Do listen to this emotional but incoherent rant. It is still not clear what Stefan Molyneux actually wants. Forbid people from saying sodomy should be criminalised? Forbid people from pointing out that the Bible does indeed require the death penalty for sodomites? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A13&version=ESV Forbid Islam? Abolish the First Amendment together with the Second Amendment? Islam is clearly so powerful as an ideology that fear of Islam can make American Islamophobes call for the abolition of their own constitution. Awesome! If you can't beat them, join them. That would be another American saying.
Doesn't @StefanMolyneux know the Bible, like the Koran, also forbids sodomy? https://t.co/KGI4mdNVuY— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
What more does @StefanMolyneux want after Muslim gunman has already been shot dead by the police? https://t.co/KGI4mdNVuY— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Can a criminal turn himself into a terrorist just by saying that he is one?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Who has the higher status? a) A criminal b) A terrorist— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
A distinction should be made between a common or garden mass murderer aspiring to be a terrorist and someone who is one.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Is it possible to be a Muslim mass murderer yet not be a terrorist?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Which is worse? Your only son is a— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Which is worse? Your son is a— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@Lyesmyth @StefanMolyneux Can a homophobic mass murderer become a terrorist just because he says he is one?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@Lyesmyth @StefanMolyneux A terrorist clearly has a higher status than a common or garden homoophobic mass murderer.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux Is any Muslim mass murderer automatically a terrorist just because he says he is one?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux As I see it, Mateen gifted his mass murder to ISIS, and they eagerly accepted it.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux What if your crime was committed for personal reasons eg arson which you later claimed to be political?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux Why would a criminal claim to be a terrorist? Because it gives him a higher status.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux Why is a terrorist considered to have a higher status than a mere criminal?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux An act of terrorism committed for political reasons is higher value than a mere crime committed for selfish ones.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
 |
| Gavrilo Princip - the world's most successful terrorist, whose assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand caused a chain of events that led to the destruction of the Austrian Empire. He even died a natural death. |
Omar Mateen sounds like the typical axe murderer going on a gun rampage. You can blame it on Islam if you want, but there are plenty of angry beta males who often fantasise about going on a gun rampage, even before ISIS was ever heard of. In America with its Second Amendment, it is easier to go on a gun rampage if you feel like going on a killing spree.
While Mateen said he did for ISIS, we could perhaps imagine ourselves as a potential mass murderer wanting to be bigger and badder than any other common or garden mass murderer.
The lowest status mass murderer would be to have been a gunman who "went postal" after he was sacked from his job.
The highest status mass murderer would to have been a terrorist who murdered significant numbers of men declared to be the enemies of his organisation, causing a worldwide outcry.
If you were an ambitious terrorist you would want to be as successful as the World War causing Gavrilo Princip. His act of terrorism led to the destruction of the Austrian Empire.
Now, which would you choose if you were a rational mass murderer who wanted maximum publicity post mortem?
How many of you would have been actually disappointed if the gunman had not been Muslim? At least Mateen did not disappoint you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok
Amok originated from the Malay/Indonesian word mengamuk, which when roughly defined means “to make a furious and desperate charge”. According to Malay/Indonesian culture, amok was rooted in a deep spiritual belief. They believed that amok was caused by the hantu belian, which was an evil tiger spirit that entered one’s body and caused the heinous act. As a result of the belief, those in Indonesian culture tolerated amok and dealt with the after-effects with no ill will towards the assailant.
Although commonly used in a colloquial and less-violent sense, the phrase is particularly associated with a specific sociopathic culture-bound syndrome in Malaysian culture. In a typical case of running amok, an individual (often male), having shown no previous sign of anger or any inclination to violence, will acquire a weapon (traditionally a sword or dagger, but presently any of a variety of weapons) and in a sudden frenzy, will attempt to kill or seriously injure anyone he encounters and himself. Amok typically takes place in a well populated or crowded area. Amok episodes of this kind normally end with the attacker being killed by bystanders or committing suicide, eliciting theories that amok may be a form of intentional suicide in cultures where suicide is heavily stigmatized. Those who do not commit suicide and are not killed typically lose consciousness, and upon regaining consciousness, claim amnesia.
An early Western description of the practice appears in the journals of Captain James Cook, a British explorer, who encountered amok firsthand in 1770 during a voyage around the world. Cook writes of individuals behaving in a reckless, violent manner, without cause and "indiscriminately killing and maiming villagers and animals in a frenzied attack."
A widely accepted explanation links amok with male honor (amok by women is virtually unknown). Running amok would thus be both a way of escaping the world (since perpetrators were normally killed) and re-establishing one's reputation as a man to be feared and respected. Some observers have related this explanation to Islam's ban on suicide, which, it is suggested, drove Malay/Indonesian men to create circumstances in which others would kill them.
Simon Sheppard explores the mind of the spree killer
It is well to recall the position in earlier, more masculine times. Hitler was able to stand and wave to adoring crowds as his procession passed along, this at a time when gun ownership was commonplace and limited only by the requirement that firearms be officially registered, a purely bureaucratic measure. Similarly, in Britain at this time guns were widely available. It was an era of greater social cohesion, during which spurious instincts, to the extent that they existed, were controlled. Nowadays even the Pope rides behind bullet-proof glass.
The spree killer may be at the outer boundary in the range of normal human behaviour, but nonetheless his is the natural response of the social animal provoked beyond endurance. He is merely the forerunner, and until he is given legitimate expression of his valid and justified anger, and allowed to respond to the daily injustices and affronts he must presently endure, each new atrocity will only herald more to come.
24 comments:
I certainly can't take the words of the killer seriously, after all, how would he know his own motivations and reasons for doing something?
My point is that Islam is a better ideological weapon to protect yourself against invaders than Liberalism. Indeed, Islam is closer to Nationalism than Liberalism. If you are an anti-Semite, Islam would protect you from Jews better than Liberalism.
What Mateen thought he was doing is in fact unimportant in the greater scheme of things.All I am saying that what he did for purely personal reasons becomes more significant when he says he did it for Islam.
Can a terrorist be self-elected? Does he - by ringing the police and declaring allegiance to Islamic State and then going on to kill 50 people - qualify as a bone fide member of IS or does he need to be proposed and seconded, as in a golf club?
Mateen proposed himself and was seconded by ISIS, it seems. http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/islamic-state-claims-worst-shooting-in-us-history/ar-AAgWMyv?ocid=spartandhp
His place in history seems assured then.
The suicidal and depressed believe that their suicide and therefore their life would be given more meaning post mortem if it was done in service of a political cause.
Perhaps; but the degree of preparation required would normally suggest some degree of commitment to the cause. The average suicide is unspectacular.
So bent on Mateen was on acquiring this greater glory that he called the police on 911 prior to executing his victims that he was doing it on behalf of ISIS. Presumably, he knew he would get more column inches post mortem that way.
The fact that he felt he had to call the police and announce he was doing it on behalf of ISIS suggests that he had no prior dealings with them previously.
Understandably, ISIS eagerly accepted his political "donation" post mortem.
Any one of us could in theory take it into our heads to commits acts of violent crime and then "bequeath" our crimes to ISIS, without in fact having any previous contact with them at all.
This, I suppose, is what is so terrifying to the matriarchy.
Any suicidal man - and it is men who are more suicidal than women in a matriarchy - would raise the status of their suicide by claiming that it was done for ISIS. Declaring that their suicide was on behalf of suicide would also dismay the matriarchy more than a merely personal suicide.
Actually, adolescents seem to be most prone to suicide - teenagers the world over seem to be prepared to commit suicide almost at the drop of a hat - which is why ISIS are so keen to recruit them.
They must at least be ISIS-style crimes. I don't think spraying bullets in a mosque would have quite the same effect.
If you mass murdered Muslims then you would be an anti-Muslim terrorist.
If more people did this sort of thing, it would provoke civil disorder and this would also be to play into the hands of ISIS, since such acts of terrorism would provoke more acts of Muslim terrorism and the cycle would keep going until one side won.
The stronger side would win, of course, and that isn't necessarily the side that has nuclear weapons.
Just as war is a continuation of politics by other means, terrorism is a continuation of politics by other means.
No one has heard of Christian or Jewish terrorists, but everyone has heard of Muslim terrorists ...
You could be a Christian terrorist, but unless you specifically declared your act of terrorism to be made in service of Christianity, no one would think that Christianity was the cause of your terrorism.
What if you were a pyromaniac who just happened to be Muslim? Would your acts of arson be ennobled if you claimed them to be in service of Allah when you did it because you just liked watching buildings burn?
Who has the higher status? a) A criminal b) A terrorist
I think it would be better if you asked: what is better: someone who pursues a selfish goal (i.e theft for pleasure) or someone whose actions transcends selfish motives?
Bobby Sands died for the principle of having terrorists segregated from ordinary criminals.
What is the definition of terrorist anyway?
i thought terrorism was killing people for political reasons?
That would be my definition of terrorism but it need not be confined to killing people, since you can terrorise people without killing them eg arson, bombings, sabotage etc.
Wolverine in a comic once said that terorism is bascally what the big army calls the little army
Is it possible to be a Muslim mass murderer yet not be a terrorist?
Sure, Mohammad was one.
Was one what?
A mass murderer. He had all the men of the Quraysh beheaded.
I am sure the Meccans considered him a terrorist too. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza
Was Moses a mass murderer too?
@RW: I have never seen a dumber person on earth than you... Without having read the radiant and compassionate personality of prophet muhammad pbuh you are uttering what bigots always utter...
You must admit he did have a lot of people killed.
No technically that would not make Muhammad a mass murder since he won thus his morality beat the defeated, also it was the Jewish tribe the executions occurred with not with the Quraysh though their names have great similarity
he defended his people and made them great if the tribes did not want to die or be enslaved they should not have committed treason against Medina.
Muhammad was a great leader so did what was necessary to protect his people
Read the meccan phase of muslims how they were persecuted,socially boycotted,made to flee their own home and then when the muslims won the mecca, contrary to expectations of people,the prophet ordered general mercy to the very people who drove him and his followers away from home after years of persecution... Such was this greatest man of God pbuh... May God open up the eyes of hate mongering bigots!
Post a Comment