Mars posted:Kari posted:Nehru, I will repeat what Chief said to you "Shutyuh sk0nt".
Warrior, go tek a cheap likka drink with Nehru.
The rest of the folks here are even-handed and sober about their posts, even T, as I would be apprehensive when near Middle Eastern people behaving suspiciously or furtively. The shooter's neighbor encapsulated the dilemma - act in a racially profiling way or risk a serious act ofterror.
The question is still to be answered - is this Islamic Terrorism (any talk of Allah-o-Akbar or death to the infidels or note about allegiance to ISIS or Al Qaeda) or workplace violence (guy got pissed at a Christmas party)?
What is known is that there were the assault rifles and bombs and possibly some planning.
It depends on your definition of Islamic Terrorism. Would it be acts of violence carried out by Muslims or terrorist acts inspired by Islam or something else?
Excellent question Mars; and it goes to the heart of the exchanges with caribny and itaname.
You can look at life dogmatically or with an open mind. The open mind becomes closed when there is overwhelming evidence that one should shut out certain pathways in thinking.
Now to the question. I look at what is referred to as Islamic Terrorism or Islamic Terrorists as not defining the religion of Islam. It is true that these subhumans use the name of Islam to let the world know that it is their source, inspiration and calling that is Islam, but that doesn't make it so.
If all terrorists call themselves Islamic then those who are Islamic but do not think these terrorist acts represent Islam, they must speak out. Speaking out (1) against these scums of the planet, and (ii) defending Islam are not mutually exclusive aims. This is what those who look at what I post miss, and in turn they come across as bigoted.