Koran condemn homosexuality (there seems to be some debate here about interpretation).

      You mean this bit, Nick;

      If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

      Damn Quran!!!

      Oh, wait, it’s not the Quran…

      … it’s Leviticus 20:13, in the Bible.

      Damn, you nearly had it there, Nick.

      Here’s the reference. There’s lot’s more homophobic stuff, and it ain’t pretty; https://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality

      • I could quote you plenty of hsteful stuff from many sources Frank. Worlds a nasty place. The question was should the precautionary principle apply? Theres no point scoring in this Frank when people end up dead.

        • “I could quote you plenty of hsteful stuff from many sources Frank.”

          Exactly, Nick. You said that ” Some verses of the Koran condemn homosexuality “.

          I pointed out that the Bible does precisely the same.

          Now you’re trying to regain the moral high-ground by suggesting “I could quote you plenty of hsteful stuff from many sources Frank…Theres no point scoring in this Frank when people end up dead”?

          Unfortunately, some appear to focus on one specific religion and ethnic grouping, thereby ignoring the reality of human nature that some individuals/groups indulge in hate, and cloak it in ideology or religion. It is not limited to any one group.

        • Do you agree with his post, or were you just pointing out that Christians believe the same thing? – because that is not an argument against his points.

          Why not?

          • “Asheer”, I suspect you’re trolling. I also suspect that you’re using an Arabic-sounding name for some dubious agenda on your part.

            • Actually, Asheer, I think Otto may have a point. There is something odd in your writing style, irrespective of your chosen username. Your questions/points sound “innocent”, but definitely have a subtext to them. I am reminded of an internet commentator some years ago on another forum using the user-name “Gayproudguy” who made the most extraordinarily hateful homophobic comments. When challenged, he used precisely the rationale you are (though in gay reference). When the site’s moderator requested confirmation of his situation he disappeared.

              That’s the internet for you. Anyone can be anyone that want to be. For all we know, you’re an ACT on Campus troll assuming the role of an Arabic person, to create a platform from which to launch anti-muslim sentiments (cloaked in innocent-sounding questions.)

              But you wouldn’t be doing that, now, would you?

            • Well! It looks like a troll has been caught out!!

              Using a foreign sounding name to give credence to anti-muslim sentiment? That’s low, even for the usual right-wing nutters in our midst.

          • Are you saying both were motivated by religion? Both weren’t? What are you trying to get at.

            Asheer, I’m not “trying” to get at anything. My sentiments are fairly obvious – unlike your obscure references and questions.

            I think you’re playing silly games.

            Get to the point or go away.

          • All religions are based on bullshit and all are equally infused with xenophobia, homophobia, and a tiny few calls for charity that are easily overlooked, and overwhelmed. All of them. And they should all pay taxes!

        • The attacker at Pulse was motivated by homophobia. His father has said that he was not a particularly strong follower of Islam, and we have no evidence to contradict that to my knowledge.

          This backlash against Islam is pure misdirection by right-wing political forces who don’t want the Pulse shooting to be viewed through the obvious lens of a homophobic hate crime. The fact is, in the USA, people like me, and like a lot of New Zealanders, are obviously no longer safe in public places. That should terrify anyone who has any direct or indirect links to the queer latino community in Orlando, or to the queer community in the USA in general.

          If you don’t think any part of the attacker’s motivation was backlash or intimidation against gay men, I’m not sure where you get your news, but you need to try somewhere else.

          • “People are not inherently homophobic”.

            I disagree, people are usually suspicious or afraid of things they are not used to or do not know.

            When a human being grows up in a certain social environment, where homosexuality, or rather gay or lesbian behavior, is not evident, they will not be familiar with it, and judge human behaviour by what they themselves consider as “normal”. As most humans are heterosexual, they will consider that as the usual and acceptable behaviour.

            And should such inexperienced humans suddenly be approached by a person with a different sexual orientation, which they feel is unusual, they will in most cases tend to dislike it and distance themselves to such sexual approaches.

            It is the fact that the majority of humans is heterosexual, and that tends to dominate social attitudes, well it did so for centuries or more, and only in our more liberal, modern, more educated society is it now socially acceptable to have different sexual orientations.

            That was not so in most ancient times, hence the obsession by religions formed then, to show such intolerance for then considered “abnormal” sexual behaviour.

            Some PC minded people may not agree with this view, but I consider that is what is behind intolerance, it is the dictatorship of the majority, and we could at any time in the future also witness a reversal of social tolerance as we have it now, and a return to less liberal views.

            Human social behaviour has changed with times and trends, and intolerance is not just a privilege of religious people, I think.

      • Christianity has a New Testament and a reformation. Islam has neither. Rather than continue to expose your ignorance, some basic research is in in order.

        • Doesn’t matter, “ManintheMiddle”. The Bible is either taken in it’s entirety or not at all. It’s not a shopping list to be selective about.

          Otherwise, just as you’re doing, you can justify anything you want.

          It’s called DOUBLE STANDARDS, my friend.

          • “The Bible is either taken in it’s entirety or not at all. It’s not a shopping list to be selective about.”

            Then you are totally ignorant of the Bible.

            • And you, maninthemiddle, are an expert?

              I’ve read the Bible as well. It contains some pretty horrendous stuff when it comes to women and gays.

              Which you should know, being a self-proclaimed expert.

              • Oh so you’ve ‘read’ the Bible, Frank. Bully for you. Doesn’t mean you understand it. From your comments you clearly don’t.

                  • Leviticus is an historical narrative that relates punishments consistent with the era. Christians don’t execute gays today, Frank. Muslims do.

                  • Leviticus contains historical narrative applicable to the time. Christianity doesn’t call for the execution of gays today. Islam does.

          • “Reformation”? What “reformation”?

            How is this “reformation”;

            Brazil’s president has criticised the Roman Catholic Church for excommunicating doctors who performed an abortion on a nine-year-old girl who was raped by her stepfather and was expecting twins.

            The girl’s mother was also excommunicated by Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the Archbishop of Recife, the north-eastern city where the family lives. He said that all those involved had “broken God’s law”.

            But the president, Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva, condemned the excommunication and praised the doctors for their decision to perform the abortion on the girl, who was 15 weeks pregnant. “As a Christian and a Catholic, I deeply regret that a bishop has had such conservative behaviour,” he said. “In this case, medicine is more right than the Church.”

            Archbishop Sobrinho defended his action. Asked why he did not excommunicate the 23-year-old stepfather, he said: “He committed an extremely serious crime. But that crime, according to canon law, is not punished with automatic excommunication.

            ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/4968239/Brazils-president-attacks-Vatican-for-condemning-nine-year-old-rape-victims-abortion.html

            In what Universe is that “reformation”?!

            You’d have to be a christian extremist to think that is “reformed” from the Dark Ages.

                  • It might be argued that the Pope should not be seen to give any support or endorsement, even implicitly, to the Reformation or Reformed churches. From a Catholic perspective, shouldn’t the Reformation be seen as unambiguously bad?

                    On the other hand, joining together with other Christians to remember it and to express a new hope for Christian unity seems quite different. I’ve also noticed, in my life at least, many modern Catholics more prepared to admit that the Catholic Church of the 16th century had some pretty serious flaws, and that some of the Reformers’ criticisms had merit. Just as even many Protestants today are willing to take insights from the Counter-Reformation and from Catholic saints or teachers, the number of Catholics willing to look at some Protestant churches and say “hey, you have a point there, maybe we can make something of that together” is increasing in the First World. One can consistently say “you had some good points, but I still don’t think you should have broken away from the church”.

  2. yup

    patriarchal monotheism fundamentalism ( Judaism, Christianity and Islam)…does seem to give males ( supposedly made in the patriarchal monotheistic God the Father’s image) a prerogative to think they can kill to solve ‘problems’…( or rather what they perceive as problems but which are often a projection of their own personal problems and sense of entitlement and control over others’ lives..particularly womens lives and and gays and those who they perceive as the inferior infidel or godless)

  3. Martyn, what you don’t seem to get is the Orlanda killer shouted Allahu Ackbar, a typical Muslim slogan, whereas the guy who killed Jo Cox did not do it in the name of his God, whoever that may be. You really should spend more time researching the founders of Christianity and Islam to understand the big difference. Jesus did not kill anyone, whereas Muhammad did.

    • Martyn, what you don’t seem to get is the Orlanda killer shouted Allahu Ackbar, a typical Muslim slogan,

      Citation please, Andrew, or you made it up.

      You really are hung up on the Islamic faith, aren’t you, Andrew? You do realise that your irrational fear/hostility plays into the hands of ISIS?

  4. So when will the right start blaming the killer of Jo Cox on Christianity?

    How about, when Christians start carrying out mass murders while pledging allegiance to the well-known Christian terrorist group, er… the fascist Christian army taking over, er… well, the Christian stuff, anyway.

    • We still don’t know his motivation, Milt.

      And while we’re on the subject, the Orlando shooter’s motivations may still be questionable. What is known is that the guy was apparently disturbed and violent. Any political connections may be tenuous and reflections of his own craziness than anything steeped in ideology.

      • So, we shouldn’t take him at his word? Why not? The fact that you’d prefer him not to have done this in the name of Islam doesn’t alter the fact that he did, Frank. Whatever psychological problems he had, he publicly declared a religious motivation. It’s not for you to second-guess him.

        • So, let’s say, Milt, that I lose the plot and go spazzo (some reckon I’m there already – but that’s another blogpost) at Parliament. Let’s say I invoke some grouping I’ve never met; have never had any previous dealings with; and have just plucked their name out of thin air (eg; Judean People’s Liberation Front, not to be confused with PJLF)

          Does that automatically provide a case? Some fundamentalist christians invoke the name of god before going out to shoot a doctor who performs abortions – does that brand all Christians as crazy hate-mongers? Or the Catholic-Protestant in Northern Ireland?

          Point is, a lunatic can invoke any group or cause s/he wants, to add “credibility” to their alienation and anger. But it ain’t necessarily so.

          • So, let’s say, Milt, that I lose the plot and go spazzo (some reckon I’m there already – but that’s another blogpost) at Parliament. Let’s say I invoke some grouping I’ve never met; have never had any previous dealings with; and have just plucked their name out of thin air (eg; Judean People’s Liberation Front, not to be confused with PJLF)

            OK, but for the analogy to be any use we have to also say that for years previously you’ve been making people nervous by espousing the same bullshit espoused by the group you invoke, to the point where government security agencies are concerned enough to take a look at you. Why would anyone pretend we shouldn’t take your word about what your beliefs are?

            Some fundamentalist christians invoke the name of god before going out to shoot a doctor who performs abortions – does that brand all Christians as crazy hate-mongers?

            That would be foolish (likewise, the activity of IS doesn’t brand all Muslims as crazy hate-mongers). However, Christian terrorists killing abortion doctors quite clearly have a religious motivation, and we should think the worse of their religion for it – why pretend Muslim terrorists don’t have a religious motivation? And why pretend we shouldn’t think less of their religion for it?

            • So we know how easy it is to get guns in the US. The guy in England must have tried harder. How do you explain the weapons being used by IS that are being bought from Israelis? All religions are corrupt, and all foster ideas that nutcases latch onto to explain their crimes. Christians as much as any other.

      • Same thing can be said about Cox’s killer. Funny how you’re all quick to subscribe motives there isn’t it?

  5. Yep – why would ISIL be involved? Why would ISIL worry about Britain leaving the EU? How many Muslims are in the UK? Let’s blame another extremist nutter group?

    But, how about the British Govt? Or what about the same group that topped Diana, Queen of Hearts? Brexit – let’s blame right and left nutters (or both) for the murder of Jo Cox.

    Must direct anger away from the real cause of British hatred – Thatcher, Major , Blair and Cameron – 4 arse-holes of neoliberalism. Point the finger where it belongs – right-wing gobshite.

    • Watch “House of Cards”, British version, then tell me that Diana’s death wasn’t British politically motivated?

      It’s Britain’s JFK “mystery”. It’s moon-landings without Colin Craig, it’s chem=trails without the chem.

  6. The Herald article you linked says that they found a decade old post that mentioned the killer was a “subscriber to S. A. Patriot, a South African magazine that was published by the pro-apartheid group, the White Rhino Club.” The post is 10 years ago, and there is no mention of this club having any “Christian” connection. The killer has made no claims about any Christian motive, or attributed his actions to any Christian ethos. Perhaps that’s why no-one is calling this Christian terrorism.

    • So, Maninthemiddle, when a tenuous link to militant Islam is found for one shooter, that is a basis for you to condemn all Islam as a “hate ideology”.

      But when “a decade old post that mentioned the killer ” is found, well, that’s not significant?

      It’s fascinating to see you and other’s of your ilk jumping through hoops and other mental gymnastics to try to differentiate between hate-crimes…

      • “when a tenuous link to militant Islam is found for one shooter, that is a basis for you to condemn all Islam as a “hate ideology”.”

        No.

        “It’s fascinating to see you and other’s of your ilk jumping through hoops and other mental gymnastics to try to differentiate between hate-crimes…”

        It’s fascinating to see you and your ilk jumping through hoops to justify islamic terrorism. It’s also so funny seeing this come from the left, who try so hard to claim the moral high ground when ti comes to LGBTI rights.

        • Hmmm, parroting Frank’s comments doesn’t make you clever at all, Maninthemiddle. It just makes you a good parrot.

          • Frank didn’t understand my post, which was simply pointing out that the author of the article made up the Christian connection. Using his own comments to show him up is fair game in that case.

  7. The same thought crossed my mind this morning when I heard of the tragic shooting of Ms Cox; will the killer’s religion be brought up?

    And what will certain right-wingers who’ve been gleefully smearing Islam because of the Orlando shooter be saying?

    I’ll be interested to see them doing a few mental gymnastics to squirm out of this.

    • Thank you Frank. Citation please…exactly the point I was making above. Going off without evidence to leap to a conclusion.

      Having said that you also need to verify whether it is irrational to hold a fear of radical Islam and question when it is actually a phobia.

      • Not “radical” Islam (whatever that is). I’m referring to mainstream Islam. And right-wing commentators have branded the entire Islamic faith as one of being a “hate ideology”.

        I don’t think I need to point that out to you, Nick. Read the comments from right-wingers here, and on other blogsites.

        • It is likely up to 25% of Muslims are radicalised. The Koran contains over 100 passages calling for war with non-believers, mostly “unrestrained by historical context” (https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx). Islam oppresses women, even today gay men are executed in the name of Islam. Yes, the Islamic faith is one of hatred. It is, and always has been, a threat to western democratic liberal values.

          • “It is likely up to 25% of Muslims are radicalised. The Koran contains over 100 passages calling for war with non-believers, mostly “unrestrained by historical context” ”

            LMAO!!! You’re using a fundamentalist christian group’s dodgy data to attack fundamentalist muslim groups?? Could you be any dumber, MANINTHEMIDDLE??

    • Spot on Asheer we dont know yet. The funny thing is we get so conditioned by events that wd draw conclusions mentally even whilst hearing the news. I heard “British MP shot” on the radio, and before the story came I thought “not another IS attack”….Why? Because theres been a lot of it recently. The story came on and corrected that leap of faith. I did not then think “bloody rwnj”….or “bloody fundy Christian”. Im not conditioned by recent events to think that.

      What that tells me is stop, pause, get the facts, then respond.

  8. “frequenting gay clubs, gay apps and gay men for some time before the shooting. Homophobic Self-hate mixed with the need to somehow justify ones repressed sexuality and easy access to semi-automatic weapons had more to do with Orlando than Islam did.”
    Yes prejudice against homosexuals is the new unacceptable behaviour. Have you noticed it is quite acceptable to demean people of slavic origin. eg. Russians. Even James Moronie of “The crowd goes wild” finds it funny to put on a fake East European accent and make fun of Russians. Come on James make fun of Maori or homosexuals and see how your career progresses.

    But getting back to the Orlando Shooter
    Also, just like the Boston bombers this man had previous contact with the FBI.
    Of course it is unprovable and unbelievable to those who think of Washington as “just like us” and having a “moral compass” but to list a few events that may provoke cynicism…..9/11,(building 7 collapsed as a planned demolition would, no other steel framed sky scraper has ever collapsed as the twin towers did, the owner Larry Silverstein got a huge insurance payout for what was an asbestos ridden white elephant, also justified the “WAR ON TERROR”), Boston bombings,(despite being alerted to jihadist leanings of Tsarnaev brothers by Russia and previous contact with FBI, just like the Orlando shooter,) , death of CEO of French Oil company Total Christophe de Margerie in plane crash, ( promoted trade with Russia), death of Eduardo Campos, (Brazilian socialist Presidential candidate )
    Now the irrational killing of a pro EU labour politician in Britain just as the “Brexit” campaign gathers steam.I guess God really loves Washington.
    A few years ago I would not have countenanced what I am suggesting here but I used to believe people generally told the truth.
    Obama spoke recently at Hiroshima of his wish to see the end of Nuclear weapons in his lifetime. Perhaps he should not have supported the USA spending a trillion dollars upgrading their nuclear arsenal, perhaps he should have not have accepted Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia , perhaps he should have accepted North Korea’s offer to halt its nuclear weapon development program if the USA and South Korea stopped having war games together, perhaps he should not have put 31000 NATO troops on Russia’s borders after destabilizing Ukraine. The man is a bare faced liar and nothing that comes out of his mouth or the bought and paid for mainstream media can be believed.

    I believe that Washington will do anything , including killing its own people and falsifying election results to protect Wall Street, the military industrial complex and the other elements of American Corporatocracy.
    No doubt they strong armed NZ into recently spending more on our navy and air force too.

  9. Damn right Martyn,

    We should have never gone to the middle east, we have made it a war zone now with everyone fleeing the middle east so what were they thinking by going there?

    Todays world is just a revolving door of political deception and blaming others for our fuck ups just like this corrupted government does constantly we have here today.

    Good points there you send us.

  10. Also, being white, it was mental health issues.
    Weird how non-whites and Muslims never have mental health problems…

        • Tenuous? His dad’s a Taliban supporter who fled to the US back when the Yanks were supporting Muslim extremists against the Soviet Union. His female schoolteachers have reported he fit the Taliban model by rejecting the idea that any woman could have authority over him. Colleagues and employers have reported he endorsed Islamic extremist ideas (not that these are easy to distinguish from mainstream Muslim ideas, Islam being a seriously fucked-up ideology), and he came to the attention of the FBI through those views and his acquaintance with known extremists. That doesn’t sound tenuous at all.

          • “His dad’s a Taliban supporter who fled to the US back when the Yanks were supporting Muslim extremists against the Soviet Union.”

            My dad’s a conservative Christian. I’m an agnostic communist. What’s your point?

            “His female schoolteachers have reported he fit the Taliban model by rejecting the idea that any woman could have authority over him.”

            So he fits into western patriarchal values + angry teenage boy who hated school.

            “Colleagues and employers have reported he endorsed Islamic extremist ideas (not that these are easy to distinguish from mainstream Muslim ideas, Islam being a seriously fucked-up ideology)”

            With people like you saying Islam is an ideology and not a religion, then we can see how the average person reacts to a Muslim. And in USA people are even more judgemental. Almost all of Trump’s supporters would have reported him as ‘an extremist’ just because he was Muslim. That’s how half of USA thinks.

            “and he came to the attention of the FBI through those views and his acquaintance with known extremists.”

            You think anyone who has come to the attention of the FBI is therefor guilty of something? Please, you really need to look at what the FBI has done in the past. They’ve probably got half of the Occupy movement on their files.

            “That doesn’t sound tenuous at all.”

            Your argument couldn’t be more tenuous if you tried.

            • My dad’s a conservative Christian. I’m an agnostic communist. What’s your point?

              First: telling us your father was a conservative religion enthusiast and you’ve grown up to follow a murderous totalitarian ideology isn’t the refutation you maybe think it is.

              Second: Christianity (these days at least) doesn’t proscribe apostasy, and isn’t an identity that goes beyond nationality. Muslim kids tend not to grow up to be non-Muslims.

              So he fits into western patriarchal values + angry teenage boy who hated school.

              You don’t notice a difference between how the Taliban see women and how western cultures do? That explains a lot.

              With people like you saying Islam is an ideology and not a religion…

              Islam is an ideology and a religion. It comes with a legislative programme that covers every aspect of human behaviour and a ban on leaving once you’ve joined – that’s a totalitarian ideology, the religion part is extra.

              You think anyone who has come to the attention of the FBI is therefor guilty of something?

              I think anyone who’s come to the attention of the FBI as a Muslim fundamentalist and who’s freaked out teachers and colleagues with his Muslim fundamentalist opinions is probably a Muslim fundamentalist. Unless someone has a better explanation.

              • “a murderous totalitarian ideology”

                Your McCarthyism is amusing. It’s cute how you think this is still the 1950s. Perhaps that explains how you think being on an FBI watch-list is proof of something

                My point was that your point about the gunman’s father’s beliefs defining his son’s is extremely tenuous.

                “You don’t notice a difference between how the Taliban see women and how western cultures do? That explains a lot.”

                Can you provide a reference showing the gunman was in the Taliban? Is this your tenuous blood-line story again? His daddy is a sympathizer, whip-de-do.

                “Islam is an ideology and a religion. It comes with a legislative programme that covers every aspect of human behaviour and a ban on leaving once you’ve joined – that’s a totalitarian ideology, the religion part is extra.”

                I’ve heard Pat Robertson and and Rush Limbaugh call Islam an ideology. You know there are gay Muslims right? And feminist Muslims right? They subscribe to Islam. I’ve met former Muslims who did follow Islam and now do not.
                I’ve no idea where you get your ideas from, but again, thanks for the lolz.

                “I think anyone who’s come to the attention of the FBI as a Muslim fundamentalist and who’s freaked out teachers and colleagues with his Muslim fundamentalist opinions is probably a Muslim fundamentalist. Unless someone has a better explanation.”

                Come on Psycho Milt, you’re not that gullible are you? The FBI have a long and proud history of following harmless people (and don’t get your knickers in a knot – I’m obviously not saying the gunman was harmless). To claim that because someone is on an FBI list, then they must be some sort of extremist is incredibly naive, and an extremely tenuous argument.
                Most people involved in the civil rights movement has been watched by the FBI. People like Martin Luther King. Sports people like Muhammad Ali. Academics like Herbert Marcuse.
                Citing an FBI watch list is probably the most tenuous of all your tenuous arguments.

                • You know there are gay Muslims right? And feminist Muslims right? They subscribe to Islam. I’ve met former Muslims who did follow Islam and now do not.

                  You don’t seem to get the difference between an ideology and individual people. Lots of very nice people were fascists or communists in the mid-20th century – that doesn’t mean fascism and communism aren’t totalitarian ideologies.

                  The fact is, if this guy were a Christian fundamentalist with a long history of freaking people out with his extremist views, who’d previously come to the attention of security agencies for associating with known extremists, and who’d eventually committed a mass murder at an abortion clinic, you, Martyn and Frank wouldn’t be tying yourselves in knots trying to pretend the guy’s religion had nothing to do with the murders.

                  • Martyn and Frank wouldn’t be tying yourselves in knots trying to pretend the guy’s religion had nothing to do with the murders.

                    Because we don’t know for certain that he did, Milt. It’s fairly easy for nutters to have a grudge against society and latch on to any cause to justify taking extreme, lethal measures against what they perceive to be “evil”. And then that action is used to justify condemning the entire cause.

                    I’ve pointed out that extremists take matters into their hands against abortion clinics. Have you ever condemned the whole of christianity afterwards? No, of course you haven’t. It would be illogical.

                  • “you, Martyn and Frank wouldn’t be tying yourselves in knots trying to pretend the guy’s religion had nothing to do with the murders.”

                    We dismantled your desperate attempt to say whatever you were trying to say. Just a laundry list of tenuous ideas and half-baked theories.

                    Now you’ve resorted to red-baiting like you’re on whaleoil’s site. This place isn’t the reactionary cesspit you’re used to. Provide a robust argument. A bit of creativity would be useful. But I see nothing more than 1950s views and a moral panic about Islam.

                    Move along, or offer something worth reading.

      • “I guess you missed all the news reports about the non-White Muslim Orlando shooter’s possible mental problems…”

        I guess you missed my point. As Frank has pointed out, those claims have been buried under piles of Trump-ish rhetoric about Islamic extremism. You’re free to jump on the idiot-train if it makes you feel good.

        Ethnic bias in mental health diagnosis and treatment is nothing new. If you can’t see it, then try taking your white-blinkers off:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447723/

    • Actually, there’s been rather a lot of discussion regarding the late, unlamented Omar Mateen’s being, erm… not quite the full shilling.

  11. [Comment deleted. You’re supposed to be banned and not sure how you got around our filters. You are hereby trespassed from this blogsite for two years.If you post here again, we will contact your IP and lay a complaint. – ScarletMod ]

  12. “So when will the right start blaming the killer of Jo Cox on Christianity?”

    Maybe, because the alleged killer is not a Christian, or does not claim to act in the name of Christianity, and simply was nothing but a closet Nazi?

    Why this obsession with trying to blame western killers or terrorists by playing the religion card, where it is not warranted?

    There have though been some right wing pseudo “Christian” mad men causing havoc and even mass killings in the US, where the description may fit.

    This was just another lone wolf mentally ill right wing fantasist, who seems to have thought he better gets his name into the history books, by committing this hideous atrocity.

Comments are closed.