Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
How soon after Ft. Hood did the offending media chips fly? It is a fact that he was screaming Allah Akbar as he squeezed off each round. It was immediately following the AZ shooting that the Sherriff speculated that violent rhetoric from the right was behind the attack. For one, there was "and is" no evidence to support this claim. While we should never jump to conclusions, it's kind of hard to overlook the immediate fact of a muslim shooting US soldiers while yelling Allah Akbar... as opposed to an unknown shooter in AZ with absolutely no information available (about anything), then to stampede the media within minutes of claims that it was motivated by right-wing rhetoric. The latter appears contrived. There is no evidence. You say equivalences are false. You are welcome to your opinion. Why do you continue to promote a hoax when it is now clear that the AZ shooting has nothing to do with anything political?
|
Wait, so now you go from saying that no one did those things in the fort hood incident to somehow trying to justify them?
ALso, I don't think that the "anything political" angle has been proved one way or another, just that the individual had severe mental problems.
But the issue, as stated multiple times, is not whether this incident has been created by this sort of language. But that incidents have been created by it. Instead of going back 40 years to try to find someone on the wake of the vietnam war and the civil rights movement saying something foolish, why not grapple with the fact that currently there is only one group calling for second amendment solutions? There is no other group in mainstream American politics today that consistently talks about the bullet box, the second amendment remedies and so on. If you think that that sort of language is great and warranted, please go ahead and defend it. If not, then go ahead and say it. But stop trying to equate the "bullet box" speeches with any time anyone mentioned the word "gun."