NationStates

Time to update that Onion article. Hell, they should make it a column.

Wallenburg wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
Good.

I see "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window, and summary executions are perfectly fine.

If you just got done shooting people and are running away with the gear still on you're an acceptable target.

Wallenburg wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
Good.

I see "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window, and summary executions are perfectly fine.

The men killed 14 people, I don't see why anyone can express anything other than relief and or happiness at their death.

Kelinfort wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:In terms of media coverage, and a terror attack on a large metropolitan area, yes it is.

Eh, it's about 60+ miles away. If it were a terror attack, Pershing Square in LA makes a whole lot more sense.

A terrorist attack on a disabled center doesn't make a lot of sense, unless to show no one is safe.

This will take some time to figure out, i am afraid.

The Central Shadow Nation wrote:Just up the hill from my town. Hemet gets a lot of crime. Riverside country and San Bernadino are dangerous places.

All rise for the national anthem of the Free Republic of Riverside!

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

Nilla Wayfarers wrote:What was the point of reporting that name to is if not to show he may be Middle Eastern or Syrian?
And what is the point of saying that if not to suggest a connection between his race and his guilt?
It's still racial profiling, even if it's accurate.

That's not at all what anyone here was suggesting.

What I'm hearing from you is "no, no, don't you dare consider the possibilities that it was a terrorist because of the suspect's name, that's raaacist!"

I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to contest that this wan't terrorism. Mass casualties, specifically of disabled people, by three heavily armed gunmen? What else could it be?
What people are saying is: "don't call it Islamic terrorism, because of one of the name of one of the suspect's". And that is reasonable. We don't know the motivations of the suspects, and pounding the "IT'S THE MOZLEMS!" war drums is irresponsible until we know for sure.

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I see "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window, and summary executions are perfectly fine.

The men killed 14 people, I don't see why anyone can express anything other than relief and or happiness at their death.

I want at least one alive to learn the motive.

Wallenburg wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
Good.

I see "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window, and summary executions are perfectly fine.

Killing a suspect that's engaging the police with a firearm isn't a summary execution. I'm by no means a fan of the gun culture in the US or for police overzealousness or outright murder on occasion. But I'm pretty okay with them gunning down someone who is engaged in a fire fight with them....

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I see "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window, and summary executions are perfectly fine.

The men killed 14 people, I don't see why anyone can express anything other than relief and or happiness at their death.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I see "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window, and summary executions are perfectly fine.

If you just got done shooting people and are running away with the gear still on you're an acceptable target.

I see neither of you know what the word "suspect" means.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I see "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window, and summary executions are perfectly fine.

Killing a suspect that's engaging the police with a firearm isn't a summary execution. I'm by no means a fan of the gun culture in the US or for police overzealousness or outright murder on occasion. But I'm pretty okay with them gunning down someone who is engaged in a fire fight with them....

I don't recall the suspect firing at the police.

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I see "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window, and summary executions are perfectly fine.

The men killed 14 people, I don't see why anyone can express anything other than relief and or happiness at their death.

Now that's just silly. If they could have been taken in alive then we could have learned so much more about why they killed 14 people. I don't mourn it but I'm certainly not happy about it.

Wallenburg wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Killing a suspect that's engaging the police with a firearm isn't a summary execution. I'm by no means a fan of the gun culture in the US or for police overzealousness or outright murder on occasion. But I'm pretty okay with them gunning down someone who is engaged in a fire fight with them....

I don't recall the suspect firing at the police.

You were there?

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I see "innocent until proven guilty" is out the window, and summary executions are perfectly fine.

The men killed 14 people, I don't see why anyone can express anything other than relief and or happiness at their death.

Because hey, it's not important to find out who they are and why they did it.

Camicon wrote:

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:
That's not at all what anyone here was suggesting.

What I'm hearing from you is "no, no, don't you dare consider the possibilities that it was a terrorist because of the suspect's name, that's raaacist!"

I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to contest that this wan't terrorism. Mass casualties, specifically of disabled people, by three heavily armed gunmen? What else could it be?
What people are saying is: "don't call it Islamic terrorism, because of one of the name of one of the suspect's". And that is reasonable. We don't know the motivations of the suspects, and pounding the "IT'S THE MOZLEMS!" war drums is irresponsible until we know for sure.

Nobody is pounding those war drums, somebody just brought up the possibility.

Furthermore, I saw no outrage when people immediately accused the abortion clinic shooter of being a Christian. Wait, Muslims are a protected class, how could I forget.

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

Nilla Wayfarers wrote:What was the point of reporting that name to is if not to show he may be Middle Eastern or Syrian?
And what is the point of saying that if not to suggest a connection between his race and his guilt?
It's still racial profiling, even if it's accurate.

That's not at all what anyone here was suggesting.

What I'm hearing from you is "no, no, don't you dare consider the possibilities that it was a terrorist because of the suspect's name, that's raaacist!"

Yeah. It is racist. Suspecting someone of a heinous crime like this because of their name is racist. And your claim that having an Arabic name increases the likelihood of being a terrorist breaks the rules of probability.
If I changed my name to something Arabic, does that suddenly increase my chances of being a terrorist? No.

Wallenburg wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Killing a suspect that's engaging the police with a firearm isn't a summary execution. I'm by no means a fan of the gun culture in the US or for police overzealousness or outright murder on occasion. But I'm pretty okay with them gunning down someone who is engaged in a fire fight with them....

I don't recall the suspect firing at the police.

A police officer has been hospitalized with a bullet wound. Images shown earlier a gun was visible next to the body of one of the dead suspects. I think its a reasonable assumption that the suspects opened fire.

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

Camicon wrote:I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to contest that this wan't terrorism. Mass casualties, specifically of disabled people, by three heavily armed gunmen? What else could it be?
What people are saying is: "don't call it Islamic terrorism, because of one of the name of one of the suspect's". And that is reasonable. We don't know the motivations of the suspects, and pounding the "IT'S THE MOZLEMS!" war drums is irresponsible until we know for sure.

Nobody is pounding those war drums, somebody just brought up the possibility.

Furthermore, I saw no outrage when people immediately accused the abortion clinic shooter of being a Christian. Wait, Muslims are a protected class, how could I forget.

You do realize that people brought that up on the news after he was proven to be Christian, yes?

Wallenburg wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Killing a suspect that's engaging the police with a firearm isn't a summary execution. I'm by no means a fan of the gun culture in the US or for police overzealousness or outright murder on occasion. But I'm pretty okay with them gunning down someone who is engaged in a fire fight with them....

I don't recall the suspect firing at the police.

The shithole who is dead in the suv? the injured one, or the one who is custody or got away, depending on the report?

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

Camicon wrote:I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to contest that this wan't terrorism. Mass casualties, specifically of disabled people, by three heavily armed gunmen? What else could it be?
What people are saying is: "don't call it Islamic terrorism, because of one of the name of one of the suspect's". And that is reasonable. We don't know the motivations of the suspects, and pounding the "IT'S THE MOZLEMS!" war drums is irresponsible until we know for sure.

Nobody is pounding those war drums, somebody just brought up the possibility.

Furthermore, I saw no outrage when people immediately accused the abortion clinic shooter of being a Christian. Wait, Muslims are a protected class, how could I forget.

Actually, people in the thread were demanding that everyone wait and see before making a decision. Not that such conveniences were ever dispensed whenever it was suspected to be a Muslim attack.

Gauthier wrote:

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:
Nobody is pounding those war drums, somebody just brought up the possibility.

Furthermore, I saw no outrage when people immediately accused the abortion clinic shooter of being a Christian. Wait, Muslims are a protected class, how could I forget.

Actually, people in the thread were demanding that everyone wait and see before making a decision. Not that such conveniences were ever dispensed whenever it was suspected to be a Muslim attack.

You mean like they haven't been in this thread? Multiple people have advocated the wait and see approach.......

The Republic of American Freedom wrote:

Platypus Reborn wrote:
It shouldn't be a compromise.

Agreed the Constitution made it perfectly clear.

Damn right it did.

Maybe background checks are a good idea.

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

Camicon wrote:I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to contest that this wan't terrorism. Mass casualties, specifically of disabled people, by three heavily armed gunmen? What else could it be?
What people are saying is: "don't call it Islamic terrorism, because of one of the name of one of the suspect's". And that is reasonable. We don't know the motivations of the suspects, and pounding the "IT'S THE MOZLEMS!" war drums is irresponsible until we know for sure.

Nobody is pounding those war drums, somebody just brought up the possibility.

Furthermore, I saw no outrage when people immediately accused the abortion clinic shooter of being a Christian. Wait, Muslims are a protected class, how could I forget.

Nobody tried to make the argument that the terrorist in Colorado is representative of all Christians, or pro-lifers. Nobody is trying to use him to justify attack Christianity as a whole. The same cannot be said about Islam, and Islamic terrorists. Or are you completely unaware of what's been saturating the news cycle as of late?

Fartsniffage wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I don't recall the suspect firing at the police.

You were there?

You were?

The Corparation wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I don't recall the suspect firing at the police.

A police officer has been hospitalized with a bullet wound. Images shown earlier a gun was visible next to the body of one of the dead suspects. I think its a reasonable assumption that the suspects opened fire.

I didn't know that. Thank you. The death of the suspects is now far more understandable.

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:The men killed 14 people, I don't see why anyone can express anything other than relief and or happiness at their death.

These suspects are not confirmed to be directly connected to the shooting at the IRC.
The number of people involved are not known, and motives are unknown.

To me, this reeks of the cartels, but political radicalism is another one I'm leaning towards.