Muslim american shoots 6 kills 1 woman in Seattle
|
Muslim american shoots 6 kills 1 woman in Seattle
|
He shoots 6 and kills one at a jewish womens organization.
www.optusnet.com.au/news/...700440.inp Yet another example of radical muslims being angry and attacking non-combatants. howard melton
Because god knows we've never seen someone kill other random people because he believed to much in Christianity, or Judaism or the voices in his head.
This man was a psychopath. Blaming what he did on Islam is like blaming Grand Theft Auto for gang crime. ------------------ Epsilon 
_______________________
Because god knows we've never seen someone kill other random people because he believed to much in Christianity, or Judaism or the voices in his head. This man was a psychopath. Blaming what he did on Islam is like blaming Grand Theft Auto for gang crime. ________________________ The guy is almost certainly not part of an organised group, but you don't have to be to be a terrorist. As for him being a psychopath, how does that change things? The GTA comparison is meaningless, as Gang Bangers don't repeatly claim that it was the cause of their crimes.
And Christians support incest and think rapists ought to have a right to their children.
Showing, once again, that Christians have no respect for the law of the land, for women, or for common human decency. Or maybe one incident isn't representative of every Christian, just like the actions of one Muslim are not representative of the millions of Muslims in the United States. Maybe some people are just fucked up, and will make use of whatever excuse they need to to justify their fucked-up actions to themselves.
What bothers me is the fact that if this man had claimed to be a Christian, Jewish, kkk, skin-head, neo-nazi or even a satanist that would have been in the head line.
Instead you have to read a significant portion of the article to find out he was claiming he did this in the name of a muslim cause. I believe the news organizations in America and around the world are afraid to mention muslims in a bad light. Partly out of fear of being done like ?Rashied? or those poor cartoonist and partly out of being politically correct. I think the news services around the world are giving radical muslim an unfair bais and advantage in there reporting. howard melton  Quote:Even taking into account that this is sarcasm, the leap in "logic" required to make this "point" is truly herculean. There is no direct correlation between the article you posted and the discussion at hand. None. I see absolutely no point to your comparison here other than to try and hijeck the discussion. This is a classic "straw man" if ever I saw one. Basically you've willfully "missed" the actual point of the discussion because you have no logical counter argument. You're just trying to distract by doing the debate equivalant of "look! your shoelace is untied!"-Logan ----------------- "This kind of thing tends invariably to devolve into the kind of "No, Nakajima, THIS is true power!!" argument that only really works if you're yelling it from the cockpit of a giant robot . . ." -----------------
Hi, Logan, sweetie. Still determined to jump randomly in and attack, huh?
Hmelton posted an article where a single Muslim American attacked people and said, and I quote, "Yet another example of radical muslims being angry and attacking non-combatants." So I posted an article of Christian-backed legislation which forces women to share child rights with their rapists and forced them to have children that are products of incest. Then noted that if I used the same logic Hmelton did, I would conclude that Christians have no respect for women or common human decency. Do you understand now? Would you like me to find an article of Christians bombing an abortion clinic, perhaps, and say they're all hypocritical murderers? Perhaps one where a Christian protestor is using a picture of a miscarriage and calling it an abortion, and say it's yet another example of Christians being liars? Or perhaps I could use Mel Gibson as an example of how "yet another Christian turns out to be an anti-semite"? I'm sorry, I thought explaining the point of the comparison in the very post it was made would allow it to be grasped. But apparently I'm too concerned with "hijeking" the "point" of this "discussion" about "Yet another example of radical muslims being angry and attacking non-combatants" to make it clear enough for you.
Actually Ayiekie I said "Radical" muslim.
By the logic of my statement you should have said Radical christians or "a minority of extremist christians", not class all christians as thinking rapist should have visitation rights or with the tiny minority who think murdering or bombing the "trained professional murders" most non-christians call abortion doctors. Why are you defending the Radical muslim by attacking all christians? I don't defend the extremist christians that bomb abortion clinics or attack the abortion doctors. Your creating a straw man ignoring key words in my statement and seem to be letting an anger at christians and thier beliefs cloud your statements and lead you to defending the radically extreme members of the muslim religion. A group that have no defense for their actions. I would never think to defend the actions of a murderer of an abortion doctor. I wasn't talking about all muslims just the radical ones like the man in Seattle who thought it was right to attack non-combatants or helpless people. For Epsilon The man's state of mind wasn't that important 20 years ago he probably would have done it in the name of the neo-nazis or kkk. You did bring up a thought what does this say about the sanity of the large minority of radicals in Lebonon who are willing to set up missiles near schools and private homes or even neutral third parties in the hope the ones they are attacking will be forced to shoot through women and children to stop the murder of their own people. I also thought I had contrasted my "headline" well enough to point out how politically correct the newspaper's headline was. Such politically correct headlines serve to conceal the true nature of the murderous event biasing any search made of headlines for muslim terrorism in the US. Would you think it right to conceal the true nature of the event if the man in seattle had instead picked up reading material and videos from the neo-nazis or kkk and used that to feed his insanity? I think radical muslims should be viewed the same as the neo-nazis and watched just as carefully it is currently politically correct to ignore them because the are loosely associated with a major religion. The kkk are loosely associated with the christian religion should we give them the same pass as we are giving the radical muslims? howard melton
You're quite right, hmelton, even if you seem determined to assume I hate Christians. I don't. You'll also notice I never said a single word in defence of this man's actions or of radicals of any religion, except to note that some people are fucked up and will take any excuse necessary to act out.
I was pointing out that there's also violent and hateful fringe Christian movements, which are not taken to represent the whole. I'm glad you didn't think the actions of this one man represent all Muslims either, but from the tone of your initial post and many statements made by other people, it's hard to assume. Notice I wasn't the only person to react with "It's not a Muslim thing, it's a psycho thing". Now that you've clarified, I have no problem with your initial statement. The actions of Hezbollah are enough to merit their own discussion, as well as the actions of Israel in response to them. Quote:- So he 'clarified' by repeating something he said in the first post? Err... did that actually make sense when you thought it in your head? Then you post an unrelated story that you declare involves people are supporting incest... The rapists having rights to the children I can half see, in a convoluted way... but you managed to define incest as the production of offspring with blood relatives ...and at the same time manage to declare, with your phrasement, that sex with blood realatives is itself not incest. Quote:That that was all you took out of this says something about your thought process. Quote:Other threads have actually dealt with that... The odd thing is that still doesn't really relate to this thread or the precedding comment. So my question is: Are you actully aware you can start your own threads? This is a yes, no answer question.
Neccie, neccie, let me explain things to you.
Sometimes when people say things, they are not clear and can be misunderstood. If that's the case, people - more than one person, for instance, as in this case - may see something in what was said that was not intended. If that is the case, the person who said things will often clarify them to be better understood, and the person who misunderstood will go "Ah, I see", and no longer have cause for disagreement. This is how adults talk. Do you understand now? I started a thread less than two weeks ago that is on the front page of this forum, so, "yes", I know you can start a thread. I also know my comment about Israel and Hezbollah was in direct response to hmelton saying "You did bring up a thought what does this say about the sanity of the large minority of radicals in Lebonon...", which is in fact a reference to Hezbollah. I'm glad to have helped you get caught up on posts two above yours and the fifth thread from the top of this forum! Quote:Okay. Now let's change one word in this sentence. Yet another example of radical blacks being angry and attacking non-combatants. Can you spot the racism in that sentence? HMelton, if you don't want to come off as being biased against muslims, don't use the words "radical muslims" in your sentence. Use the word "radical asshole" or "radical fanatic" or something. It works much better, and no one accuses you of being a dick. ------------------ Epsilon
Okay Ayiekie I can see how not noticing or realizing the emphasis I was wanting on the word radical.
I was relying on that to make the difference between normal moslims and the radicals who have fallen into the same reasoning as the neo-nazis or the kkk. Ayiekie am I mistaken in thinking I've seen you using christians or thier values as "counter examples" in several other arguments and even in your SIGs? I confess to believing you had done this several times in the pass and in this case I believe it was inappropriate. The so called christian kkk would have been a good counter example of a Radical christian group. Back to the subject of Radical muslims Found this while making a post to the thread with information on the Hezzbolla. It was a reference source or further reading. This thread has talked about the American shooter's mental state and if it was important or not. I have to question the reasoning and mental state of the Radical Muslims currently in control of Iran. You can see thier views mirrored in the Hezzbolla's tactic of building schools and homes over the rocket bunkers. www.matthiaskuentzel.de/c...jads-world I remember a Iranian expatriot student in the mid to late 1980's telling me he hated his countries leaders because of the way they made war with Iraq. He said his brothers/family had died fighting Iraq and he had avoided it by leaving and doing well enough in universities to avoid being returned. He had petitioned for political refugee status it was under consideration at the time and I never found out if he got it. The next semester I think was one where I worked full time instead of attending the university and he was gone when I had enough saved to attend again. I never asked what happened at the at the time I vaguely equated him with the 'Draft evaders from the veitnam war... I don't know or can't remember if it was his younger brothers or older brothers that had died. I don't even remember his name he was just one of the many middle east students I studied engineering with. howard melton
Hello Epsilon
I don't see any racism and substituting black in doesn't make my statement racist. Do you not remember the "Radical black splinter groups? They were most active in the 1960's and the 1970's and were a violent minority that wanted and did use terror techniques to try and achieve more freedom. They differed from the peaceful demonstrations and methods favored by most blacks in fighting for more of there freedom? Unlike Martin Luther King Jr. and the methods he supported these radical groups advocated and used the same violence the Radical christian group calling itself kkk used. They were a smaller minority than the Radical christian group called the kkk, but both used terror techniques and both associated themselves with larger groups that didn't agree with their methods or actions. Leaving out the fact they were black in the description of the group doing the violence is silly. As silly as leaving out the fact that the kkk is known for burning crosses in black people yards and white peoples yards that are to sympathetic to the blacks. It's important to describe such groups by their association with larger groups because it helps to understand them and describes them better. It also gives a possible key into thier recruitment methods and main sources of members. I've heard rabid kkk radio preachers trying to use the bible to prove that it was "killer" cain and his descendants who were "turned black" as the mark spoke of in the Bible. It was probably my laughter and the joking way I poked holes in the reasoning a few days later at my high school by making the statment "That Cain could have just as easily been turned white" that got me the kkk notes in my locker and high school books. I live less than 100 miles from Memphis and at the time I was foolish enough to think that such racism was nearly dead. If I simply call them kkk you have no understanding or knowledge of thier methods of twisting and distorting mainstream christian values to justify thier hate and acts of terror. Calling them Radical Christians in two words gives you a inkling and start at understanding them far more than kkk ever would. The same goes for the Radical muslim groups that have formed, you cannot begin to understand them until you realize they are groups twisting the muslim religion and using it to justify their hate and acts of terror. I don't think for a second that the majority of muslims advocate attacking women or building rocket bases under schools or that it is allah's will that children be used to clear land mines. The large minority that do support these actions have twisted their religion and the beliefs of the majority in much the same way the kkk have twisted the beliefs of the majority of christians. You can't accurately describe these terror groups by simply calling them Hezzbola, Al Keada or any of the dozens of names they use. Being politically correct and keeping the key muslim aspect out of the headlines and descriptions denies reality, ignores part of thier view and hobbles your understanding. How many people are aware of the kkk's common practice of twisting the bible to support thier hatrid? Any use of the words black or muslim in a negative context has become an automatic assumption of racism, when in reality it is simply politically incorrect to do so. It is not racism and assuming it is hobbles any chance of full understanding of what we are facing. I've seen studies of the kkk's and neo-nazi's methods of recruitment and many of thier methods are carefully taylored and geared to select for mentally unstable people and then enhance those instabilities through the use of arguments based onfoundation religous beliefs. In other words many of the videos and tapes the groups like the kkk and other white supremist produce are carefully geared to attract people with mental instabilities. I suspect the radical muslim groups like the Hezzbolla and others might be using the same type of methods to recruit certain groups of people? Thanks to the automatic knee jerk politically correct responce of hiding the muslim connection you can't tell if the radicals are using the techniques or not. Epsilon would you have considered my statement racist had I left out the muslims? Like it or not the muslim religion is a key part of the Hezzbola, Al Keada and countless other terror groups in the middiles east. They are all radical elements of the muslim religion and make heavy use of that religion twisting it to justify their actions. Like it or not the christian religion is a key part of the kkk and many other white supremist groups in the United States. They are often radical elements of the christian religion and make heavy use of that religion twisting it to justify their actions. Neither statement is racist and gives a far better understanding of what the groups stand for and their methods and recruiting targets than the politically correct meaningless statements ever could. Can my simple statements be taken in the wrong fashion yes, but at least they don't bend over backwards and hide a key aspect of the topic. I have no doubt the kkk would easily use them as an excuse to advocate killing muslim american's, but stripping away the fact that the majority of attacks on jews are often inspired by radical muslims or radical muslim propaganda and ideas just because they can used by twisted by racist is just as bad. It is not racism to use the muslim word to describe a group that has ties to the muslim religion and use that religion to spread their beliefs and create yet more of thier terror and violence. By being politically correct you ignore and hide something that is being used as a key aspect of the problem. Had the man's pyscologist and the police not been blinded by the fear of being racist about the muslim religion they might have notice the warning signs that he had taken a unhealthy interest in the more radical, violent and twisted version of the muslim religion. These twisted version are spread extensively by the terror groups and yet the police can take no notice for fear of being labeled racist. howard melton
You are mistaken, hmelton. If I've brought up Christian values, it would only be in a story directly related to them, which I don't recall doing here (but might be wrong). I've never used a sig here, and certainly would never put anything anti-Christian in it. I am not a Christian, but I firmly believe in the right of all people to believe in whatever they feel is right, as long as they don't harm others according to said belief.
Quote:Descriptors, yes. Racism, not really. Radical blacks... say those lovely Black Panthers from the 60-70? They were radical and black... that was their defining characteristics. Like the radical Muslims, have the main descriptor as radical and Islamic. Like the KKK is radical and white. If we use your 'suggestions', Epsilon, we dilute the point of the sentence. Sanitize it. Call a spade a spade.... The nutball in the origin article was quoted with: Quote:That was his cause... Islam... not any specific group. If we use your suggest of '"radical fanatic", I can easily interpret that this man with in fact a Pokemon fanboy or a stamp collector. That and "radical fanatic" is a bit repetitive. Your other suggestion would mean that practically anyone... also the reason behind the attack was that of "Muslim, kill Jews! Muslim mad at Israel!" So this is a rather specific case of a 'hate crime' by a Muslim on random Jews. If we take the descriptors out it does become random loon shoots 6 kills 1, which means that this thread would be a series of post to articles about homicidal loons. That I would have preferred really. Quote:For an instance of sanitizing speech, this s a good example of a non argument. Why? In order for this to work you would have to find an example of someone killing in the name of: GTA. The article in the first post is a clear example of someone who provided 'I'm Muslim' As his primary motivation. Also format wise, your argument is that gang violence was caused by GTA... When GTA is a parody of gang violence. Meaning the violence was pre-existing. By format this argues that killing in the name of Islam is a major cause of Islam. Which I don't think was your intent. Quote:Actually its a 'Psycho Muslim' thing... which was the point of the first post and article, in the first place. Quote:No, no you didn't. What you did was slip into 'Mock the mindless idiots that disagree with me' mode again. Which the talking to a small child tone of your post, is focused on. Now that you have mockingly answered 'Yes', to my question we can continue. What you did was attempt to switch the topic from the current one to the 'Hezbollah vs. Isreal' war going on... which is what you tried to lead into... ignoring the topic of this thread. Changing the subject with you is for one reason... lack of a useful counter-argument on your side. The whole, 'Now that I'm short of legs to my argument... topic switch as I won that one. This I proclaim.' thing. I'm fully aware that the 'Hezbollah vs. Israel' was brought up... which was specifically a question of the mind set involved in their 'rack up the civilian body count' mentality. Which was a reference to the same mind set of the 'I'm mad at a country, I'm going to go kill people of the same religion' thing from the first article. They were both brought up in the context of killing random people in the name of: Islam! context. Your attempt at a shift was to the 'Vs Isreal' part not the 'mind set of the Radical Muslim' part. Oh and Epsilon usually ends up on your side with random arguements that are often easy to point out the flaws in.
Hmelton's original title for this thread: Muslim american shoots 6 kills 1 woman in Seattle
The headline of the article posted: Seattle shooting one dead, five injured So, since there was no "descriptor" in the title, does that make the title racist? Quote:This is easily avoided by giving a statement context. Certainly you can't use pithy one liners like hmelton did in his first post if you have to give context and meaning to your statements, but by doing so you avoid looking like a dick. Saying "yet another example of radical muslims" is... bad taste, at the very least. If you don't think that its offensive, I suggest you go to a predominantly arab/muslim neighbourhood and start yelling it aloud. See what kind fo reaction you get. If you want to have a reasoned debate, or dialogue of any kind, about the effects of fanatical fundamentalist religions and the effects wars, racial persecution and epidemic poverty can have on people and how such beliefs can cause the mentally unstable to commit horrible acts, then do so. But don't start it off with a pithy one liner. I'm just genuinely confused here. What exactly was hmelton's purpose for posting that? He didn't ask any questions. He didn't make any points (according to you and he, since he isn't insinuating that Islam is a violent religion, just that nutters exist in it, like they do in every religon). He didn't open up any discussion. He basically just posted a link, made a pithy quote that sounded vaguely racist and did... nothing else? What was he trying to get people to say? Wink and chuckle a the "radical muslims" with him? Quote:GTA might very well be a parody of gang violence. But that wasn't my point. My POINT was that there are people in the world (such as, say, the US Senate) that blame gang and youth violence on things such as Grand Theft Auto. Following me so far? Now, since we both agree that GTA is NOT a cause of gang violence, we can agree that the very idea is spurious. Okay? Now. The proposal that this man shot up a bunch of people because of Islam is like the proposal that GTA causes gang and youth violence, in my mind. You may agree, or not agree. Hence my original point which was: Quote:I'll break it down: 1) The man is a psychopath. 2) The idea that this was the fault of Islam is silly. 3) As silly as the idea that GTA is the cause of gang violence. Now, do you understand that? ------------------- Epsilon
I find it disturbing when calling something what it is can be considered racism.
In the case of the man in this article. He is a radical. He is a muslim. He is a radical who (according to witness) cited being a muslim as his reason for doing radical acts. Calling him a radical muslim doesn't seem like that unreasonable. (That last part would also probably be the thing differentiating this from the GTA thing. This is more like someone engaging in gang violence, and saying that they did it because of GTA. Which would be pretty surprising...) Oh, and perhaps hmelton posted the link because he thought people might find the story interesting? That's something I see lots of people doing. '.' -Morgan."I have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, or espers here, come sleep with me." ---From "The Ecchi of Haruhi Suzumiya" -----(Not really)
I'm guessing that the fact that the shooter was actually Christian will have no effect whatsoever on the "all Muslims are evil" crowd.
Now to be consistent, I'm sure they'll be rushing to insist that all Christians everywhere must issue statements condemning his actions, and then (regardless of how many do) proclaiming that their failure to condemn his actions is proof that all Christians are evil terrorists. (Okay, I won't hold my breath waiting.)
FIRST AYIEKIE
I thought I'd seen you use a sig with anti-christian slogans add it together with your rebuttal seeming to suddenly argue that that all christians were as bad as the radical muslims. I didn't realize you hadn't noticed the "radical" and I was wondering if you had an issue with "all" christians and the reason for it. NEXT EPSILON My SECOND reason for starting the thread was for information for others. I look for incidents of muslim violence in the US, just as I keep an eye on kkk activity in the south. I'm not being racist. I do it simply because I believe or hope that it will give me some warning of another 911 type event or a upswing in kkk activity. I first noticed in studying the history of inventions that humans seem to anticipate each others work, it's caused some very angry inventors to accusing each other of theft, but actually seems to point toward something more profound about the human mind. I've also noticed a similiar effect in fanfic posting and in several cases for an instant entertained the silly notion that my computer was compromised and some hacker was selling my ideas to other writers.(what really hurt was that most were far better implimentations of ideas I'd been playing with.) I think I've seen the same sort of anticipation in unrelated terror groups activities and hope I can use it to have some warning about another 911 type attack. The sanatized politically correct headlines our news companies are currently in love with makes this a hard thing to study when your looking for activities of radical muslim groups. Which brings me to the FIRST reason I started this thread and the reasons for the way I worded it. The first reason for posting it and for the wording of the post was because of the sanitization of the headline. It removed all reference to muslim or jew. The title was so politically correct it gave very little useful info. I believe had the man been screaming kkk or some other radical christian groups slogans you would have had the head line and a short comment close to what I started the thread with. The comment is very rough paraphrase of some archived news articles talking about the activities of the kkk. (can't remember when they were from it has been several years since the library research.) I don't think it's a direct quote of any, but I think it gets the spirit of those first line comments in many articles. Bad taste? maybe I personally didn't think so, but the newspaper was in worse taste by leaving critical information out. FINALLY KHAGLER Thanks for the link I would have missed this follow on article. It's interesting article. I'm no expert or pyscologist, but it made me think of something I read years ago about kkk members that had "left the fold" and returned. Seems they were required to do something "above the call" to regain a membership in good standing. I'm not saying this is the case here or that even someone local mentioned that to the man, but most of the radical muslim propaganda comes right out and says that killing a jew will "cover a multitude of sins" with allah. I'm sure he has been exposed to such propaganda the radicals make sure there ideas makes the rounds in muslim groups and I suspect they, like the kkk have learned to taylor the propaganda to appeal to the mentally unstable. I don't know if it's official position or just over zeolous muslims, but all mosque have enforcers that come down on you if you leave the religion. I doubt the police will do the checking,(it would appear racist to some) but they really should check and see if the man has been approached or harassed by muslims not happy with him leaving the faith. I'm not saying it was a purposely done thing, but given the man's mental state just putting to much emphasis on how bad his "sin" was could have played a part in his actions especially if he had a change of heart about the christian faith and thought he had to do something "above the call" to regain his standings with allah. Finally Khagler I don't think anyone replying to this thread thinks all muslims are bad, evil or support the values of the radical muslims. The man was yelling radical muslim slogans not radical christian slogans and that brings me back to the point of my first post and it's wording. Had the man went in yelling radical christian slogans from the kkk or a half dozen other such groups that hate jews you would have seen that in the headlines. You would have also seen the local police checking the church were he was baptised for kkk or other radical christian connections. I believe you won't see the police officially checking the local mosque for radical moslim connections because all to many people will scream RACISM! Racism is wrong and evil, but fear of looking racist and people screaming racism at the drop of a hat creates a dangerous blindness that given the hatred around us we can't afford. howard melton
Once again, Howard, sorry for the confusion, but I have never used a sig on this board. Ever. Let alone an anti-Christian one. You have me confused with someone else, I'm afraid. I have no issue with Christians specifically (for that matter, lumping every sect of Christianity together is so broad a category of people and beliefs that you might as well lump in Muslims and Jews as well. Hell, Zoroastrians too).
Quote:I guess you missed my point in saying "Also format wise"... I was saying that you wrote a statement that came out: Hat is to head, as foot is to shoe. I'm not disagreeing with the point you made... I'm disagreeing with the format use phrased it in. Like my above example, where hat and foot are in one catagory and head and hat are in the other. Your point came out in the format of: Islam is to the cause of killing in the name of Islam, as gang crime is to GTA. You put your point in a format that put the effects as 'Islam' and 'gang crime' and the causes as 'Killing in the name of Islam' and 'GTA'. This was my point not a disagreement with the guy being a psycho. Yes... pithy one liners are retorts (not often helpful until later in the argument.) Can't agree on the badness of descriptors... the first few posts weren't clear and that made half this discussion. Quote:While an interesting biographical note: He wasn't actually Christian (he missed the point entirely if he thought he was... he did stop attending before hand and ranted otherwise.) He was working towards converting then flipped out and reverted to Islam and then started killing people over it... he is loony and his motives aren't always going to make real sense. That he stared killing in the name of: Islam, is enough of an indicator in his mind that he was Islamic... and is once again. His proclaimed cause was Islam, that the ones he was Islamic with all went 'WTF? Why the hell is he killing those guys? Where did that come from?. Means he went homicidal on his own... maybe Sam was reincarnated and had a nice talk with him, its new owner. I don't like Islam. I fully admit that I don't have any love of the religion. I haven't seen anything good about it that isn't already covered by Christianity. Which are both worshipping the same tribal god gone, monotheistic over-God. Their argument is over how to do the worshipping. I don't hate the people who are Islamic for the most part. Its the homicidal ones that want to have a global fascist dictatorship with Islam (their branch at least) as the Global state religion and kill everyone else and their mercenary flunkies. The homicidal ones that think the Nazis are excellent role models are the problem, not the rank and file. The group I don't like have been refereed to as 'radical', 'militant' and a few other descriptors. They are the issue. My hate for them is more in the category of hate that I leave to the enemy forces in various video games: They want to kill me for existing. I have a problem with this. They can die now. Rather than a how dare you not be like me kind of hate they tend to radiate. And no... I'm not a Christian or Jew or Muslim. I have issues with a monotheistic god that starts off its holy book by dictating that in the beginning we created the world. The logic hole annoys me. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
