Radical Islamic terrorist shoots police officer in attempted execution in Philadelphia

Trump has been a candidate since maybe spring, crazies have been killing cops and politicos since the sixties. Incidentally, Trump is a disengaged jerk when you compare him to other candidates or successful Presidents and Senators, but you get to talking politics in any flyover breakroom you'll hear all his stuff in spades.

 

To say "it has nothing to do with any faith" is annoying, because it is very likely not true. It's the same nonsense as saying "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam".

Islam is quite likely the motive and driving force behind this attempted murder.

Since when is it a politician's role to preempt the work of law enforcement and courts and to dictate what the likely motive of a criminal is? This riles people up when it is very likely simply not true and has the opposite effect of what is intended.

If he had said "Let's not discriminate a whole group of followers of Islam based on the actions of an extremist", that would have been the right thing to say and a correct statement. To say "this has nothing to do with any faith" is not.

 

Thank you for being honest. Conservatives angry that a mayor/head of state etc not saying it's "Islamic terrorism" has nothing to do with the end game of preventing terrorism but being irked that they can't use quotes from their leaders to disparage Muslims.

 

Umm, did you even read my full post?

How would the mayor even know that it has nothing to do with Islam?

He could have said "Let's not rush to conclusions and let's not discriminate Muslims because of the actions of a crazy individual". Perfectly fine.

But the statement "it has nothing to do with any faith" is at the very least premature and quite likely incorrect, as it is quite likely (although not proven) that the attacker's faith was actually his core motivation for the action.

What is annoying is a politician rushing to conclusions and pre-empting the work of law enforcement and courts in determining a motive.

It's like German politicians saying that none of the sex mob attackers in Cologne were refugees, for political reasons, and then it turns out that actually more than 2/3 of those whose IDs were taken were current asylum seekers.

 

It was according to the attacker but really wtf does he know about his own motivations.

 

So it's incumbent upon the mayor of Philadelphia to become a theologian and criticize Islam? You do understand why a leader might say something like "Islam is the religion of Peace" (Bush II). You do know why right? THere are Muslims that live amongst us and it might not be in our best interest for mayors and heads of states to actively criticize Islam. Their job isn't to be a theologian.

Unless you can draw a line between a mayor or president not explicitly stating 'Islamic terrorism' and a Delta Force operator being confused on what target they are hitting, then what's your problem with them not stating "Islamic terrorism?"

I mean, did you ever lambaste Bush for stating "Islam is a religion of peace?" He probably doesn't believe it himself but at least he was intelligent enough to know why he needs to make statements like that.

 

State me one negative consequence of him stating that it wasn't because of religion besides some conservatives being irked.

 

Yeah he probably got more criticism for that than calling the war a crusade. That is why you remember it.

You are trying to say the mayor isn't an expert on religion and doesn't need to be involved in discerning the motivations right? I agree. So why did he do it? Unlike the president he doesn't really have executive authority over the FBI and Homeland Security.

I think the point is more that is makes him look like a dolt.

 

It's simply untrue. It's like saying when a race hate crime happens "this crime had nothing to do with race". Why lie to the people? Racism is a problem - islamic extremism is a problem.

When a racist hate crime happens, let's say white on black hate crime, this same politician would condemn racism. That doesn't mean that he would encourage revenge against all white people. Any sane person understands that. Just the same, calling a spade a spade and condemning Islamic extremism doesn't mean he would encourage revenge against all Muslims. No need to lie and treat people like fools. If the attacker says he did this in the name of Islam, then he did it in the name of Islam, and it's not up to a politician - who, as you rightly pointed out, is not a theologian, to say it has nothing to do with Islam. It obviously does have to do with it.

 

Because the average layman citizen is not responsible enough to apply nuance and individual merit.

Question for you. Did you disagree with Bush stating that "Islam is a religion of peace" which he explicitly stated? I'm not asking you if you disagree with what he stated. You know that I disagree with notion that Islam is a religion of 'peace'. I'm asking you did you criticize him for stating it.

 

lol @ the Mayors tweet

it's beyond me why people are so quick to defend Islam when it continues to motivate people to kill

 

Isn't it obvious? The reason is two fold. To show the Muslim citizens of the city that he is on their side thus making it easier on his LE department to further investigations and to quell the Trumponion bigots.

 

You are an idiot if you don't know why a mayor or governor or president might state nice things about Islam.

 

Really? Because I've never heard Bush being called a terrorist sympathizer for stating nice things about Islam yet I hear it all the time about Obama when he doesn't want to use the term "Islamic extremism".

 

So you are now saying he SHOULD make theological statements. My previous readings of your posts had you against that. Will reread. BRB

 

Is that all you got out of my posts. Sigh.

Fine. I'll be more nuanced. The job of an executive leader is not to be CRITICAL of religion ESPECIALLY when you have law abiding citizens who practice said religion under your jurisdiction.

 

He knew that this guy said all of this PC crap needs to stop and call it what it was.

 

Why??

 

So upon further reading, DON'T make theological statements to criticize Islam, DO make theological statements exonerating all religious faiths even if you don't believe so Muslims won't be angry. Probably a smart move considering one just tried to wax a cop.

 

I think the motivation behind both statements is the same - inclusion of Muslims, prevention of discrimination, etc.

Bush's statement is of a more general nature; and you could argue that if the vast majority of followers of a religion is peaceful, it is arguably a defensible statement.

This mayor's statement is simply stupid because it is obviously untrue. It relates to a current criminal case in which an attempted murderer has apparently explicitly stated that his motive is religious. The mayor is neither a theologian nor a judge nor law enforcement. If a KKK racist states he tried to murder a black person because of the color of their skin, this mayor would NOT say "this has nothing to do with race".

People - conservative or not - get annoyed when they are getting lied to by politicians.

I understand what the mayor is trying to do, but he should still express himself more accurately to achieve the same thing. By avoiding nuance, he does his good intention a disservice.