This is topic "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel." 6 Shot, 1 Fatally @ Seattle Jewish Center in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:SEATTLE Jul 28, 2006 (AP)— A man walked into a Jewish organization Friday afternoon and opened fire, killing one person and injuring at least five others before he was arrested, officials said.
The gunman, who employees said claimed to be a Muslim angry at Israel, forced his way through the security door at the Jewish Federation after an employee had punched in her security code, said Marla Meislin-Dietrich, a co-worker who was not at the building at the time.
Staff members said they overheard him saying "'I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,' before opening fire on everyone," Meislin-Dietrich said. "He was randomly shooting at everyone."
I've been avoiding the Middle East debates, but since I drive in front of this building every day on my way to work, this felt a little closer to home.
Ugh.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:"'I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,' before opening fire on everyone," Meislin-Dietrich said.
So of course, the rational thing to do was to pick up a gun and shoot people.
--j_k, very annoyed
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think anything about it is rational.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Religion never is. People killing each other over who has the best invisible friend does not invite reasoned discourse.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Neither does saying that what's happening with Israel right now is because of an argument over who has the best imaginary friend.
Good hell.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Palliard,
So, you're really more interested in expressing disdain for religious people than you really are about who and why people kill each other.
Just to make sure we're clear. It's good to know who's serious and who isn't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dude, that's my line.
Apart from that, in what way was his comment inaccurate? The killer was 'angry at Israel', presumably because they are shooting at Hezbollah and hitting the occasional Lebanese. They are shooting at Hezbollah because Hezbollah is shooting at them. Hezbollah is shooting at them because they are Jews - that is, they have the wrong invisible friend, or are friends with him in the wrong way, or something of that sort. So, what was the problem with the statement?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Palliard -
Ironic statement from someone talking about "reasoned discourse."
Besides, don't Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham? There's obvious differences in what they all think of Jesus, but I was under the impression that they were all the same God. The devil is in the details, but it's all the same friend.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you think Hezbollah is only shooting at Israelis because the Israelis have a different religious belief than they do, you're even more foolish about anything concerning religion than I thought.
Certainly their hatred is more intense and more enduring because of the religious issue, but to suggest that it would not be there at all is just plain stupid.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, actually, if the Jews didn't have their particular religion, they would not have been resettled in Israel, and there wouldn't be an issue. So while I agree that Hezbollah motivations are a little more complex than pure religious crusading, it all comes back to the invisible friends.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If the Jews had been merely a distinctive national identity who was displaced thousands of years ago with a history of being oppressed and brutalized, and then murdered by Nazis in the Holocaust, other nations may very well still have decided to grant them land in their former home, whether or not they wished to return for religious reasons.
So...yeah, if you examine this exact situation as though it were a math problem, remove one piece and say, "Ha! Now it's different! I'm right!" well then of course you're going to be right.
But history isn't like mathematics. You cannot possibly speculate what the Jews-not just a religious group, but also a culture-would have done without one of the fundamental aspects of their own group-self. To remove one piece-you'd have to hypothetically remove it thousands of years ago-and then say of events thousands of years later, "This would not have happened," is foolish.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and good on you for once again reasserting your own particular brand of rhetoric, "I will be as insulting and offensive consistently, whether or not you know I think this way, and whether or not I know it irritates you."
Good on you, and join Palliard once more in the 'less concerned with helping, more concerned with expressing contempt' camp Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And your posts have helped the situation in what way, precisely?
For my no-religion scenario, I did rather mean to imply that the Jews would not exist as a group at all; without their religion, they would presumably have been assimilated. (Or not chucked out of Israel at all, since they'd have bowed to the Roman Emperors same as everyone else.) Your scenario is an interesting one, though. Then again, what made the Arabs have such a virulent reaction when the Jews arrived? Not their kosher cooking, I assume. If the Arabs hadn't been Moslems, do you think they would have reacted as strongly? It's not as though the resettlement was on very desirable
Or, to take this specific situation : You will note that the murdered himself says that this was done because he was a Moslem. Remove the invisible friend, no killings.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, your point is that...to examine a specific murder done for religious motivations, if you remove the religion you remove the motivation?
Well, I can agree with that. The problem with you, and the reason I consistently heap scorn when you say things like this, is you bury your head steadfastly in the sand and refuse to admit that the presence of religion can have positive impacts as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't actually think I've said that; what I do believe is that the negatives outweigh the positives, such as they are, by a very large margin.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There are siginifant feuds elsewhere in the world, that make a good enough example that relgiion isn't always the cause, or even the most important factor. Look at the Turks and the Greeks, or the Turks and the Kurds.
If they Jews had had a strong enough national identity, it's possible that they would not have assimilated, regardless of religion. 'What ifs' aren't particularly helpful in this situation, it's all guesswork.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dude, that's my line.
Apart from that, in what way was his comment inaccurate? The killer was 'angry at Israel', presumably because they are shooting at Hezbollah and hitting the occasional Lebanese. They are shooting at Hezbollah because Hezbollah is shooting at them. Hezbollah is shooting at them because they are Jews - that is, they have the wrong invisible friend, or are friends with him in the wrong way, or something of that sort. So, what was the problem with the statement?
It has nothing to do with their Jewishness, and everything to do with the circumstances of Israel's creation. You paint the picture as if the Israelis were German the Arabs would be more accepting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
German, no. Moslem, yes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't buy that either. Muslim history is FULL of intra-faith warfare.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed? Perhaps you would care to give some examples. And what, exactly, was there to fight over in Israel except religion?
Even so, it's true that an even better solution would be for the Arabs not to be Moslems. And again, let me point out that the killer, here, specifically gives religion as his motivation. How are you going to argue that away?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I can't decide if KoM's imaginary friend is tact or compassion.
It might be both.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps it's the ability to argue actual points, as opposed to posting style?
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Actually, to be fair, there WAS a time when Islam, under the Abbasid Dynasty, was known for being the light of civilization. These were the same Muslims that brought much classical education back to Dark Ages Europe, and invented many of the modern technologies that we now take for granted.
It's generally agreed that the sacking of Baghdad in 1258 marks the end of "enlightened" Islam and ushered in a millenium of backwards fundamentalism. You can thank the Mongols for that.
I'm still sticking by my "imaginary friend" remark until someone can explain to me some strategic value to Jerusalem that doesn't involve Jesus, Mohammed, David, Moses, or Bhudda.
[Edit: spelling... yes, I occasionally make spelling mistakes]
Posted by Squish (Member # 9191) on :
Passed by it yesterday and the front gate was covered with flowers. But everyone around the block was avoiding it like crazy.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
Why do you even have to use the term "imaginary friend" in the first place? It's not productive in any way. Non-atheists don't have cute, demeaning terms for atheism. It LITERALLY is not difficult to re-phrase it to be less abrasive. Sheesh.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think I'm going to start interjecting the words "Israel", "Lebanon", and "Palestine" into topics to see how fast I can get them locked.
<EDIT to add: No offense intended towards you, Papa Janitor. I don't dispute your decisions.>
Seriously, guys, can we at least agree that we don't approve of people walking into places and randomly firing on people who've never done anything to them? Can we treat a real and local tragedy with that much respect, before we get down to our own rhetorical crossfire?
[ July 31, 2006, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The original wording was 'invisible friend'. In what way is that inaccurate, even if your god actually exists as described?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Seriously, guys, can we at least agree that we don't approve of people walking into places and randomly firing on people who've never done anything to them? Can we treat a real and local tragedy with that much respect, before we get down to our own rhetorical crossfire?
What post in this thread gave you a different impression? What, you think Palliard and I approve of people who open fire in the name of their invisible friends?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed? Perhaps you would care to give some examples.
Examples of intra-Muslim warfare? From it's foundations until the Iraq-Iran war. Fairly nonstop.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And on the subject of cute names, are you really sure you want to make that claim? Consider this page, for example.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed? Perhaps you would care to give some examples.
Examples of intra-Muslim warfare? From its foundations until the Iraq-Iran war. Fairly nonstop.
Oh, I see - you were referring to ordinary state interests. But you surely cannot seriously be asserting that the Arabs would have fought the Jews over those worthless bits of land, if not for the religious issue? It's a bit of desert!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:What post in this thread gave you a different impression? What, you think Palliard and I approve of people who open fire in the name of their invisible friends?
Perhaps that the desire to make it about "invisible friends" appeared to take priority over the point that "people were shot."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And yet nobody objected to JTK and Lyrhawn making it about being not rational.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah, yes. The "but Mom, he started it!" defense. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Is my post accurate, or not?
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The original wording was 'invisible friend'. In what way is that inaccurate, even if your god actually exists as described?
While you are correct, it still doesn't make for polite discussion. It's *still* demeaning.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And on the subject of cute names, are you really sure you want to make that claim? Consider this page, for example.
And I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I suck at reading smiley-faced background webpages, and I'm apparently quite dense on Sundays, so is there a cute atheist reference there? Because I don't think *fool* is atheist-specific...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by akhockey: While you are correct, it still doesn't make for polite discussion. It's *still* demeaning.
When people act like children - especially when they have access to guns - it is sometimes a little hard to retain the superficial veneer of respect that makes for polite discussion. Then again, what do you care what a random person on teh internets thinks about you? If your beliefs indeed need such a high level of defense, perhaps it's time you reconsidered them.
quote:Originally posted by akhockey:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And on the subject of cute names, are you really sure you want to make that claim? Consider this page, for example.
And I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I suck at reading teddy-bear background webpages, and I'm apparently quite dense on Sundays, so is there a cute atheist reference there?
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God". Apparently rather popular with a certain stripe of theist; I've seen it on church sermon boards around the first of April. (Is that what you call the little boards outside, that give a wise saying for the week? There must be a name for them.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed? Perhaps you would care to give some examples.
Examples of intra-Muslim warfare? From its foundations until the Iraq-Iran war. Fairly nonstop.
Oh, I see - you were referring to ordinary state interests. But you surely cannot seriously be asserting that the Arabs would have fought the Jews over those worthless bits of land, if not for the religious issue? It's a bit of desert!
I won't engage in the what if, of whether or not they would have or not.
But when it comes down to it, I never cease to be amazed about what people will fight for, and that includes many instances of tiny bits of useless land. Muslims have been fighting over bits of desert since the day Allah spoke to Muhammad. It got worse after the schism between Shi'a and Sunni turned from a crack into a gulf, especially after what happened to Ali.
But regardless of which part of the faith they subscribe to, they've still been fighting, Muslim on Muslim, for centuries. Therefore, I think it really is perfectly reasonable to assume that if a Muslim, but new party power forced it's way into the area the way Israel did, that it is a possibility they would have been just as reviled for awhile. I think Iraq also proves that they are just as okay with murdering Muslim civilians as Jewish civilians.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And yet nobody objected to JTK and Lyrhawn making it about being not rational.
Can you understand that going into a building and shooting multiple people whom you've never met before is not the same manner of irrationality as believing in a religion, even if one believes that the latter is irrational?
Can you understand that if someone went into an office building and shot six random people because they'd been fired, a flippant remark about the cutthroat nature of the business world would not be taken well?
You need to understand, King of Men, that it is extremely easy to interpret what has been said as either or both of "This is just more of the usual irrationality from those 'religious people'" and "This doesn't matter as much, if at all, because it happened to those 'religious people'."
I'm not saying that's what you, or Palliard, is necessarily saying. But if you actually care about what other people think, and I presume you do, since you continue to post, it needs to be fairly clear that that is not what you're saying.
If, by chance, either of those things is what you intend to say, I think you can expect a lot of replies questioning your own definition of rationality.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: It has nothing to do with their Jewishness, and everything to do with the circumstances of Israel's creation.
That's not true. It has to do with the fact that Jews have returned to our homeland in large numbers. The Arabs were committing their little pogroms against us decades before the State of Israel came into existence. Link.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb] And yet nobody objected to JTK and Lyrhawn making it about being not rational.
Can you understand that going into a building and shooting multiple people whom you've never met before is not the same manner of irrationality as believing in a religion, even if one believes that the latter is irrational?
For the record, my original statement about his rationality referred to his shooting spree -- not his religious beliefs.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)