American Islamophobia

MS wrote:

[b]US media is often a lapdog when it comes to regurgitating what government and police say[/b]

I think you might be barking up the wrong tree here. Most likely, it would be the defense lawyers, not the government or the police, trying to avoid a hate-crime charge. Since the defense usually prefers as few charges against their client as possible.

 VOD Quote;

I think you might be barking up the wrong tree here. Most likely, it would be the defense lawyers, not the government or the police, trying to avoid a hate-crime charge. Since the defense usually prefers as few charges against their client as possible

Dr Suzanne Barakat, one of the victims sisters told CNN yesterday that the police did not reach out to question any of the family members or her now dead brother's roomate

The cops have the Hicks in custody, the hardest part is already done

VOD Quote:

The fact that the victims are of a higher character than Hicks(to say the least) does not make them a priori authorities on the crime. If that were the case, we could just dispense with police investigations into motive and ask the victims what motivated the criminal.

What the eff are you talking about? They died at his hands.

According to family , the police have yet to question the friends, neighbours and roommate

Quote:

Mr Magoo, your exchanges are getting rather tiresome

Have a nap.

Quote:

you are right up there with  60Smith

Perhaps Smith also believes that whether or not a crime is labelled a hate crime has nothing to do with the opinions of people who knew the victim(s) nor which hashtags are currently trending.

But thanks for -- in your tired state -- finding the energy to link-mine a few more individuals' opinion that this was a hate crime.  Maybe you should forward these to the FBI as "evidence".  Maybe I'm wrong, and if a thousand citizens think it's a hate crime then it becomes a hate crime. 

Quote:

Has Magoo, and/or the usual suspects, addressed the whole question of previous run-ins with the murderer by his victims?

This would show, to a normal person, a history of aggression towards the victims unrelated to a parking dispute.

Unless those previous run-ins were about parking, in case it would show a history of aggression towards the victims related to a parking dispute.  Yes?

Quote:

Imad Ahmad, who lived in the condo where his friends were killed until Barakat and Mohammed were married in December, said Hicks complained about once a month that the two men were parking in a visitor's space as well as their assigned spot.

"He would come over to the door. Knock on the door and then have a gun on his hip saying 'you guys need to not park here,"' said Ahmad, a graduate student in chemistry at UNC-Chapel Hill. "He did it again after they got married."

What part of that demonstrates that this wasn't about parking?  Just curious.  Help us all out here when you're done lolling.

Quote:

The bar is fairly high to prove a federal hate crime.

In court.  On Twitter, not so much.

#MuslimLivesMatter: Loved Ones Honor NC Shooting Victims & Reject Police Dismissal of a Hate Crime

quote:

Mohammad Abu-Salha, the father of Razan and Yusor, described the shootings as a hate crime. The killings in Chapel Hill have sparked an international outcry, with the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter spreading across social media. A community Facebook page was set up Wednesday in memory of the three victims, called "Our Three Winners." We are joined by two guests: Amira Ata, a longtime friend of Yusor, and Omid Safi, director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/12/muslimlivesmatter_loved_ones_honor...

Yes, I know this is a thread about American Islamophobia but, since the Yanqui bootlickers in Ottawa are much the same, a related story is worth mentioning here.

Canadian Justice Minister Peter MacKay: ‘they weren’t Muslim so [it’s] not terrorism'

Quote:

Terrorism experts are raising red flags after Canada’s Justice Minister Peter MacKay suggested to a group of reporters in Halifax Saturday morning that to be considered terrorism, an attack must be culturally-motivated, despite a Criminal Code definition to the contrary.

“The attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated, therefore [is] not linked to terrorism,” MacKay said.

Mind you, it's not just the jackass Minister who shares such disgusting bigotted views .

Quote:

Just last week Prime Minister Stephen Harper drew similar criticism after he implied that radicalization is linked to mosques.

Muslim groups quickly condemned the statement, saying that Harper was creating the dangerous impression that Canadian mosques are places where terrorism is promoted.

Conservatives: If Islamophobia is good enough for the USA, then it's good enough for Canada.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Loved Ones Honor NC Shooting Victims & Reject Police Dismissal of a Hate Crime

The police haven't dismissed the possibility that this was a hate crime.  The investigation isn't even a week old yet, and Hicks hasn't even had a probable cause hearing yet.

..intitally the police did dismiss it as a hate crime as did the shooters wife. both claimed it was a parking dispute and this was one of the things the family was responding to.

My mistake.  I thought the quote was from the link that was in it.

But I'm still curious whether you're pretty sure the Criminal Code definition of terrorism accurately applies to some Columbine-lovers with no particular political or ideological axe to grind.

Quote:

Everyone has an "ideology"

But that's not the same as killing because of it.

Isn't there a difference between a pyromaniac setting fire to a shed, and a religious zealot setting fire to a family planning clinic?

^ So, it is your contention that, in all cases, the final conclusion about what motivated a criminal, and any subsequent charges resulting from that conclusions, is to be made by the victims or their families? Because that could have some pretty interesting implications.

montrealer58 wrote:

There are many fates worse than death. Life in an American jail is one of them.

Ok, fair enough. I agree to your truce on calling for killing the killer... with the cleveite that your comment assumes allot. 

Randolph Linn, Indiana Man, Drank 45 Beers, Got 'Riled Up' By Fox News Before Mosque Arson (VIDEO)

On Sept. 30, Randolph Linn of St. Joseph, Ind., tried to burn down the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo, The Plain Dealer previously reported. It was reported that he attempted to burn down the mosque in retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East and for Muslims getting a "free pass" in the U.S. While being booked in jail, Linn reportedly said, "F**k those Muslims."

In court on Wednesday, Linn plead guilty to the arson charge. He said that he had gotten "riled up" watching Fox News, according to the Sentinel-Tribune, and drank 45 beers in seven hours before heading to the mosque. Linn started a fire in the prayer room, northwestohio.com reported.

“Every day you turn on the TV, you see Muslims trying to kill Americans,” he said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. When asked whether he thinks all Muslims are terrorists, Linn reportedly responded, “I’d say most of them are.”

Linn's viewpoints upset some in attendance at the court hearing on Wednesday.

“And I was more sad when Judge [Jack] Zouhary asked him that, ‘Do you know any Muslims or do you know what Islam is?’” a member of the mosque told WNWO after the hearing. “And he said, ‘No, I only know what I hear on Fox News and what I hear on radio.’”

Linn plead guilty to intentionally defacing, damaging and destroying religious real property because of the religious character of that property; using fire to commit a felony; and using and carrying a firearm to commit a crime of violence, the Albany Tribune reported. He likely faces 20 years in prison.

“The freedom to worship in the manner of one’s choosing is one of our most fundamental rights as Americans,” Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division told the Albany Tribune. “The Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division will continue to aggressively prosecute hate-based attacks on houses of worship. I commend the cooperative efforts of local and federal law enforcement officials to ensure justice in this case.

Americans think Muslims are 15% of US population
Reality: 1%

Quote:

My person opinion is that Hicks is a militant anti thiest terrorist. Are you telling me I cannot have an opinion?

Certainly not. Evidently others even share yours.

I've simply been suggesting that one person's ( or ten thousand persons') opinion that this was a hate crime doesn't mean it was a hate crime.

#wevoteforhatecrime

Sometimes it seems to me that babble, with its next upgrade, should just dispense with the "Comment:" field and replace it with "Insert URL Here".

Less discussion; more "link wars".

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And please, if you will, drop us a link that says ANYTHING about all of this alleged hatred of religion and/or ethnicity (remaining mindful that criticism of religion is not hatred of religion). Can you do that?

I guess I'm asking for links to some sort of objective (or at least somehow debatable) fact or evidence rather than this endless stream of OPINIONS that this was a hate crime.

How about a few links to Hicks' own writings?

Do you think those will demonstrate his supposed murderous hatred of Muslims?

Haven't found anything yet.  Perhaps he knew his views on the subject were just too over-the-top for even the First Amendment, and kept them to himself.

Seems to be plenty out there that indicates his basic respect for Muslim individuals (separate and distinct from his criticism of the religion).  I guess I would have thought that among honest folk, his own words on the subject might at least factor into the discussion of whether or not he was motivated by hatred of Muslims. 

And if his own words were "I wish I could cleanse the Earth of all of them" or some similar then I'm certain they would.

Instead he says things like:

Quote:

Beyond that though after being in D.C. for a decade and knowing several dozen Muslims for most of that time I can say that they aren’t what most think of them. In fact, I’d prefer them to most Christians as I was never coerced in any way by the Muslims to follow their religion, which I cannot say about many Christians.

While the terrorists who did the 9/11 attacks were Muslims, they were extremists in that faith which isn’t common. I know of many Christian extremists personally, much less the ones we have heard about on the news. People of this country don’t seem to hold that against Christianity though(probably because they’re a majority in this country).

That was from a post arguing IN FAVOUR of a Mosque at Ground Zero.

Where's all this hatred that people seem so very certain of?  All I'm seeing to defend the "hate crime" trope is:

1.  the three people he killed were Muslims

2.  he was critical of (all) religion

3.  the parents of the victims are positive that it was a hate crime

4.  some Americans surely do hate Muslims

If people really want to see the District Attorney file hate crime charges, there will need to be a bit more than this.  The DA can't really go to trial with the popularity of "American Sniper" as Exhibit A.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Where's all this hatred that people seem so very certain of?  All I'm seeing to defend the "hate crime" trope is:

1.  the three people he killed were Muslims

2.  he was critical of (all) religion

3.  the parents of the victims are positive that it was a hate crime

4.  some Americans surely do hate Muslims

I think there is also a perception that the police statement that this was a "parking dispute" is not substantial.  Partly that it was one-sided (ie. that there is no indication that the victims came over to his house to complain), and partly that he was a bully who liked to threaten people with his gun.  So the characterization of a "parking dispute" seems like baloney, and anyone that presents it as such with a straight face seems suspect.

And then there is all the intangible stuff that doesn't directly connect with the case-- ie. that if a Muslim man killed 3 people in a valid parking dispute, it would not be presented as a parking dispute, and anything he ever wrote that was critical of US imperialism would be mined for motive.  People don't see Hicks getting this treatment so they are suspicious.

Quote:

I think there is also a perception that the police statement that this was a "parking dispute" is not substantial. 

I think I've already noted that the police statement was that their interim investigation suggests that the killings were over a parking dispute and that they were also investigating the possibility that it was a hate crime.

Isn't that pretty much what the police SHOULD say?  Basically, "here's what we've got to go on so far, but we're still looking"?

Somehow that seems to have morphed into the police stating, with certainty, that it was about parking (and thereby insulting the family and friends of the victim and anyone else who believes it was a hate crime).

Frankly, I'd be far more concerned if the police had said "we're treating it as a hate crime because thats' what's trending on Twitter right now".

Quote:

ie. that if a Muslim man killed 3 people in a valid parking dispute, it would not be presented as a parking dispute, and anything he ever wrote that was critical of US imperialism would be mined for motive.

I've spent half of this thread asking those who keep calling this a hate crime to please go ahead and mine Hick's writings for motive.  Show us his hatred of Muslims, in his own words.

Quote:

People don't see Hicks getting this treatment so they are suspicious.

Give him that treatment.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

My person opinion is that Hicks is a militant anti thiest terrorist. Are you telling me I cannot have an opinion?

Certainly not. Evidently others even share yours.

I've simply been suggesting that one person's ( or ten thousand persons') opinion that this was a hate crime doesn't mean it was a hate crime.

#wevoteforhatecrime

Mr Magoo

Not all opinions are equal. We put more weight on certain opinions than others - just how it is. The position of the family's and others that is was a hate crime is based among other things on what the victims told them.

Father of daughters recalls his daughter complaining to him about Hicks saying, "she felt that he hated them for the way they looked, the Muslim garb they [friends and sister] wore"  and "she was worried about that"

Watch here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pzebqzCzY

The very reason that the feds are investigating is because of the family and allies went to the to the media - this inquiry would not have happened otherwise

Here is a good articulation on power, Hick's ideology, and victims' identity are important.

Chapel Hill Massacre Blues

His victims were observant Muslims (the two women wore head scarves) and Hicks, who called himself an “anti-theist” on Facebook, had expressed a passionate loathing for all faiths and their followers. His wife wanted everyone to believe that these facts were irrelevant. “Parking dispute,” Mrs. Hicks said: that’s all there was to what she called “this incident.”

“Isolated incident” was the preferred verbiage of Ripley Rand, the local U.S. attorney. Rand said that he saw no reason to treat the targeting and assassination of these three Muslims as “part of a targeted campaign against Muslims”—as if a broader conspiracy were needed for Hicks’s crime to have broader significance.

So there you have it. Some people are sensitive about parking. One such person stood his ground. Now three young innocents are dead, and he’s being held without bond in the county jail. A lamentable affair, but, told like that, shorn of all context, it’s not unlike a song on the radio, folkloric. Our imaginations are primed to grasp it.

What’s hard to get one’s mind around is that everyone who’s singing this tune—the police, the wife, the prosecutor—seems to think that it’s reassuring. Getting blown away by a neighbor just because he’s pissed off at you for some ridiculous reason has become the equivalent of a natural disaster in our country, with our gun culture. It’s got nothing to do with the killer’s ideology, or with the victim’s identity. That’s the thinking. And, with this “parking” alibi, we’re being asked to imagine that these killings are a private tragedy, not some big public deal—not terrorism, not even like terrorism. We’re being told to believe that the vigilante killing of three young Americans is socially and politically meaningless.

It seems we are also supposed to be relieved by the fact that Hicks, who carried a gun to earlier confrontations with his neighbors, was not a religious fanatic. Are we then supposed to ignore the fact that he was an anti-religious fanatic, who was said to have taunted the women he later killed for dressing according to their traditions and beliefs? We are told that he was in favor of gay marriage, as if that negated his militant intolerance of others. He spent most of his time on Facebook heaping contempt on Christians, who are more numerous by far in Hicks’s neck of the woods than Muslims. And yet with law-enforcement sounding like Hicks-family spin doctors, we are being urged to consider this murderer as a figure of all-embracing American assimilation—a man who did not care who they were but hated them as he would hate anyone and everyone, equally and without fear or favor, for the way they parked.

Magoo, seems you lack the material to support your arguments so you resort to being contrarian for the sake of it.

Also, notice how on this thread and others you always defend white extremists/terrorists intent on killing others?

#White-splaining

#Islamophobia-splaining

Quote:

Not all opinions are equal. We put more weight on certain opinions than others - just how it is.

Of course. But the extra weight that you or I might put on another opinion is... wait for it... basically just another of our opinions.

"We should listen to the wisdom of this person who agrees with me!"

Quote:

The position of the family's and others that is was a hate crime is based among other things on what the victims told them.

And they're welcome to that opinion.  My opinion throughout this thread is that this isn't how we decide what is or is not a hate crime.  And in this case I think that the government might share my opinion (and yes, I'm flattered).

Quote:

The very reason that the feds are investigating is because of the family and allies went to the to the media - this inquiry would not have happened otherwise

Excellent.  I hope those who were ready to cheer the government if the FBI investigation recommends a hate crime charge will be honest and adult enough to accept it if they don't.

Quote:

Magoo, seems you lack the material to support your arguments so you resort to being contrarian for the sake of it.

I've supported my arguments with objective and plausible facts wherever possible (e.g. quoting Hicks' own words on the subject of Muslims, pointing out that at no time did police declare that this was NOT a hate crime, etc.)

Meanwhile, you keep gifting us with post after post from some other individual whose OPINION was that this was a hate crime, as though it's somehow up for a VOTE.

You've heard the old saying that an anecdote isn't proof?  Well, the opinion of [email protected] DOESN'T EVEN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF ANECDOTE.

Quote:

Also, notice how on this thread and others you always defend white extremists/terrorists intent on killing others?

#White-splaining

#Islamophobia-splaining

Sounds like you have something you'd like to say out loud, but lack the courage to.  At least ikosmos had the stones to almost speak plainly.

That said, do you feel you speak for all progressives when you suggest that someone who commits a heinous crime (and in the case of Hicks, I think a triple conviction for murder is a foregone conclusion) that they deserve no analysis and no consideration of the actual facts, once the Twitterati have rendered their verdict?  Because if I'm somehow "defending him" then what on earth will you make of his lawyer??  To the tumbrel with him/her too?

josh wrote:

And the Quebec kind: 

The leader of Coalition for Quebec’s Future said Tuesday all mosques should be investigated prior to being allowed to open in the province.

Francois Legault, head of the third-most popular party in Quebec’s legislature, said a public body should be created to investigate people who potentially disagree with so-called Quebec values.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-party-leader-says-all-mosques-should-be-investigated-before-opening/article23040792/?cmpid=rss1

 

Maybe he can run for Harper:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/02/17/is-harper-playing-the-xenophobia-card...