Beaten Iraqi Woman dies in California

Too long for a headline. In contrast to me you have made your conclusion already.

Don't be outraged at the victim, be outraged at the murderer.

So you are not sure, but you have already come to the conclusion that it should be prosecuted as a hate crime?

Interesting.

 

People get all defensive when one of their kind is suspected of doing something bad.

 

And the words "need more facts" never occurred to you.

I didn't see where you were going with this, but then I suppose any normal talk is just self-pitying without the tacit acknowledgement that I am doing ten things at once while batting you away like a little dog, or something.

 

I was actually the one mostly updating the thread with more facts. And in contrast to the OP in this thread here, I did not claim at the beginning of the thread to know who did it and what type of crime it should be prosecuted as.

 

Maybe it would've been best to start a thread after all the facts have come in?

 

Nope.

When there are developing news of significance, we have always discussed them here as the news broke.

If you apply your idiotic suggestion to this thread here you are posting in, would you suggest that across110thstreet should not have posted this thread? Why would you even post in it then?

 

I'm not the one suggesting that more facts are needed in this context. In fact, I don't think I have ever suggested that in any context in the D&D.

It behooves people who believe that to themselves act according to that higher standard, but apparently not so. The people who violate this rule the most tend to post this "more facts are needed" crap the most as well.

If we applied "need more facts" to your threads, almost all of them would be worthless.

but, hey. That's why it's debate & discussion. Not need more facts & personal attacks.

You just need a headline to jump to conclusions, so maybe you should never tell other people that they need more facts.

 

I didn't say "Need more facts" in response to the OP.

I said it as a joking reference to the Trayvon Martin thread, in response to this post:

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6729653&postcount=9

...meaning that we "need more facts" to confirm the offensive speculation by hairyme.

I didn't jump to a conclusion. I posted an article. If you cannot understand the difference, it once again confirms your very limited intellectual capacity.

I'll give you that you are trying extremely hard, though.

 

Half of your articles are jumps to conclusions. You jump to conclusions pretty much every time. You have no ground to criticize others for jumping the gun before the facts are in.

It's hilarious how you feel the need to twist and contort to defend yourself.

backtracking already. typical.

do you even understand yourself?

Anyways, I'm not trying too hard. I'm doing ten other things while batting you away like a little dog. Incidentally, how does your narcissism work again? I can't seem to quite capture the spirit, but I guess the hollow words will suffice.

 

You don't have to enjoy it until ATW starts referencing his god-superior intellectual skills, and how he bats posters away while he is doing Hercules' 12 tasks.

(For hilarity's sake, I'll include a link so people can understand the admittedly vague reference)

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=6710761

 

ATW is to cases of probable bigoted violence against Muslims as Bigtexx is to probable bigoted actions against African-Americans. This comparison is just begging to be made with both this thread and the thread on Trayvon Martin up at the top. I hope Bigtexx leaps to ATW's defense as ATW did for BigTexx in the Trayvon thread. Both seem to currently keen on the no conclusive evidence defense to discussion of possible motivations of the perpetrators in these tragedies. While they might be right in these specific cases, it looks quite a bit like they are just plain wrong. Their stated positions also makes it seem like they both have a high level of vested interest in the ultimate characterization of each case because this "more facts" needed position is somewhat of a novel position for both of them.

Compare ATW's current response to his prior response to news about the American killing 16 Afghani citizens, including 9 Children. There he seemed keen on presenting the case as a lone crazy gunman absent conclusive evidence of either that the guy was acting crazy, but unmotivated by anti-Muslim or Anti-Afghani animus or that it was simply one individual acting alone. As he objectively presented it, "The Taliban are going to love this... how crazy must this idiot have been? Killing children? Insane." This was quite a change from his position in the Stoned to Death for being an emo thread he started where, absent a need for more facts, he suggested that the killing was caused by religious intolerance. He could be ultimately right on both these cases as well, but the more likely explanation is that he uses the "more evidence" needed defense only when it suits some pre-vested position he holds. I can't possibly begin to speculate on what that is, but I'm sure it is the most laudable and noble of nuanced of positions that in no way seeks to critique a certain subset of people or their religion simply by the actions of the extremists among them.

Or perhaps it is only Bigtexx and ATW who can comprehend the difference between cases where there is enough evidence to make a blanket statement about motivations and when there is not - that might explain how ATW is seemingly always telling us that he is right in his constantly changing point of view toward the necessity of having "more facts." Or maybe, as he suggests, he is just an unopinionated arbiter of news and fact who simply reports, updates, and let's us decide. Unfortunately this explanation seems to be belied by his sage, factual commentary to the Stoned to Death for being Emo thread where he never followed up with more facts and where he weighed in that "One would think this would be from "The Onion"...but it's the sad truth of what religious intolerance can lead to. "Moral police"...wtf."

 

I agree with that post.

 

100% true and hilarious, fantastic post. You got the gold seal too, ATW doesn't know what to say (or how to read it, either way).

 

Perfectly cool. I can easily understand why you wouldn't. Luckily it wasn't written for you, it was written for them and partly for myself. Why would I care to try to convince you to change your mind, especially on this issue. It simply cannot be done.

ATW's response reminds me of the nice father son Ice Cream scene in Thank You For Smoking (which is a movie that I would think that most D&Ders would like),

 

So I ended up reading this sermon.

Incorrect. I don't doubt that there are probably cases of anti-immigrant violence, which can also affect Muslims. You apparently misread this thread. While we indeed do not know who committed this crime, it is of course a tragedy and I hope they get her killer (as was my first comment on the thread). My "need more facts" comment was directed at hairyme's post, as I already explained.

Ummm...what? So I'm right, but you would rather make up a long sermon on how you would prefer for me to be wrong. Right?

I didn't take that position, so all your drivel is moot.

What exactly are you complaining about in that? Do you disagree with anything in these sentences you quoted? Do you not think that it is crazy and insane to kill children? I think the same thing about the Islamist who killed Jewish children in Toulouse. It's crazy and insane what he did. Do you disagree with that? If yes, why?

You were the one who started speculating that the crazy killer in Afghanistan must be motivated by anti-Muslim thoughts, when we didn't have any evidence on his motivation whatsoever. So you were jumping to conclusions. I noted that and you still seem to be butt-hurt from that.

So where are your speculating posts on the motivation of the killer of Jewish children in Toulouse?

Once again, the silence is deafening.

This is what all articles in the Iraqi and international media unanimously reported. What other reason do you suggest?

I am.

That is the more likely explanation in your head because you yourself have a pre-vested position. You would like for that to be the explanation, but you are wrong, and you could not present anything to support your case.

I posted the story of the crazy American killer in Afghanistan as it was developing. I didn't post the story of the crazy Islamist killer in Toulouse as it was developing. If I had in mind only to critique a certain subset of people, why would I do that? And where is your contribution to the thread that was later opened about the killings in Toulouse? Again, the silence is deafening. Could that be because, like Mathloom, you would rather picture Muslims and Islamists only as victims of violence rather than as perpetrators? You would much rather discuss the motives of violence against Muslims than the motives of violence committed by Islamists, it seems. Why else did you not comment on the motives of the killer in Toulouse? Huh? Answer that. I spoke about both, you only about one. Does that mean you are the biased one? Huh?

Is there enough evidence in the Toulouse murders of children for you to comment? Hmm, but you would rather only speculate about the motives of the soldier in Afghanistan.

Very interesting.

Right back in your face, rookie.

I stand by this comment 100 %. Where is your comment on these gruesome murders? Where is your comment on the gruesome slaughter of children in Toulouse, which, by the murderer's own admission, is religiously motivated? We haven't heard any such admission by the U.S. soldier yet, but still you are very quick to jump to the conclusion that it must be. In the case in Toulouse, where the perpetrator actually said so...

...your silence is deafening.

 

Hah, I knew you would. Be honest with yourself, you read it a bit the first time around, too

Your "need more facts" position speaks for itself because this is not the first time you have used it. You can try to say your intent was something other than what a reasonable person would read into your comment, but it just doesn't work, sorry, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

No, as I said you could be right, but it looks like you are wrong. There is an obvious difference. And no, whether you are right in those instances doesn't matter because we are currently talking about your selective use of a "need more facts" position. I'd prefer if you were honest with yourself, about what you think, why you think the way you do, and how it influences your actions.

Now this is more like it, changing the topic is a great strategy. I'm not complaining about anything, I'm simply demonstrating that your prior posts indicate that you apply "need more facts" selectively in a certain possibly pre-disposed pattern. And no, I do not disagree that it is crazy to kill children, do you? But believing that he was motivated in part by mental illness (if he was even spurred to action by mental illness, since not all people who commit murder are mentally ill) doesn't exclude the possibility that he was also motivated by an anti-Muslim/Afghan animus.

I was jumping to conclusions any more than you were with you first statement "how crazy must this idiot have been." Neither does it matter that I was jumping to conclusions because I'm not using "need more facts" as a selective defense. You are either willfully trying to obscure what we are talking about or you don't understand the point I and others in this thread have been making. The difference between you and me is that I didn't pretend like I wasn't jumping to conclusions; in fact, I said the motive is unclear from the article because it doesn't address the issue. The evidence I gave was anecdotal based on what I have heard from troops who have expressed the idea that the confluence of anti-Muslim rhetoric as well as the combat situation makes them value the lives of Muslim and "Muslim-looking" people less. Looking back on the thread, you seemed to not accept my evidence despite no evidence to the contrary.

Ever the objective reporter. I don't disagree with your belief that the killing was religiously motivated; however, I find it curious that you seem to need no other evidence in drawing that conclusion. I would have expected, given your recent flirtations with "need more facts," for you to continue reporting on the incident to really flesh out the exact motivation. I found it telling that you drew such a quick conclusion in that thread and closed the case. I believe others posters would agree that such actions seem to contradict your new-found "need more facts" position.

You could be. Color me surprised that you don't "need more facts." Also, how could you be right with regard to the intent/sanity of the soldier in the Afghani killing case, if you continue to maintain as you did in that thread that you never expressed an opinion on intent/sanity? So as to give a logical consistency to your own posts that were quite likely made in haste, maybe you meant that you were right about the motivations in second case but not the first.

Once again, how do you know I am wrong unless you have somehow ascertained the ultimate motivations of the American soldier who slaughtered those poor Afghans? Pick one. You either know what the guy's motivations are or you don't. You can't maintain both because they are mutually exclusive.

Not sure why you didn't get that one. Maybe someone beat you to it in some other thread, maybe you were fatigued, or maybe you were busy. All of those are fair and understandable answers to this vast mystery, but I don't begrudge your lack of posts on the subject - everyone needs rest from the D&D sometime, I know I do. I "need more facts" to truly decide, so, if you want me to speculate, maybe you could elaborate more on your motivation for not posting about that event as it was breaking. I don't deign to know the exact workings of your inner-mind, nor would it be possible for me to know. I can only examine what you say and do.

No, I have no problems calling certain Muslims and Islamists perpetrators of violence. Some Muslims and Islamists perpetrate acts of violence.

Sorry man, all I can tell you is life is unfair and I do regret hurting you so by not reading or posting in that thread. Next time you specifically want me to comment in some odd thread or another, PM me and I might do it. If you want me to speculate on Toulouse in this thread, then given the headlines I have seen, it is likely that he was motivated by religion and craziness. I could be wrong, but that's my best guess for the moment. Notice how I'm willing to go out on a limb and not say I don't "need more facts." I do not stand by my comment 100%, though.

I know you stand by all your previous comments 100% - such fervor and zeal is truly a frightening thing, whether it is coming from religious or secular motivations. Like I said, I'm not trying to convince you because it would be an exercise in futility, I'm just trying to convince everyone else that you so far seem to only care about a "need more facts" in certain circumstances. They probably don't need much convincing though, honestly.

The problem with you repeating the Toulouse thing so many times is that not only is it off topic (which is your selective use of "need more facts"), but that each time you do, it shows how poorly you have misjudged my motivations. You think that I won't comment or that I will obfuscate because I am completely blinded by some type of Muslim-loving apologist attitude, I am not - I can call a spade a spade while not making generalizations about the entire group. Given that you seem to be so quick to peg such a generalized black/white motivation to others, it makes it seem that you yourself think in similar terms. You should know that such a point of view is not the norm; many people do not think that a small percentage of bad individual actions mean that there is a problem with all the actors falling under that group. Because you appear to think in that manner, it weakens your position considerably and makes you appear irrational to others.

Your's too, old hand.

 

Your user name is appropriately chosen. It represents both your character and the assumptions you make in your posts.

So tell us, what was your previous user name?