Investigators Seek Motive Behind Tennessee Shooting Rampage

What could it be? :laugh4:

If, by some crazy twist of fate, it is determined that this was yet another radicalized muslim, the juxtaposition versus the Charleston shooting will be fascinating. The latter yielded an onslaught of criticism against the supposed southern culture that spawned the shooter, with calls - including from members of this forum - for a wholesale eradication of any and all cultural institutions that remain from the Confederacy. Will the same cultural critique be directed towards Islam in the US after so many attacks, and so many more failed attempts? I'll be crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.

Ban Islam in the goverment.

Ban all religions in Government.

There is only one thing that has nothing to with it

Why criticize "Islam in the USA"?

Criticism regarding radicalization must rightly target the entire Islamic world, as well as the European world, if it pretends to anything other than peevish xenophobia.

Disingenuous comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

What could it be? :laugh4:

If, by some crazy twist of fate, it is determined that this was yet another radicalized muslim, the juxtaposition versus the Charleston shooting will be fascinating. The latter yielded an onslaught of criticism against the supposed southern culture that spawned the shooter, with calls - including from members of this forum - for a wholesale eradication of any and all cultural institutions that remain from the Confederacy. Will the same cultural critique be directed towards Islam in the US after so many attacks, and so many more failed attempts? I'll be crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.

---

The key difference is that fundamentalist committing these attacks have been fed the perverted version of Islam, while the core component of Southern rebellion was slavery.

Protecting state rights has been an ongoing thing in the US of A since the independence and projecting it on the rebellion is trying to ennoble what was really about treason and slavery.

A lovely strawman in the initial post.

Banning the ISIS flag would be a similar comparison as opposed to all reference to a religion - or along with the Confederate flag we'd be banning Christianity which the South managed to warp to view an entire race as being subhuman - from love they neighbour to own they neighbour.

~:smoking:

Huh, the shooter was also a handsome kid.

Hideous beard he grew since then.

Rather, what motivates anyone to murder on behalf of a "cause"?

Maybe, just maybe, it isn't true that there is only one thing that doesn't has anything to do with it, and that the islam has everything to do with it, despite islamapoligists saying that simply isn't true. Ignoring that it is. What was his motive, I really wonder lol of course not islam, inconceivable. If all of us were so bad at getting hints we would be extinct in a hundreds years because nobody would get laid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

The key difference is that fundamentalist committing these attacks have been fed the perverted version of Islam

---

Are you running for political office, or does this tired cliche actually still resonate in some parts of the world?

All I'm saying is that in the US we just spent the last month raging against a culture that hasn't existed for over 150 years, but there's been not a critical word about Islamic culture written in mainstream media outlets. If we can connect Dylann Roof's slaughter in Charleston to Robert E Lee's slaughter of Union soldiers at Chancellorsville, surely we can see how a patriarchal, intolerant, and misogynist culture can breed violence and repression.

"The key difference is that fundamentalist committing these attacks have been fed the perverted version of Islam, while the core component of Southern rebellion was slavery. " Not often I agree with Pz, but the Islamic Terrorists are not perverting Islam. They just read what is written and apply.
So, for me there is no difference between the pro-slavery South (which, may I remind, based the acceptance of slavery in the Bible) and ISIS.
Tenets of Christianity became acceptable by civilised societies because Christianity abandoned most of the most offensive and brutal parts of its writings, thanks to the Enlightenment.
Religions by definition are racists/segregationists, are against universal human right (as rights to be saved is reserved to the believers of the said faith), and as based on bronze-age tribes ideologies and actions, have nothing against genocides, invasions of someone else territories under pretext God(s) give it to them, rapes, slaughters and slavery. All these things we now agree are not nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

surely we can see how a patriarchal, intolerant, and misogynist culture can breed violence and repression.

---

I agree.


I preferred the country the old superman came from Truth, Justice and the American way wasn't so ironic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Are you running for political office, or does this tired cliche actually still resonate in some parts of the world?

---

I would have expected this kind of answer from rednecks, but I generally take that most people here do have a passion and a basic understanding of history. Those with basic understanding of history have no excuse for not knowing how tolerant and progressive Islam can be. The west didn't become more tolerant because of Christianity, but rather when we stopped to listening those weird guys in robes. When we thought religion was important we committed genocides, exterminated entire cultures and happily slaughtered each other to decide whose branch of Christianity was the coolest.

Islam is in many ways a copy/paste of Judaism and Christianity, sprinkled with some Arab Paganism.
Everything is there, from hate the unbeliever to trust blindly in merciful God and he will be there for you. Don't trust in him and you'll go to hell. God is almighty, all-powerful and omnipresent.

And, as with Christianity, it's all about the interpretation. Does it say anywhere in the Quran that women have to be covered up completely? No - it says that one shouldn't desire another man's woman. Men being men, they interpreted it in a way that suits them - let's transfer responsibility to women, and make them cover up, 'cause I really can't resist me some of that shapely tushy, m'kay...

Muslim societies can be secular. For proof, I point out overwhelmingly Muslim but mostly secular and tolerant ex Soviet central Asian republics. Kazakhstan is a much better example than Turkey in this regard, as it has a far greater ethnic and confessional diversity, yet there is almost no violence. The little violence that happens is directed against Jehovah Witnesses and similar groups which actively proselytize.

In the end, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Even if there is a 100,000 standing ready to commit terrorist acts, that is still less than 0,001%. So, I believe my comment about "the perverted version of Islam" is entirely rational, accurate and germane.

Quote:

---

All I'm saying is that in the US we just spent the last month raging against a culture that hasn't existed for over 150 years, but there's been not a critical word about Islamic culture written in mainstream media outlets. If we can connect Dylann Roof's slaughter in Charleston to Robert E Lee's slaughter of Union soldiers at Chancellorsville, surely we can see how a patriarchal, intolerant, and misogynist culture can breed violence and repression.

---

It was not about southern culture but about specific symbols associated first and foremost with racism, slavery and rebellion. Removing those symbols wasn't about eradicating the southern culture, just like removing the swastika wasn't really about eradicating German culture.

I assume there's more to southern culture than the ACW, and, if there isn't, than it should be eradicated.

How about a deathtoll's daily, today over 20 in Turkey, yesterday over 30 in Nigeria, the day before that, oh screw it it's too much work to keep track, what was it, 200 or so I forgot where, somewhere in Africa. Islam is not a religion it's a mental disorder

edit, forgot, yesterday also more than a hundred in Baghdad, so easy to forget if things are a daily routine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How about a deathtoll's daily, today over 20 in Turkey, yesterday over 30 in Nigeria, the day before that, oh screw it it's too much work to keep track, what was it, 200 or so I forgot where, somewhere in Africa. Islam is not a religion it's a mental disorder

edit, forgot, yesterday also more than a hundred in Baghdad, so easy to forget if things are a daily routine

---

All terrorist attacks put together since Islam was founded didn't cause as many civilian deaths as American invasion of Iraq. Or Muslim indiscriminately murdered by European colonial powers.

Who caused most deaths in Iraq, not the coalition but religious groups who hate eachother, without going in into wether or not war was a mistake that fact remains.

"Or Muslim indiscriminately murdered by European colonial powers." Or European indiscriminately murdered by Muslim (mainly Turkish but not only) colonial powers, as you well know being in Balkans.
I wouldn't put colonial/conquest wars in this debate. France didn't invade Algeria because it was Muslim country. France took Algeria in constructing the 2nd Colonial Empire. France will invade what will become Indochina as well, and theses countries were not Muslim (and still not).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Or Muslim indiscriminately murdered by European colonial powers." Or European indiscriminately murdered by Muslim (mainly Turkish but not only) colonial powers, as you well know being in Balkans.
I wouldn't put colonial/conquest wars in this debate. France didn't invade Algeria because it was Muslim country. France took Algeria in constructing the 2nd Colonial Empire. France will invade what will become Indochina as well, and theses countries were not Muslim (and still not).

---

As far as imperialism goes, Turkish rule in the Balkans was infinitely more fair than just about any European colonial rule.

It is not about Europeans invading Muslim countries, it is about Europeans invading countries, period. For several centuries, up to two-three generations ago it was quite normal to murder indiscriminately for material gain of the state or some wealthy individual or companies.

It was organized murder and oppression on a vast scale, sanctioned or organized by the state, by the cultural elites.
On the other end, you've got some fringe, miniscule elements of a religion committing murders. And we are sane and they have a mental disorder.

I hate terrorism as much as anyone, but holding 1,200,000,000 people responsible for the actions of a few people is quite ludicrous.

Indiscriminatly yes, what's in a word. For gain sure. But not because of religion. So indiscriminately indeed. And please don't bring the crusades to the discussion that is so... well so long ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Indiscriminatly yes, what's in a word. For gain sure. But not because of religion. So indiscriminately indeed. And please don't bring the crusades to the discussion that is so... well so long ago

---

So massacring civilian population is okay when it's done for material gain but crazy when done out of religious reasons?

Check.

Way to willfully misrepresent his words there skippy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

The west didn't become more tolerant because of Christianity, but rather when we stopped to listening those weird guys in robes. When we thought religion was important we committed genocides, exterminated entire cultures and happily slaughtered each other to decide whose branch of Christianity was the coolest.

---

The USSR stopped listening to guys in robes and started exterminating them, especially in 1920-1930s. It also can boast of ethnic cleansings (= removing whole nations from their homes) and slaughtering the dissident. So moving away from religion doesn't automatically make a society more tolerant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Muslim societies can be secular. For proof, I point out overwhelmingly Muslim but mostly secular and tolerant ex Soviet central Asian republics. Kazakhstan is a much better example than Turkey in this regard, as it has a far greater ethnic and confessional diversity, yet there is almost no violence.

---

I don't think Khazakhstan is a good example, because after the collapse of the USSR there were ethnic tensions between the Turkic and the Slavic communities which eventually made thousands of the latter leave the country for Russia and Ukraine.
Now such things are not heard about any more, yet in case Russia (Zhirinovsky already does it on occasion) propels its interest ethnic tensions (possibly with a religious admixture - if ISIS takes a hand) will be awake in no time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

As far as imperialism goes, Turkish rule in the Balkans was infinitely more fair than just about any European colonial rule.

It is not about Europeans invading Muslim countries, it is about Europeans invading countries, period. For several centuries, up to two-three generations ago it was quite normal to murder indiscriminately for material gain of the state or some wealthy individual or companies.

It was organized murder and oppression on a vast scale, sanctioned or organized by the state, by the cultural elites.
On the other end, you've got some fringe, miniscule elements of a religion committing murders. And we are sane and they have a mental disorder.

I hate terrorism as much as anyone, but holding 1,200,000,000 people responsible for the actions of a few people is quite ludicrous.

---

And yet it was the British who did most in the history of mankind to end the practice of slavery around the world, and a large proportion of the former British empire still retains cultural and in some cases even political links with their former imperial oppressors. And it's notable that workable liberal democracies are more prevalent in areas formerly oppressed by the nasty British. How many functional liberal democracies are there in the former Ottoman empire? Probably only Turkey, and that because of some fervently Europhilic bloke back in the mists of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

The USSR stopped listening to guys in robes and started exterminating them, especially in 1920-1930s. It also can boast of ethnic cleansings (= removing whole nations from their homes) and slaughtering the dissident. So moving away from religion doesn't automatically make a society more tolerant.

---

Sure, instead of religion we can pervert an ideology. The fact remains that when Europeans were more religious they were also more violent. And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with crusades, as Frags says, we can look at Thirty Years War, a nice pan European conflict and in reality a mass slaughter of those following different branch of Christianity.

Quote:

---

I don't think Khazakhstan is a good example, because after the collapse of the USSR there were ethnic tensions between the Turkic and the Slavic communities which eventually made thousands of the latter leave the country for Russia and Ukraine.
Now such things are not heard about any more, yet in case Russia (Zhirinovsky already does it on occasion) propels its interest ethnic tensions (possibly with a religious admixture - if ISIS takes a hand) will be awake in no time.

---

There's bound to be some tensions in a collapsing country with a ruined economy. It's a wonder it haven't been worse and it's kind of a testament to my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And yet it was the British who did most in the history of mankind to end the practice of slavery around the world, and a large proportion of the former British empire still retains cultural and in some cases even political links with their former imperial oppressors.

---

So? Russia subjugated and oppressed all Muslim states in central Asia, and they keep cultural and political links and the mixed population lives generally in peace.

It doesn't really make sense to hold a grudge indefinitely or we'd never get anything done.

Quote:

---

And it's notable that workable liberal democracies are more prevalent in areas formerly oppressed by the nasty British.

---

Well, "workable" isn't really easily definable, but the proper democracies built on western models today are those countries that were pretty much empty when British appeared, like Australia, Canada or USA.

In all other places, where there's been a big population, British track record isn't that great. Even in India there are massive human right abuses, from child labour to mutilation, religious violence and so. Burma isn't any better. Do I need to mention Pakistan or Afghanistan? In Singapore they chop your head of if you have a joint. Sub Saharan Africa is filled with dictatorships... British loved to rekindle old rivalries and encouraged conflict between natives when it suited their interest.

So, no, regardless of what Brits like to think, Britain hasn't been a more just overlord than France or Netherlands.

Quote:

---

How many functional liberal democracies are there in the former Ottoman empire? Probably only Turkey, and that because of some fervently Europhilic bloke back in the mists of time.

---

Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Israel, Jordan...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Sure, instead of religion we can pervert an ideology. The fact remains that when Europeans were more religious they were also more violent. And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with crusades, as Frags says, we can look at Thirty Years War, a nice pan European conflict and in reality a mass slaughter of those following different branch of Christianity.

---

It was a post-30YW yet still religious Europe that developed what Ataturk described as the one civilisation. Religious arguments were behind the pushes for equal treatment of Man, better treatment of the weak beyond what we needed to, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

The fact remains that when Europeans were more religious they were also more violent.

---

With Russians it was vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

There's bound to be some tensions in a collapsing country with a ruined economy. It's a wonder it haven't been worse and it's kind of a testament to my point.

---

It isn't. In other republics (including those of Central Asia) such tensions were not reported. I know that at the end of 1980s flats in Alma-Ata were sold for next to nothing or even abandoned by their Slavic owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It was a post-30YW yet still religious Europe that developed what Ataturk described as the one civilisation. Religious arguments were behind the pushes for equal treatment of Man, better treatment of the weak beyond what we needed to, etc.

---

Because it's all about the interpretation. Christianity can be violent and tolerant, just like Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

With Russians it was vice versa.

---

Hardly. Even though Russian nationalists like to think that, Imperial Russia was just as oppressive as USSR later was.

Quote:

---

It isn't. In other republics (including those of Central Asia) such tensions were not reported. I know that at the end of 1980s flats in Alma-Ata were sold for next to nothing or even abandoned by their Slavic owners.

---

Well, if Kazakhstan is the worst central Asian republic in that regard, it illustrates my point even better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

So? Russia subjugated and oppressed all Muslim states in central Asia, and they keep cultural and political links and the mixed population lives generally in peace.

It doesn't really make sense to hold a grudge indefinitely or we'd never get anything done.

---

How long did the old CIS last?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Well, "workable" isn't really easily definable, but the proper democracies built on western models today are those countries that were pretty much empty when British appeared, like Australia, Canada or USA.

In all other places, where there's been a big population, British track record isn't that great. Even in India there are massive human right abuses, from child labour to mutilation, religious violence and so. Burma isn't any better. Do I need to mention Pakistan or Afghanistan? In Singapore they chop your head of if you have a joint. Sub Saharan Africa is filled with dictatorships... British loved to rekindle old rivalries and encouraged conflict between natives when it suited their interest.

So, no, regardless of what Brits like to think, Britain hasn't been a more just overlord than France or Netherlands.

---

And how does Britain compare with the Ottomans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Israel, Jordan...

---

So how does that lot compare with the US, India, the former dominions, etc.? Where do the former Ottoman territories rank in the lists of open government and low government corruption? Hang on, while I scroll down the list until I get to the last page. Israel is pretty much the only high ranking country in those lists, and I doubt even the most fanatical Ottomanophile (barring the odd Serb) would give the Ottomans any credit for that one. Especially when the argument of building from nothing has already been put to avoid giving Britain any credit for Canada, Australia and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How long did the old CIS last?

---

CIS is still alive and well. It may or may not be replaced with EEC later.

Quote:

---

And how does Britain compare with the Ottomans?

---

I don't give Ottomans credit for any of those countries, especially as most of those countries liberated themselves between a century or more ago. I just used your measuring stick.

But, if you want to push it, all countries subjugated by the Ottomans, kept their local customs, language, religion. They had access to education and more or less important government positions. Their rights and businesses were protected. They weren't taxed excessively and the central government made sure that all regions can develop.
Most of that started crumbling when the empire started crumbling, though.

Which is all generally in stark contrast with British administration of India or American colonies, for example.

Quote:

---

So how does that lot compare with the US, India, the former dominions, etc.? Where do the former Ottoman territories rank in the lists of open government and low government corruption? Hang on, while I scroll down the list until I get to the last page. Israel is pretty much the only high ranking country in those lists, and I doubt even the most fanatical Ottomanophile (barring the odd Serb) would give the Ottomans any credit for that one. Especially when the argument of building from nothing has already been put to avoid giving Britain any credit for Canada, Australia and so on.

---

Building from nothing covers USA also, not just Australia and Canada. Open government and government corruption aren't the only important things. One can look at countries where most forced child labour is...

Attachment 15761

and say that a huge chunk of those countries with the worst record have been former British colonies.

Also, where is Uganda and other former British African colonies on that list?